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

The result of the debate was restart this AfD without prejudice, given the events at WP:ANI. - Mailer Diablo 05:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The voting page is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (3rd nomination). Please re-record or place a new vote there.


The result of the debate was Rename and cleanup POV — just because this article deals with a subject that is POV does not mean that it should be deleted, just that it should be cleaned up. If you have any further questions please ask them at my talk page. --Cyde Weys 22:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you get that result Cyde Weyes? I looked down the votes in my head and it looks like 32 delete and 14 keep?

I have reopened this Afd for discussion. I cannot comprehend admin Cyde's actions. He had violated two stated WIkipedia policies and possibly a third:

  1. This AfD stood for 27 hours. It is supposed to be up for at least five days before being opened up for admin action;
  2. Cyde protected this discussion on top of his improper closure;
  3. Cyde does not explain how he came to the conclusion that the article should be cleaned up when their was a clear consensus to delete. -- Cecropia 03:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to move this comment if it's in the wrong place, but I don't see how 32 deletes and 14 keeps is a "clear consensus", at least not if you're using the word consensus the way I understand it. It's just about 70% which is borderline for AfD, and barely describable as supermajority, much less consensus. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, I wrote that before I realized that this was inappropriately closed after just 27 hours, so the point is now moot until five days have passed. -- Cecropia 03:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On that ground, I agree with the reopening. Perhaps this didn't turn out to be a good occasion to bypass process... -GTBacchus(talk) 03:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too sure about the closing early, but vote-counting as a reason to overturn another administrator's close is bloody stupid. You'd be better off taking it to DRV, where (hopefully) they'd tell you to pull your head in for promoting the incorrect view that the tally is in any way meaningful. AfD is not a vote. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read anything that I said above? I did not reopen this because of the vote count, I reopened because it should never have been closed since the closing was clearly against policy. And if the vote was properly closed, Cyde needs to have explained why he ruled as he did. Does this kind of thing happen often at AfD? I would have had my head handed to me for such cavalier action at RfA. Ah, which brings me to "pull my head in". Oh my, do you think that could actually happen? I think perhaps you are a little fuddled, Mark. :D -- Cecropia 04:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rationales to impeach George W. Bush

[edit]

This article is merely a soapbox for Wikipedia editors who want George W. Bush impeached. We already have an article called Movement to impeach George W. Bush, which in my opinion is informative and NPOV. It should also be of note that some editors who want this page here and are frequent editors to this page initiated a bad faith RfC against Merecat, who was trying to make the page conform to NPOV. BlueGoose 21:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prometheuspan 18:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Actually, merecat is the one who was operating in bad faith, and the RFC against him was founded on totally cogent grounds. Merecat was being abusive, was using ad hominem and straw man arguments, and was otherwise nitpicking over Alternet, despite the fact that Alternet is in this case and for these purposes a completely valid reference, due to its membership in the group of people at large who are making rationales for impeachment. Blue goose, you are just spewing bile ignorantly. You have made no edits, and are factually ignorant as far as i can tell about anything to do with the article. Your comments below to the effect that this is mostly from a "single book" are further evidence that you simply aren't paying attention and don't know what you are talking about. The facts are that millions of people think Bush should be impeached, and the article reflects a very broad set of citations to reflect this. Prometheuspan 18:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*comment, a touch melodramatic don't you think? even most bot archived talk pages are done through pagemove--205.188.116.13 06:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prometheuspan 18:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Merecat, I apologize, i had not considered the evidenciary angle, and in no way meant to obscure anything. As a side note, I am surprised that you would want a page of noise showing that you are being a manipulative nitpicker using ad hominem and straw man arguments to be used as any kind of evidence. Prometheuspan 18:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC) I am sorry if i failed to follow some protocol. To the best of my knowledge the archive was done via the rules, via a page move to a an archive. All of this is now a digression, the full archived page has now been re-instated. Prometheuspan 18:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Please note: The above messagebox comment was left by 205.188.116.13 (talk · contribs) who prior to tonight has not been editng this article. Also tonight, the article and talk page were both attacked by a anon IP vandal(s) - 172.161.95.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 172.144.146.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 172.162.34.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 172.128.225.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 205.188.116.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 138.87.141.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 205.188.116.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 172.150.130.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 172.167.140.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) -- Merecat 07:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A cat may look at a king.
Ashibaka tock 21:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
None of that is vandalism, and the "attack" you keep talking about is my attempt to change the font size of the cleanup and NPOV templates so you could actually see the article, not even content related--205.188.116.13 07:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prometheuspan 19:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Actually, the anon user did delete merecats attempt to restore the discussion page after my archive. The tinkering with the fonts almost ends up looking like "playing innocent" after the fact. Prometheuspan 18:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC) I'd be happy to look at the edit history, but my assumption here is that none of what was done was intended as any kind of vandalism, and that my attempt to make things easier and simpler prompted this user to delete my attempt and make their own. While I categorically reject the users right to delete my materials, and am thus at odds with them, it seems likely and probable that they were jsut trying to make the scene more livable. Its gotten to be noisy and messy looking. Prometheuspan 18:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your point is about 205.188.116.13 not having edited the article. I haven't edited it either, but I would hope that my thoughts would not be discounted on those grounds. Anon users are users too. Mistercow 07:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point is to draw attention to the concurrent arrival of that editor and all the anon IP editors who caused havoc there tonight. I make no assertions and I draw no conclusions, but I think that the correlation in the arrival times is worth looking at. Is 205.188.116.13 actually one and the same as the IP vandals of tonight? I don't know. To me it seems likely, but others here can decide that for themselves. Are some editors who are opposed to this AfD making edits as anons towards the aim of messing up the pages to obscure the edit history? That's an open question - one worth considering, I feel. Merecat 07:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, your point is to suggest that a change in font size is vandalism, and that all the mess that you made of it was some how justified by my evil acts of changing template font size, either way I'm just happy to have earned a mention is your "hit list", "cabal", "evil doers" page, or whatever you're calling it thse days--205.188.116.13 07:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The 172. IP addresses are AOL proxies and could be anybody; 205.188 is at Illinois State University and I would hope someone getting a taxpayer-subsidized education would have better things to do with his time than removing delete votes and calling it a minor edit. In any case, the admins who close AfD debates will give the anonymous votes and vandalism all the weight and consideration they deserve. Thatcher131 15:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any investigation of vandalism should have any impact on this AfD discussion. That is a separate issue in itself. As a general rule, I believe anons have every right to comment on an AfD, but they may not vote in an AfD. 24.250.136.236 17:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOT. Merecat 05:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prometheuspan 20:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC) I have seen that page, and nothing on it makes a case against this article. It is a long page, by all means feel free to be more specific. I have copied and pasted one section here. "Not a Soapbox." This article is not a Soap box. It is a factual report about the rationales used by the movement to impeach. You have made no valid point. Nobody has offered a single cogent reason why the article should be deleted. Again. What is the REAL reason you want the article deleted? ANSWER; There is next to no way to defend against it. The rationales are grounded in fact. You don't have an argument, so you are gaming the system. I'd be happy to help you generate a defense argument. I can't promise it will be cogent, but at least it will provide a POV balance. Prometheuspan 20:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Quotation from NPOV policy moved to talk page) Holland Nomen Nescio 01:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prometheuspan 20:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Not that i personally wouldn't love to have a defense reference so easilly impeached, but that reference is essentially relevant because it is being used to show that the Bush Admin wasn't responsible for the Katrina foul up. The problem here is probably that this isn't explicitly stated. That reference is relevant to the defense effort. Prometheuspan 20:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Astrokey44 03:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not a soapbox Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:

Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article."

The article is NOT a soap box, it is in fact a report about a factual movement, and that movements factual rationales. If it was a soap box, one or two persons and their socks would be writing it from their own heads. This is a factual article, regarding factual events, and factual rationales, generated by factual and noteworthy groups of people, who are demonstrated to be factually noteworthy for the purposes of wikipedia by means of the creation of the "movement to impeach" article.

This VFD is just more gaming the system, partisan obstructionism, and manipulations and con artistry, and that is all it is. Prometheuspan 02:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prometheuspan 20:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Borghunter, I am pro impeachment and of the strong opinion that impeachment should be kept OFF of Mr. Bushes personal page. In fact, my opinion is that Mr. Bushes personal page should be treated in some senses as if it were his own virtual "user" page, and that information in that article should be confined to the facts as he might present them himself, were he the sole author. However much i may disagree with Bush or the admin, He is still the President of the United States Currently, and is deserving of a certain amount of respect. I believe that merging this article into Mr. Bushes personal article would be an unconsiable attack on his person. Prometheuspan 20:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment, you're the one who nominated it what else are you going to say? practiaclly the only edits you've made to wikipedia period were nominating this article, and voting in it--205.188.116.13 05:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In ordinary circumstances that can be true, but on this article User:Nescio has utterly thwarted other editors from making any improvements. He's even filed a RfC trying to stop me from making any edits there which oppose him. My main focus with Nescio has been to try to get his agreement to reduce the number of links. This was article was a WP:POV fork to begin with from Movement to impeach George W. Bush. If there is anyting worth keeping here, it can be re-inserted there. The only reason this article even exists is that it's an obvious large aggregate of POV links. The hugh number of links violates WP:NOT, but Nescio has been fighting on that point for about a month now and no progress can be made. Merecat 07:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His relentless comments regarding my person are tiresome. Needless to say he once again misrepresents his actions. When Merecat deletes referenced material I object, which everybody else would. When he continues to delete and then refuses to discuss, I object. This editor undoubtedly has the best intentions, however it seems he has problems argumenting his case and therefore resorts to assertions, ad hominem attacks, and other behaviour not helpful. Regarding the links, it is a fine example of Merecat refusing to discuss. Further, for an editor that uses rightwing sources it is utterly hypocritical to object to leftwing sources. Beyond that, nobody prevents him from inserting rightwing sources. Last, nowhere in wikipedia can we find anything about how many references can be used. Alleging it does, again shows the technique of making misleading assertions.Holland Nomen Nescio 11:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prometheuspan 20:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC) This >can< be Npov. It isn't right now, and that is why we need your help. I would be happy to participate in the defense side of the article you propose, and the fact of the matter is, the Republican efforts of propaganda against the "liberals" is noteworthy enough to justify such an article. The partisan nature of many of the resources is irrelevant. The partisan debate here has become "Noteworthy" enough to justify an article. Prometheuspan 20:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • As I said on the talk page 40% is legal analysts, 40% is MSM and ONLY 20% is leftwing oriented, you saying otherwise is misleading and dishonest. Please, show what part of the article is incorrect! It is NOT! Since the use of biased sources is not prohibited, much less POV being a valid argument to delete, you will have to accept that, in stead of annoying yourself, you could try and balance the article with information you think it needs.Holland Nomen Nescio 14:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prometheuspan 20:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Reconciliations with those issues are easy and have been made here and at the discussion page. If you require further explanation on how those reconciliations work, I will be happy to be of service. Prometheuspan 20:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Isn't this a reasonable opinion? Since my reading comprehension seems to be in question, maybe you could tell me: does the relevant policy support an article which offers serveral arguments in favor of impeachment rather than reporting the arguments of notable people suggesting impeachment? EricR 22:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vote totals to current: Pardon me if my counting is off, but I have 13 keep, 20 delete, and 1 merge. I'm going to go out on a limb here, and maybe this may not be the best Wikipedian thing to do, but is there some middle ground where we can find consensus. Common sense tells me the last thing we need is a page that is not worthy for an encyclopedia, which is exactly how I feel about this article, and the mere removal of tags will not improve the quality of the article because the tags are there for a reason. On the other hand, the positions of the keeps who have not been editing on this page (which I would say is 7 keeps approximately) is intriguing. The one idea that I'm interested, though I'm not totally convinced yet with, is a page rename. Would this alleviate the problems with this article or is this article totally unsalvageable? BlueGoose 18:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the only merge? Weird... I could've sworn I saw a few others. Perhaps they were from the earlier nom. Anyways, I think a page rename would help in that the name itself is arguably POV, but that's not the only problem with the article. The larger problem, as I see it, is that it is in some ways the completion of a POV fork which was begun with Movement to impeach George W. Bush. So here's my other suggestion: Merge to articles such as George W. Bush's first term as President of the United States, George W. Bush's second term as President of the United States, George W. Bush administration, Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration, etc., to the extent that the information in this article is not already represented in those. Together, these articles make up an appropriate place for the information; once it's been distributed, Movement to impeach George W. Bush (which strikes me as already the only claim this page has to not being an OR essay) can simply link to sections within those articles. Each point will then be packaged with its context, and redundancy will be sharply reduced. I realize that this is probably the most time-consuming by far of all the suggested options, and will cause reverberations in those subsidiary articles as an NPOV equilibrium is reestablished. But any Wikipedian editing a GWB* article knew what he was getting into. ;-) --Sneftel 18:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would support this. Not all of the information is bad, much of it would be appropriate in the correct article (i.e. one that was not an obvious political rant). The way this information is grouped and presented now clearly fails the 'would any encyclopedia ever include this article' test. MilesVorkosigan 18:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your quotations were simply moved to the talk page which is the more appropriate place for an extended discussion. I think you will find that most of the people who frequent AfD are more than familiar with the relevant policies and a simple link is more than enough. You can certainly replace them if you think flooding the debate with excess verbiage will be helpful to your case. Thatcher131 21:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The mere fact that POV is the single most used argument, proves that policy is not known to commentators. As you well know POV is NOT a reason to delete.Holland Nomen Nescio 22:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved to Talk page Thatcher131 20:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not covered, you will not find any explanation of the named reasons on wikipedia!Holland Nomen Nescio


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