Misplaced Pages

Talk:Rationales provided by advocates of the impeachment of George W. Bush/Archive 3: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Talk:Rationales provided by advocates of the impeachment of George W. Bush Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:20, 19 April 2006 edit68.183.79.103 (talk) List of Bush's crimes from the Articles of Impeachment← Previous edit Revision as of 20:21, 19 April 2006 edit undoMerecat (talk | contribs)2,799 edits →List of Bush's crimes from the Articles of Impeachment: delete unsigned troll comment - there is no impeachment underwayNext edit →
Line 233: Line 233:
* My two cents: (1) Criminy, Merecat. There's no way for you or Nomen to kill each other, so you're going to have to learn to work together. I supported you on the RFC, and I sympathize with your frustration, but you can work with Nomen if you make it less confrontational. Something like "please stop editing my talk headings" would be a little better. (2) IMHO, Nomen, Merecat is entitled to the talk headings that he chooses. Just respond to his concerns, and the rest of the world will judge you on your arguments. ] 18:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC) * My two cents: (1) Criminy, Merecat. There's no way for you or Nomen to kill each other, so you're going to have to learn to work together. I supported you on the RFC, and I sympathize with your frustration, but you can work with Nomen if you make it less confrontational. Something like "please stop editing my talk headings" would be a little better. (2) IMHO, Nomen, Merecat is entitled to the talk headings that he chooses. Just respond to his concerns, and the rest of the world will judge you on your arguments. ] 18:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
**It takes two to tango. I have responded to his concerns AND he needsa to responds to mine. When will he meet that part of good faith? Furhter I notice you accept the inflammatory remarks he uses as headers. Apparently civility is no longer part of good faith.] ] 18:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC) **It takes two to tango. I have responded to his concerns AND he needsa to responds to mine. When will he meet that part of good faith? Furhter I notice you accept the inflammatory remarks he uses as headers. Apparently civility is no longer part of good faith.] ] 18:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

== List of Bush's crimes from the Articles of Impeachment ==

1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law; carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of over one hundred thousand Iraqis, and thousands of U.S. G.I.s.

2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.

3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties were unavoidable.

4) Instituting a secret and illegal wiretapping and spying operation against the people of the United States through the National Security Agency.

5) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently changing its government by force and assaulting Iraq in a war of aggression.

6) Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, kidnappings, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners to obtain false statements concerning acts and intentions of governments and individuals and violating within the United States, and by authorizing U.S. forces and agents elsewhere, the rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

7) Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about the conduct of foreign governments and individuals and acts by U.S. government personnel; manipulating the media and foreign governments with false information; concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment concerning acts, intentions and possession, or efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in order to falsely create a climate of fear and destroy opposition to U.S. wars of aggression and first strike attacks.

8) Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, both a part of the "Supreme Law of the land" under Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, in an attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and others and usurping powers of the United Nations and the peoples of its nations by bribery, coercion and other corrupt acts and by rejecting treaties, committing treaty violations, and frustrating compliance with treaties in order to destroy any means by which international law and institutions can prevent, affect, or adjudicate the exercise of U.S. military and economic power against the international community.

9) Acting to strip United States citizens of their constitutional and human rights, ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to counsel, without charge, and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the Executive of a citizen as an "enemy combatant."

10) Ordering indefinite detention of non-citizens in the United States and elsewhere, and without charge, at the discretionary designation of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Defense.

11) Ordering and authorizing the Attorney General to override judicial orders of release of detainees under INS jurisdiction, even where the judicial officer after full hearing determines a detainee is wrongfully held by the government.

12) Authorizing secret military tribunals and summary execution of persons who are not citizens who are designated solely at the discretion of the Executive who acts as indicting official, prosecutor and as the only avenue of appellate relief.

13) Refusing to provide public disclosure of the identities and locations of persons who have been arrested, detained and imprisoned by the U.S. government in the United States, including in response to Congressional inquiry.

14) Use of secret arrests of persons within the United States and elsewhere and denial of the right to public trials.

15) Authorizing the monitoring of confidential attorney-client privileged communications by the government, even in the absence of a court order and even where an incarcerated person has not been charged with a crime.

16) Ordering and authorizing the seizure of assets of persons in the United States, prior to hearing or trial, for lawful or innocent association with any entity that at the discretionary designation of the Executive has been deemed "terrorist."

17) Engaging in criminal neglect in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, depriving thousands of people in Louisiana, Mississippi and other Gulf States of urgently needed support, causing mass suffering and unnecessary loss of life.

18) Institutionalization of racial and religious profiling and authorization of domestic spying by federal law enforcement on persons based on their engagement in noncriminal religious and political activity.

19) Refusal to provide information and records necessary and appropriate for the constitutional right of legislative oversight of executive functions.

20) Rejecting treaties protective of peace and human rights and abrogation of the obligations of the United States under, and withdrawal from, international treaties and obligations without consent of the legislative branch, and including termination of the ABM treaty between the United States and Russia, and rescission of the authorizing signature from the Treaty of Rome which served as the basis for the International Criminal Court.

Revision as of 20:21, 19 April 2006

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 28/3/2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease 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.
  • Archive 1 March 11, 2006 through April 13, 2006
  • Archive 2 April 13, 2006 through April 17, 2006

Article is protected

The article is now protected due to the escalation in reverts. Please note that as it is always the case, one side will complain that the wrong version was protected], but please note that Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version. Once you are ready to resume editing, please place a request at WP:RFPP. Have a nice day. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments move to archive

Based on the length of the page at this date, plus the fact the discussion seems to be starting up fresh after the RfC, I have archived previous comments. Thatcher131 00:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Mind if i dearchive you earlier brilliant solution? EricR 01:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Not at all, although it didn't attract a lot of applause at the time. Thatcher131 01:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

@ 18:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC) - Merecat is still waiting for Nescio's response

Nescio, I am interested to debate and/or discuss with you the quality and quantity of the links at Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. I would like to do this sooner rather than later. When will you be available to do that? We can have our dialog here at Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. Please let me know when you are ready. Merecat 18:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You've made your point. This is not a duel and no one is keeping score, although we are paying attention to both sides. If he chooses not to reply you can't force him; the test will be to see how each individual behaves once the article is unprotected.Thatcher131 19:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The premise of Nescio's complaint is his contention that I refuse to discuss my edits with him. Sufice it to say, I don't agree with that premise and to prove who's telling the truth here, I have overtly declared my intention to make edits in regards to link quality and link quantity, while at the same time, offering multiple times to discuss with Nescio. I am leaving these messages so there will be no grounds for Nescio to complain of lack of dialog with me regarding those points. Frankly, I am surprised that Nescio refuses to respond. After all, the very premise of Nescio's RFC against me is "Despite repeated requests to discuss his edits he keeps asserting things, adding tags, deleting contents". Personally, I am offended that Nescio is skirting discussion here. He demanded more discussion. I am offering him more discussion. Frankly, as far as I am concerned, Nescio's refusal to reply here, proves to me that his RFC was filed in bad faith. Merecat 23:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, that's as may be. You can infer my position on that from my response to the RfC. At this point I'm suggesting, along with Lord Voldemort apparently, that you cool your jets so you don't dissipate whatever good will has accrued to you by virtue of the RFC attracting so much outside attention to the situation. I suggest you begin proposing some changes here. Or, for a more drastic rewrite, create a subpage at Rationales to impeach George W. Bush/Temp and solicit comments. If he doesn't respond, you can ask for unprotection to implement your uncontested changes. If he does contest them, you'll have your dialog (one would hope). Thatcher131 00:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Easter

Despite the agonising wait for some of you, I hope you had a good easter. I did. Sun, sea, walk, tea. Great. BTW, having a wikibreak for some days would not hurt other editors IMHO. It might instill some patience.Holland Nomen Nescio 00:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back, no sun, wind and rain, but still enjoyable. EricR 01:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion regarding references

Responding to the perceived problems with cite quantity and quality:

  • Although I realize there are alot of references, it is counterproductive to have a controversial article as this without sufficient sources to address the inevitable objections. People will delete part of the article on the grounds of OR, as is already the case. The references ensure that nobody can assert that the article is not verifiable.
  • As to the quality, I do not object when people feel they have to counter the allegations and use so-called "right-wing" sources. The point of NPOV is not that every source is NPOV, but that all major points are mentioned. If editors agree to insert the views of proponents and opponents, the end result will be a balanced piece on the subject. If that is not an option please explain what references exactly you find unacceptable and why.
  • More specific I have looked at what kind of sources are used at this point. I did a fast check so I the figures could be slightly off, but the general idea I get is that the allegation that the majority is left wing, or blog, is not correct.
    • Legal analysts/organisations/Human Rights organisations 38
    • Democratic politicians/party 4
    • News agencies 39
    • "Left-wing" oriented 22

Two examples of how it might look

The current method, in which all references that pertain to a sentence are incorporated into one cite:

As Commander-in-Chief in the war on terror, President Bush has asserted broad war powers to protect the American people. These have been used to justify policies connected with the war. Elizabeth Holtzman, John Dean, Elizabeth de la Vega, AlterNet, the St. Petersburg Times and the Santiago Times have claimed that Bush has exceeded constitutional or other legal limitations on such war powers.
The Bush administration denies this allegation by explaining that the President is only asserting his Constitutional duty as Commander-in-Chief to protect the country.

If I understand correctly this is what Merecat prefers.

As Commander-in-Chief in the war on terror, President Bush has asserted broad war powers to protect the American people. These have been used to justify policies connected with the war. Elizabeth Holtzman, John Dean, Elizabeth de la Vega, AlterNet, the St. Petersburg Times and the Santiago Times have claimed that Bush has exceeded constitutional or other legal limitations on such war powers.
The Bush administration denies this allegation by explaining that the President is only asserting his Constitutional duty as Commander-in-Chief to protect the country.


The first looks better because we do not have a million cites following a statement. The result is the same, because in both one sentence is covered by several sources.

Example

  1. Abuse of Power
  2. The Impeachment of George W. Bush by Elizabeth Holtzman, The Nation, January 11, 2006
  3. The Problem with Presidential Signing Statements: Their Use and Misuse by the Bush Administration By JOHN W. DEAN, FindLaw, January 13, 2006
  4. The Unitary Executive: Is The Doctrine Behind the Bush Presidency Consistent with a Democratic State? By JENNIFER VAN BERGEN, Findlaw, January 09, 2006
  5. How Much Authority Does the President Possess When He Is Acting as "Commander In Chief"? Evaluating President Bush's Claims Against a Key Supreme Court Executive Power Precedent By EDWARD LAZARUS, FindLaw, January 5, 2006
  6. The President Does Not Know Best By Elizabeth de la Vega, Tomdispatch.com. Posted January 19, 2006
  7. Impeaching George W. Bush Alternet, March 6, 2006
  8. If Judges Won't Stand Up to Bush, Who Will? Common Dreams, March 5, 2006
  9. IMPEACH BUSH: NO PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW, NOT IN CHILE, NOT IN THE U.S. The Santiago Times, Dec 21, 2005

Holland Nomen Nescio 00:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Response in general

Aswering the numerous objections voiced, I have several observations:

  • First, I want to say that those editors complaining about my aggressive and stubborn editing are correct. That is the result of me fanatically objecting to rewriting history. I apologize for that, but would also ask these contributors to give an honest answer: would the contents still contain reference to the GC and Katrina (which were redacted out, remember)?
  • Each rationale uses historical facts. To say that mentioning these historical events is "anti-Bush" simply means that these editors think that history is against Bush. Redacting out or altering facts uncomfortable to Bush is not what Misplaced Pages should be doing. Examples:
    • No WMD, that is the official position of the Bush administration, yet people object to it. They insist upon "allegedly." Clearly "allegedly" contradicts the official position of the Bush administration. I do not object to editors countering it with current conspiracy theories (sources provided), but first of all stick to the facts: the official report.
    • Plame's identity was not known according to a court document. Feel free to say that people think otherwise (cites included!) but to assert that this is untrue (allegedly the first time) is not compatible with the facts. Of course, we can claim Fitzgerald is willingly lying in this official court document but that would be ludicrous. Such a statement is 1 blatantly OR and, 2 try to imagine this thought experiment: if even one thing in this article is true, then the members in the Bush administration have ample reason to lie themselves: indictments for war crimes the most serious legal threat. Which is a very good incentive to lie and obstruct independent investigation as well. And coincidentally, investigation is exactly what has been lacking in these cases (WMD, alleged torture). So, if Fitzgerald can be lying, the Bush administration could be doing it also. Or, are you claiming that everything this administration asserts is ipso facto true? If so you may need to read about the Nixon administration.
    • Saying enemy combatants are not protected by the GC is suggested as impeachable offense, redacted out. Again, deletion of fact.
    • People point out that the use of "torture memos" is POV. For those interested in facts: it is commonly used to describe the memos that are at the heart of current policy in the treatment of detainees. Although POV may be present, to prohibit mentioning what evidently has become a standard description, is even more POV. See the following articles
    • Saying Katrina is part of the rationales was redacted out. Bush shifting the blame of mishandling Katrina, was redacted out. Cite to Der Spiegel saying that Bush shifted the blame, redacted out. Again, without me reverting it (yes in a not so diplomatic way) that would not be in the article. Without doubt historical fact is deleted because it is detrimental to Bush.
    • People object to saying that Bush misrepresents the facts and insist on "allegedly" misrepresenting. Again this contradicts history. Example:
". . . when chose to deny the inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did." George Bush, the President of the United States of America, March 21, 2006.
What part of this, over the years repeatedly used statement, do you think is compatible with the facts? Is saying that Bush "allegedly" misrepresents the truth not silly? Is this not a blatant misrepresentation of the facts, to all those that saw the inspectors going through Iraq?
Mr. Bush rushed to announce that American forces had found evidence of a biological weapons program in Iraq — trailers that could have been used to make doomsday devices. We now know, from a report in The Washington Post, that a Pentagon team actually on the ground in Iraq inspecting the trailers had concluded two days earlier that they were nothing of the kind. The White House says Mr. Bush was not aware of that report, and was relying on an assessment by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency. This is hardly the first time we've been told that intelligence reports contradicting administration doctrine somehow did not make it to Mr. Bush's desk. But it does not explain why he and Mr. Cheney went on talking about the trailers for weeks, during which the State Department's intelligence division — about the only agency that got it right about Iraq — debunked the mobile-labs theory. Of course, the inaccurate report saying that the trailers were bioweapons labs was made public, immediately, while the accurate one was kept secret until a reporter found out about it.
How shall we explain this "allegedly" misleading statement? Why did he feel the need to declassify that part of the NIE which had already been dismissed as unlikely/untrue, while the part of the NIE contradicting his policies was kept classified? Is this "informing" the public?
    • It has been pointed out that Clinton did the same as Bush and eavesdropped. What these editors fail to mention is that after that 1 this is incorrect, and 2, since then the law has been amended, making these actions illegal today.
Holland Nomen Nescio 00:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Welcome back Nescio. I, too, found Easter to be refreshing. A break always allows things to be put into perspective and one realizes just how silly arguing over this little article is in the proverbial grand scheme of things. In fact, I really hesitate to get involved in this conversation again, but a couple things in you "response" jumped out at me. Firstly, you gave as a reason for your "aggressive and stubborn editing" is that you "object to the rewriting of history". I'm reminded of a couple cliches:WilliamThweatt 05:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you.Holland Nomen Nescio 13:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  1. There are three versions of history, yours, mine and the truth.
  2. History is written by the victors.WilliamThweatt 05:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that with increased knowledge facts may change over time. But to assert we cannot call them facts is unhelpful. At this time we should accept court filings and statements by governments as facts. Of course it may change, we may find WMD, but to suggest that beacuse our knowledge may change we should not debate about facts is fine for a philosophical debate but not in real life. I would think nobody denies Iraq was invaded and can substantiate that claim. Nobody denies inspectors went to Iraq and were forced out by Bush and can substantiate that claim. Nobody denies the Bush administration said no WMD were found and can substantiate that claim. Please, observe that everything in the article is either fact (for now) or presented as assertion. That is why I repeatedly ask to cite a specific sentence you all object to as incorrect or POV.Holland Nomen Nescio 13:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Secondly, let's settle issues one at a time before we go on to the next issue. I believe we are discussing the quality and quantity of sources here. Most of your "response" was dedicated to arguing your political position, not the quality or quantity of the links. A perfect example of how you avoid discussion and delay solution by attempting to reframe the argument.WilliamThweatt 05:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Let's start with my position that discussing link style is not what we should be doing. If the article is poorly written we should try and improve the wording, not the reference style. Second, you must have noticed the preceding paragraph, therefore I think your "perfect example of how you avoid discussion and delay solution by attempting to reframe the argument," was an erroneous accusation and you will take that back. But you are correct in noticing that nobody, not even Merecat, has responded to the arguments I presented regarding the references. I would ask editors to go to that paragraph and respond to what I wrote before repeating the silly allegation I am avoiding debate. Last, since when is pointing out what I think is established fact "arguing your political position?"Holland Nomen Nescio 13:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Thirdly, since you brought it up, we are writing here as encyclopaedic editors, not newspaper journalists or investigative reporters. Simply because "Der Spiegel" writes that a statment is misleading does not mean that we can state that a statement is misleading. That would be judgement or taking a POV or Original Research or attmpting to advancing a cause, or all of the above. All we can write is that "Der Spiegel claims that a statement is misleading". WilliamThweatt 05:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Der Spiegel wrote that Bush was shifting the blame, not that he was misleading. As to misleading, this is simple logic, call it OR if you wish. Look at the example and deny it misrepresents the facts. Please say that Bush was correct in advocating he invaded Iraq because SH did not let the inspectors in.Holland Nomen Nescio 13:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, if the President has abused his office, I'd want him impeached and removed, too. But it is neither for us to advocate nor decide here. Let's concentrate on maintaining the integrity of Misplaced Pages, and keep our political debate confined to the proper forums.--WilliamThweatt 05:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
For some strange reason you think I am suggesting impeachment. What part of the article is my opinion and not based upon sources?Holland Nomen Nescio 13:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

My brilliant solution

...he said modestly. I think the problem, boiled down to its simplest, is that it is very hard to write a verifiable neutral article on a controversial topic when all the sources are partisan. I'm sure a Clinton impeachment article would be much easier to write today than in the middle of events, too. You're arguing over whether a particular group is partisan and how to interpret the Geneva Convention and complicated court rulings. That's not what WP editors should be doing -- we should be reporting things that have already been decided.

I propose rewriting the article not as a neutral account of a topic (impeachment), but as a balanced account of a partisan debate. Acknowledge that there are two sides and present both sides fairly. Here is an example of what I mean.

NSA warrantless surveillance

  • US Representative Adam Ant said in speech on the floor of the House that President Bush should be investigated for possible impeachment for authorizing the interception of US citizens' electronic communication without warrants. Syndicated columnist Bill Baker and Democratic party official Chatty Cathy have endorsed this view. An analysis produced by the American Liberal Caucus show blah blah blah etc etc etc...therefore the warrantless searches violate the 5th amendment of the Constitution, and by authorizing the searches President Bush has violated the Constitution and committed an impeachable offense.
  • Administration representatives including Diane Dale, Earl Egglund and Frank Fosdeck counter that the power to conduct foreign surveillance is granted to the President by the Constitution and can not be revoked or limited by an act of the legislative branch. Legal analysts including Judge George Gont and former attorneys general Hal Hamburg (Reagan administration) and Ida Inkvist (Clinton administration) concur, although this is disputed by former Justice Department lawyer Jack Jones. President Bush said in a press conference, "If you're talking to your grandmother, we aren't interested. If you're talking to Al Queda, we should probably be listening." Republican columnist Kam Klink points out that Presidents Carter, Reagan and Clinton also authorized warrantless searches, and Clinton supported the controversial CIA Eschelon program.

The point here is to present a fair and balanced account of a highly partisan debate. Don't get too caught up in the underlying "truth" of the situation (regarding WMD or the NSA or who was responsible for the Katrina response); just report what other people said. Don't try to analyse "the truth" yourself. Don't get bogged down in nitpicking sources. If Mother Jones publishes an editorial about impeachment, don't worry that it's a partisan source, just balance it with an editorial from National Review. Also, don't get too in depth on any one issue; the chances are the specific wikipedia article will be more comprehensive and up to date. Summarize the main points with special attention to how it is relevant to impeachment (as opposed to a general recitation of Bush controversies) and link to the main article. I also agree with Theron that a brief introduction to how impeachment works would be of benefit.

It will be necessary to come up with some agreement on whose arguments may be quoted. Elected officials, current and retired government officials yes, bloggers probably no, prominent public gadflies maybe, for example. You don't want to turn wikipedia into the DU or Free Republic. Some discrimination and discretion will be needed. Also, don't get too caught up in analyzing the "truth" of people's arguments. If someone has made an argument based on bad facts, don't fight about it, just find someone who made a better argument. Thatcher131 22:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments?

  • I support part of this suggestion: "I propose rewriting the article not as a neutral account of a topic (impeachment), but as a balanced account of a partisan debate. Acknowledge that there are two sides and present both sides fairly." Indeed, counter what is POV influenced analysis and insert the opposing view. The presented example however is chaotic at best. What is wrong with adding the other POV to the current article? IMHO at present, each ratioanle is discussed but does need some rewording and balancing. A total rewrite I do not understand.Holland Nomen Nescio 17:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Question for Nescio regarding Alternet links 01:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that links to article/"news" hosted by Alternet be deleted because, a) Alternet is too biased and because of that b) it's not a reliable source. Regarding this, I ask Nescio: Yes or no, will you support the removal of links to Alternet articles? Merecat 01:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

See above!Holland Nomen Nescio 01:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I am asking for an unequivocal yes or no answer to this particular question. It is the only question I have for you at this time. Please answer yes or no: Regarding this article (Rationales to impeach George W. Bush) will you support the removal of links to Alternet articles? Merecat 01:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Nescio gives conditional agreement

If you explain why this site is unreliable. You are right that sources must be reliable, so if you can show that this site is not to be trusted I agree.Holland Nomen Nescio 01:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Merecat answers Nescio and in doing so, meets Nescio's condition

Quoting Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources:

Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or the Socialist Workers Party.

From the Alternet web site:

The Challenge We Address

  • The right-wing media machine
  • The negative impact of right-wing media
  • Building the progressive echo chamber

According to Alternet fully 1/3 of their mission is to redress what they contend is "The negative impact of right-wing media". Suffice it to say, that can only be done by pushing a particular agenda. Now, without getting into a contest regarding precisely how left-wing Alternet is, we can safely agree that Alternet is an agenda driven organisation. This by their own admission. And when we add in the other 2/3 of what Alternet is driving for, it's clear that they have procalaimed themselves to be so agenda driven, that they are partisan. While I would not say they are as extreme as Socialist Workers Party, they are, in effect, a left wing equivilent of Free Republic or Little Green Footballs and as such are too biased to cite as a reliable source.

Also, because Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence, we should use only well regarded sources such as CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox, CNN, PBS, NYT, WAPO, Time, Newsweek, etc., for such a highly charged article as Rationales to impeach George W. Bush.

And finally because we are told that partisan websites should be treated with caution, there is simply no reason to use Alternet. If what Alternet publishes is actually notable enough that it's in the mainstream media, then we will have no trouble Googling to find a more acceptable source. On the other hand, if we can only find certain information on Alternet, then more likely than not, the Criteria for web content has not been met.

To sum up, I see no reason why we ought to be injecting potential POV complaints by going with Alternet. If what they are saying is notable, we can find it elsewhere, on a better site.

Merecat 02:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Merecat's assessment. Morton devonshire 05:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • IMHO, if Alternet claims to be building a progressive "echo chamber", that's pretty good evidence they're not unbiased. In journalism, the term means that they specifically want to present and amplify one side of the story. (As a general note, wikipedia should have some mechanism to test news sources and record the consensus. Then we could all check the page and find out that raw story is ok but debkafiles is not, or whatever). TheronJ 10:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I do not claim the site is unbiased. My question was, can you support the assertion it is "not to be trusted," i.e. is an unreliable source (quoting myself). More to the point, what part of the article is supported by Alterrnet that you object to. It is a minute, microscopic, detail. To have this discussion over that seems superfluous. Secondly, as I said before, please use rightwing sources to comment on their assertions. Balancing information is what NPOV is about, not censoring. As an aside, I won't fight over this but it is clear the article is not based upon leftwing sources, the majority is MSM and legal experts. Regarding the fact that the MSM will mention it if it is notable, you fail to understand that the MSM in the US are highly unreliable to mention certain facts. Why did nobody in the MSM object to the already dubious arguments to invade Iraq? Even today they fail to notice the President claims things as SH did not let inspectors in so I had to invade. The fact this is not on the frontpage of every newspaper, including NYT, WaPo, etc, proves that even if something is notable (misrepresenting history is notable don't you think?) the MSM does not report on it.
    • Regarding wikipedia policy:
      • 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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.
      • Misplaced Pages: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.Holland Nomen Nescio 13:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, your argument is confusing information with the source for information. What I am objecting to is that Alternet does not meet wiki standards for a source we should cite. At ths juncture, I am not objecting to the assertions that you find there. Rather, what I am asking you to do is find a better source for those allegations. Further, I suggested as a test that information on Alternet ought to also be found elsewhere, or else it's not notable. And in regards to this "When a fact is not common knowledge..."; Alternet is primarily an opinion site - all agenda driven sites are. I am asking you to find dispassionate fact-based sources for the allegations you wish to post about Bush. We are to avoid novel interpretations of information. If Alternet's theories and allegations about Bush are so novel, that they can not also found on some mainstream web sites such as CNN, PBS, etc (see list above), then that's a good indication that Alternet is not a reliable source. Please re-read my above explanation. Also, I am now asking for confirmation: Nescio, yes or no, do you agree to remove the Alternet links from this article? Merecat 14:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You must have noticed that Alternet is not used to substantiate the rationales and it is only used 3 times. Strange to object to that. Further, there is an article by Scheer, and I would think that he is notable enough not to be deleted. As to "find dispassionate fact-based sources," how about the 80 references to MSM and legal experts? Are they fact-based? See my paragraph about references, please respond there to what I wrote. Since Alternet is absolutely not used to advance any rationale I will not fight over it. However, I feel you misunderstand the article. impeachment is inherently political, therefore any comment will be opinion-driven. Most articles calling for impeachment will be from "left-wing" sources, and "right-wing" sources will oppose it. Chances are that sources used will be left of center. To ask for facts is impossible since only what the President has done is fact. Whether those actions constitute an impeachable offense is a matter of debate until such proceedings have decided on it. To ask for references based upon fact that he has committed impeachable offense is asking me to deliver the final judgement on it, which you know does not exist. As an aside, what I already asked before, if people demand that opninion should be excluded from Misplaced Pages, can we then delete everything about religion? The sites used advance the notion that there are impeachable offenses, not that that is a fact. This is made clear in the article if you would read it again.
Another question is, if you object to Alternet, does that mean that I can object to your sources claiming WMD were found, or detainees were not tortured? Holland Nomen Nescio

Nescio, regarding the points you raised just now: While they may be worth discussing, they do not answer my question and they do not bear on my question. Those are separate and distinct questions. I am happy to address 1-2 of your questions after we resolve this one. That said, since we have now fully discussed Alternet links and since you have not answered me (see above) I am asking you again: Nescio, yes or no, do you agree to remove the Alternet links from this article? Merecat 16:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

i'm guessing here, but i think in that case, the answer would be no. nescio responded to your points. now are you going to return the favor and respond to his? maybe if you answered his questions regarding your objections, and continue to have a balanced, 2-sided dialogue, you might be able to reach a comprimise. Kevin Baas 22:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, please do not interject. As you know, I recently literally begged you to discuss this very topic and you declined to accept my invitation. For that reason, I am not currently discussing this with you - at least not until I am done discussing it with Nescio. That said, I am waiting for Nescio's answer, not yours. Nescio, once again, so there is no ambiguity, please tell me yes or no, do you agree to remove the Alternet links from this article? Merecat 23:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that Alternet should probably not be cited if it is the only source, but that its opinions on subjects sourced elsewhere are of general interest, and can be included because in that case they can be balanced by the opinions of sources with complementary biases. &#0151; JEREMY 08:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
May I thank JEREMY for his solution: counter the perceived POV with comments from opponents. Meaning, I still do not see what the problem is with Alternet, but if you feel that POV should be eliminated please insert comments from the other POV to ensure NPOV. See wikipedia policy I cited above. But, to answer your question, no I do not agree, but since this is such a ridiculous minute part of the article I will not start an edit war over it.
Furthermore, it is part of good faith to have a dialogue and not a monologue. So Merecat, kindly answer to the comments I made above in the references and general paragraphs. You probably find it difficult not to be in control, but as I have done my part by addressing your beloved references, contrary to what is really important, you still have not responded to my concerns. If I had not been clear I think discussing references is like building a house by starting with the roof. Let's discuss the article, what part is incorrect, what part needs rewriting to address perceived POV, and you will find that as we are debating the article the used sources will automatically be part of that discussion.
Last, I observe that the honourable contributors can't wait to start editing the article. Based upon their comments and lack of response I am inclined to think that what they are advocating is redacting out information not based on inaccuracy, but on it being potentially harmful to Bush. Which is not the correct motivation. To prevent another dispute please start by showing what part of the article needs amending, and through debate we can reach compromise. Let's all show good faith.Holland Nomen Nescio 15:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Nescio reneges on his promise

Nescio, let me remind you of where we are at:

  1. Merecat asked: "Nescio: Yes or no, will you support the removal of links to Alternet articles?"
  2. Nescio answered: "If you explain why this site is unreliable." (please note that this is an exact quote. Nescio's sentence as posted was a complete sentence, with a period).
  3. Nescio also answered: "You are right that sources must be reliable, so if you can show that this site is not to be trusted I agree."
  4. Nescio confirmed that not to be trusted means unreliable source: "My question was, can you support the assertion it is 'not to be trusted,' i.e. is an unreliable source (quoting myself)."
  5. To prove Alternet fails Wiki standards for sources, Merecat cited those standards and quoted the Alternet web site mission statement. Both Morton devonshire and TheronJ agreed that Merecat made a showing which is persuasive.
  6. No other editors, including Nescio, have commented on the proof Merecat offered about Alternet failing to meet Wiki standards for a reliable source. Most of Nescio's comments were about assessments regarding the POV of content. Nescio did not directly address the proof and Wiki guidelines Merecat offered regarding Alternet.
  7. After Nescio makes many off-point comments which focus substantially on Wiki standards for article content (not the issue at hand, which is validity of sources), Nescio finally says "But, to answer your question, no I do not agree..." (to support the removal of Alternet links) thereby reneging on his promise to agree. Then Nescio goes on to insult Merecat by dismissing his concerns about these links as ridiculous; "...but since this is such a ridiculous minute part of the article I will not start an edit war over it."
  8. After reneging on his promised support to remove the Alternet links, Nescio is now promising merely "I will not start an edit war over it" (the removal of the Alterrnet links).

Suffice it to say, Nescio has demonstrated that it's impossible to reach agreement with him. Beyond this point, I have no positive expectations regarding any further dialog with Nescio. Merecat 16:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

For sake of decency I will not use the words I am thinking of. My first demand was to show it is unreliable, not that is is unbiased. You have not shown it is unreliable therefore I disagree. You yourself have stated that it is "agenda driven" and because of that unreliable. My point is, bias in itself is not equal to untrue. Second, this is not the issue at hand. I disagree on debating references when there are more important things to consider. Yet as part of good faith I respond to your points and you reward it by not responding to mine. Third, you again are making misleading statements. I did say I would not fight over the removal (my way of trying to find compromise), however, you respond by saying you are unwilling to find compromise. But more importantly, while pressing me to answer your questions you still have NOT responded to mine. Holland Nomen Nescio 16:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Let the record show that I used only exact quotes of Nescio and I kept them in context and in order. The entire dialog is available to to anyone who cares to read it (see above). I contend that Alternet does not meet the wiki standard for a reliable source, and I offered a proof for that. Nescio now says that my proof did not show this to be true to his satisfaction, yet he does not point out any flaws in my showing. Perhaps at this point, we are going to need an ArbComm ruling on what sources meet the wiki standard for a reliable source. Further, let the record also show (see above full page of dialog), that I do not have at this time, any objections to any part of this article (including everything Nescio has questioned me about during this "Alternet" dialog) except for the sole issue I have been seeking agreement on, namely the removal of Alternet links from the article. For this reason, any questions from Nescio to me on any other subject other than that, are at this time moot, because there is not dispute. As it stands, the only issue currently under dispute between Nescio and Merecat is that Merecat wants Nescio's support to remove Alternet links from the article and Nescio will not grant that support. Merecat 18:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Let the record show that while I try and meet you half way, you still refuse to discuss my concerns, and again are using headers in a very petty way. Please stop your personal vendetta and keep your comments, edit comments, and headers neutral. Leave any reference to my person out of it.
As to Alternet, I already conceded to removing yet you persist in not finding compromise. "If what they are saying is notable, we can find it elsewhere, on a better site." To me this means you accept that what they say is true but state that if it is notable the MSM will report on it. I already commented that the MSM have shown to be reluctant in reporting on issues that are uncomfortable to this administration. You already made clear you did not want to discuss anything else and we now see that while I give in on Alternet you are unwilling to make a gesture on your part: start answering my concerns!Holland Nomen Nescio 18:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

When will the protect block be removed

I'm looking forward to the protect removal so that others can start editing this article. Morton devonshire 14:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • According to Jossi, here, someone needs to place a request at WP:RFPP. Probably the best choice would be Merecat and Nomen agreeing to work together, but I suppose one of us could ask. TheronJ 14:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Maybe the honourable gentlemen can help and solve what is seen as POV issues? As we as a team are working to resolve the dispute one can imagine unprotecting. As long as such a debate is absent (which it is) I fear that lifting the protection is not helping.Holland Nomen Nescio 15:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Nescio has begun vandalizing this talk page - 19 April 2006

Nescio has begun vandalizing this talk page, so as to try to change my outline of my comments. See these edits:

  1. 16:54, 19 April 2006
  2. 16:55, 19 April 2006

Merecat 18:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody else intervene and change these clearly provocative and incorrect headings into a more neutral form? Again Merecat is making highly unfriendly edits, (totally against the spirit of good faith) and remains silent on his part of our dispute (meeting me halfway).Holland Nomen Nescio 18:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • My two cents: (1) Criminy, Merecat. There's no way for you or Nomen to kill each other, so you're going to have to learn to work together. I supported you on the RFC, and I sympathize with your frustration, but you can work with Nomen if you make it less confrontational. Something like "please stop editing my talk headings" would be a little better. (2) IMHO, Nomen, Merecat is entitled to the talk headings that he chooses. Just respond to his concerns, and the rest of the world will judge you on your arguments. TheronJ 18:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    • It takes two to tango. I have responded to his concerns AND he needsa to responds to mine. When will he meet that part of good faith? Furhter I notice you accept the inflammatory remarks he uses as headers. Apparently civility is no longer part of good faith.Holland Nomen Nescio 18:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Category: