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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:58, 30 March 2006

Rationale to impeach George W. Bush

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

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

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

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

WP:NPOV: The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.
Feel free to read about Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles: An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Remember to ask the question, "How can this controversy best be described?" It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy.
Neutral language When a fact is not common knowledge, or when the information being related is a subjective assessment, like the result of a particular poll, the information should be attributed and cited.
To those insisting it is POV, it is not prohibited to insert other views to counter these perceived problems. Improving an article is preferable to deletion. See: Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balanceAn article can be written in neutral language and yet omit important points of view. Such an article should be considered an NPOV work in progress, not an irredeemable piece of propaganda. Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article—not to subtract from it.
SubpageSometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique. Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. Provided that all POVs are represented fairly in the new article, it is perfectly legitimate to isolate a controversial aspect as much as possible to its own article, in order to keep editing of the main article fairly harmonious. Nomen Nescio 20:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hesitant "keep, rename, and improve" per BDAbramson. Although this is not a good article, it is easily the best one we have in the subject area, and I think deleting it at this time would be a mistake. The article on its own has POV issues, but this is the most NPOV article we have on the subject. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename, improve - Most of the "charges" here are from the fringe, but describing why certain (mostly fringe) activists want to impeach Bush is interesting, encyclopedic, and notable. They are significant enough to attract mainstream media coverage. However, the title is POV, and the article needs a little more work to make it clear it is about certain people's political beliefs, and not a platform for them. ProhibitOnions 21:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Fringe" as in FindLaw, Congressional Research Service, American Bar Association, Human Rights Watch, Council on Foreign Relations, United Nations, Human Rights First, Elizabeth Holtzman, Louise Arbour? Nomen Nescio 00:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Nomen Nescio 19:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Comment: There is some logic in separating out the legitimate legal arguments for impeachment from political criticism, although it seems that in its current form the article defines examples which they assert could qualify as the "high crimes and misdemeanors" a little too broadly. Impeachment is not recall. Peter Grey 07:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete

pure speculation and unverifiable; the only body that can file a bill of impeachment is the US House of Representatives and until a bill of impeachment is at least proposed by a member of the House, any listing of possible grounds for impeachment is pure speculation, either on the part of a wikipedia editor, or a partisan publication, blogger or web site.
Original research and POV. The alleged misdeeds of the Bush administration may or may not meet WP:V. However their inclusion in an article titled "Rationale for impeachment" (or any variant thereof) is pure POV on the part of the editor.
Unverifiable as many of the alleged misdeeds are themselves based on highly POV interpretations of events. Thatcher131 16:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 37: / Line 37: @@
 ::::*'''Response''' I am not arguing to delete. Second, ''"arguably untrue"'' sounds odd in light of how a thorough investigation into '''1''' the absence of WMD and link to AQ in relation to the prewar allegations is being stonewalled, '''2''' the alleged structural nature of prisoner abuse has been stonewalled, '''3''' the alleged violation of FISA has been stonewalled. To me (yes POV) each of these examples warrants a detailed investigation yet somebody (surely mostly democrats?) feels that it is unwarranted.--[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] [[User:Nescio|Nomen Nescio]] 18:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 *'''Comment''': There is some logic in separating out the legitimate legal arguments for impeachment from political criticism, although it seems that in its current form the article defines ''examples which they assert could qualify as the "high crimes and misdemeanors"'' a little too broadly. Impeachment is not recall. [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 07:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
+*'''Strong Delete'''
+:# pure speculation and unverifiable; the only body that can file a bill of impeachment is the US House of Representatives and until a bill of impeachment is at least ''proposed'' by a member of the House, any listing of possible grounds for impeachment is pure speculation, either on the part of a wikipedia editor, or a partisan publication, blogger or web site.
+:# Original research and POV.  The alleged misdeeds of the Bush administration may or may not meet [[WP:V]].  However their inclusion in an article titled "Rationale for impeachment" (or any variant thereof) is pure POV on the part of the editor.
+:# Unverifiable as many of the alleged misdeeds are themselves based on highly POV interpretations of events. [[User:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 16:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)