Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Trekphiler (talk | contribs) at 08:10, 2 January 2011 (→Movement to == OR: really?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Template:USP-Article Template:Multidel

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.

AFD merge

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.

References

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)

Movement to == 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)

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)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved.  Skomorokh, barbarian  10:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Movement to impeach George W. Bush → Efforts to impeach George W. Bush — Current title requires OR ties together disparate impeachment efforts into previously undocumented 'movement'. — Bonewah (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Misplaced Pages's naming conventions.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Note: Reformatted request for the WP:RM page. 199.125.109.52 (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Related discussion - Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Los Angeles National Impeachment Center

I have nominated Los Angeles National Impeachment Center for deletion. Since that organization is related to the subject matter of this page, editors here may wish to opine at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Los Angeles National Impeachment Center. bd2412 T 15:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's another relevant AfD - Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The World Can't Wait. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

saved references

The following section will be used to save refs that might be needed later, but dont quite fit in at the moment.

Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment originally Web-posted by House Judiciary Committee member Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)

UN Committee against Torture report

• US 'must end secret detentions' BBC, May 19, 2006
• U.N.: U.S. Should Close Gitmo Panel On Torture Also Says U.S. Should Avoid Using Secret Prisons CBS News, May 19, 2006

Bonewah (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

First pass

Ive made a first pass at cleaning up this article, including removing the most obvious OR and detailing the Kucinich/Wexler Impeachment resolution. Obviously, at this point, more needs to be done to detail the a fore mentioned resolution, better organize the information and expand on the claims. Bonewah (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, congrats for removing from Misplaced Pages any mention that private citizens of the United States were interested in seeing Bush impeached. In an attempt to remove bias you've actually created a very biased history article. Green Cardamom (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Tags removed, radical refactoring

Seeing as this article has undergone a dramatic re-editing, I have removed the POV and citations tags. My feeling is that those tags reasonably applied to the previous versions of this article, but not really to this new incarnation. If anyone disagrees, feel free to re-add any tags necessary and discuss here. Bonewah (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If it was me, I would restore a large part of the article as it was previously, at least as it was around Nov 2008. It was really pretty good, the POV tags were mostly unwarranted. The article as it is now is incomplete and biased by way of excluding important elements. Green Cardamom (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, what is there reflects the actual charges against George W. Bush and represents the major gripes against him as president. Other charges and events, while interesting, weren't really substantative and, in most cases, nothing more than examples of citizens expressing their disatisfaction w/President Bush. Soxwon (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Tree ornament

I have removed the following Every year, the National Christmas Tree is decorated by ornaments from all 435 congressional districts throughout the United States. To assist in this task, each member of Congress solicits a contribution from local artists in their district. In 2008, Representative Jim McDermott selected an artist from his district, Deborah Lawrence, to submit an ornament for the tree. Lawrence wrote in fine print "Impeach Bush" on her ornament. Initially, Lawrence's ornament was selected to be hung on the National Christmas Tree, but following publication of the fine print on the ornament, the ornament was removed from the tree. because it no longer fits in to the subject of this article. Efforts to impeach GWB are just that, actual attempts to impeach, as opposed to minor acts of defiance and protest. This tree ornament is just that, a minor protest that happened to get some press. Read the rest of the article, you will notice it consists entirely of actual legislative and political moves, making this ornament thing out of place. Bonewah (talk) 13:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This is an advocation, not an "effort". While public opinion polling is relevant as an indicator of political impetus, this lone act is neither a barometer of public opinion, nor an action with any legal significance as a move towards an actual impeachment. bd2412 T 14:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The arguments presented here are very reasonable, and I agree with this consensus.

My apologies for this edit. I did not see this discussion at the time I made that edit.

Victor Victoria (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2010 (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)

1. Roberts, Roxanne; Argetsinger, Amy (December 2, 2008). "Christmas Colors for the White House: Red, White and Impeach". Washington Post. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
2. Roberts, Roxanne; Argetsinger, Amy (December 2, 2008). "White House Won't Hang Christmas Impeachment Ornament". Washington Post. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)