Talk:Legislators in US states call for the impeachment of President Bush

I maybe fix something of this story tomorrow. international 23:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The story needs to address the distinction between the (mere) existance of some resolutions at a state level by politicians at that level of the body politic, and what a formal impeachment of the president by members of Congress means. -Edbrown05 07:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ed:s concerns is not adressed and I dont think this article is in a hurry to publish. I dont have enough knowledge about US political system so there is not much for me to do than some small fixes. I will take the story to develop until somebody who really understand this local/state/national congress stuff works check it up. international 15:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

w:Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush#Vermont_Democrats and the following sections have some discussion about this - sounds like it's a procedure "forgotten about" and could represent a shift from federal concentration of power to reverting to more localised power from when the US was centralised. Boud 17:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think I made my best. Is it understadable? I wait some time for responses before I (eventually) publish. international 21:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

linking to highly disputed WP articles?

1. (cur) (last) 22:39, 1 May 2006 International (Never heard of this policy, link is usefull)
2. (cur) (last) 22:36, 1 May 2006 Mrmiscellanious m (No linking to highly disputed WP articles, please.)

The WP article w:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush has three tags: "NPOV disputed" and "quality" and "problem with reference style" - i think the reader is clearly warned that the article is disputed. Moreover, given the nature of the subject - reasons for impeaching the president of the world's single military superpower - it's hardly surprising that it's disputed, and i don't see that as a reason to hide the facts - wikireaders are just going to have to judge for themselves, or help mediate the dispute if they are neutral 3rd parties...

And even more importantly, people have a right to know what reasons are alleged to be valid reasons for impeaching bush. The individual claimed reasons are mostly just summaries of other wikipedia articles and from a quick look, they look to me like reasonably NPOV, and even if they're not, the reader can go to the individual articles and judge for him/herself of their validity. Boud 00:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• We should not be linking to WP articles that are disputed. Reason being, people look at Wikinews, they see the similar style to Wikipedia, they could assert a bias. The only WP article that should be linked here is the Motion article. Rationale for it isn't even encompassed in this article - only the movement. This inclusion can be considered a biased edit. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 00:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Way to be mature, International. Couldn't even wait for someone else's view. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 00:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Take it up on watercooler and suggest new policys if this is importent to you, or even better: involve yourself in the wikipediarticle that you dislike and edit it to your satisfaction. And as you edited whithout adressing your concerns here on talk I think you shall lover your personalatack mode quite a lot international 00:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to throw crap at readers, fine. If you want that crap endorsed by Wikinews, too bad. What a childish way of editing if you won't even acknowledge another person's opinion. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 00:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that if we are linking to disputed WP articles then the story/article on WN can be considered misleading. With that said, I agree with MrM. If we are going to link to a highly disputed WP article, then I will tag this story as misleading...and Possibly cleanup. NPOV can only accomplisehed with factual information. Jason Safoutin 00:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

This article, although having the main focus on the impeachment motions, does not adequately provide information about the impeachment motions. However, it does discuss quite a bit of the impeachment processes. That is fine in an encyclopedia, but WN:NOT states that: "Wikinews is not an encyclopedia; that is, it is not an in-depth collection of non-newsworthy information."

• First paragraph:

Quote

---

Though, the resolutions must work its way from State level to the Federal level first. The US House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching the President, Vice President and all other civil officers of the United States.

Not substantial information regarding the impeachment motions. Inclusion of this information in the first paragraph breaks flow and can contribute to a confusing read.

• Second paragraph:

Quote

---

Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice outlines several different methods for the impeachment process. The passages "In the House there are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion: … by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State or territory" make it possible for States to introduce bills which, if passed on State level, could begin the impeachment process.

Describes impeachment processes without even introducing the impeachment motions.

• Fourth paragraph:

Quote

---

Yarbrough's resolution charges Bush with directing the National Security Agency to perform surveillance without a warrant in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; violating the torture conventions of the Geneva Convention, and "leaking classified national secrets to further an agenda." Koretz' similar resolution also calls for Cheney to be impeached.

Note the links' destinations, and what they are labelled in the paragraph. Violates WN:NPOV, because these links do not necessarily match to Yarbrough's context of the statements, and were included by editors who felt their opinion was good context.

• Sixth paragraph:

Quote

---

{{{1}}}

"However, the rules are not widely known." makes absolutely no sense.

• Ninth paragraph:

Quote

---

According to a CBS poll, the President's public approval rating has steadily declined, and is so far at an all time low of 34%.

This CBS Poll states 33%.

• This article is in violation of policies above, and therefore is not publishable at this time. Please address. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

About the approval ratings, as far as I recall Rumsfeld is not the president. Apparently he has approval ratings comparable to the president. But what does it matter? --vonbergm 02:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Note the links' destinations, and what they are labelled in the paragraph. Violates WN:NPOV, because these links do not necessarily match to Yarbrough's context of the statements, and were included by editors who felt their opinion was good context.

The links do not necessarily cover the topics in the way that Yarbrough believes they should be covered, but as long as they cover the topics he is referring to, it is important to give the link to this background. Many people in the wikipedia have done a lot of work to prepare NPOV articles. Readers can go to those articles and then decide on the validity or the invalidity of Yarbrough's POV themselves. i am restoring this, because i don't see why we should deprive readers of background information. Presenting information in a vacuum, without helping the reader find NPOV sources of deeper information is one of the key biases in the non-free media.

Vonbergm: please say which of these links you think is a bad match in context: Yarbrough's resolution charges Bush with directing the National Security Agency to perform surveillance without a warrant in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; violating the torture conventions of the Geneva Convention, and "leaking classified national secrets to further an agenda." Koretz' similar resolution also calls for Cheney to be impeached. and then maybe others could understand precisely what you are objecting to. Thanks. Boud 22:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

To put it another way: if you can suggest better wikipedia links, then please do so. Boud 22:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Boud, I believe you wanted to ask MrM this question, I don't see what his problem is. My post was only there to state my bewilderment at the last objection of MrM. Btw, I like your wikilinks. --vonbergm 23:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Ditto from me; I like the wikilinks. Yrtsihpos 23:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• You're kidding, right? Unless the legislator actually stated these were all in reference to these cases, the links can not be included. That is alleging one user's interpretation on the statements is factual. The only link I can see that would be acceptable (out of these examples) in this paragraph would be the NSA one. That is the only specific incident listed. This quote is too ambiguous to draw conclusions, and those conclusions should only be made by the readers, not the editors. Do not restore these links. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 02:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I trust the text of Illinois HJR 125 is proof enough helpful, FWIW. Aloha, KeithH (talk) 05:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

And I would at least wikilink National Security Agency, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and Geneva Convention, for the benefit of the non-American audience. Aloha, KeithH (talk) 05:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

MrM wrote: Unless the legislator actually stated these were all in reference to these cases, the links can not be included.

MrM - you seem to be suggesting that if a politician refers to "that bird flu stuff" we cannot make a link like that bird flu stuff or if he refers to "the present number one in the White House" we cannot make a link the present number one in the White House because this would be original research?

IMHO it's reasonable to suppose that the legislators are referring to something. So we can search in the wikipedia for the most likely something to which that refers. In this case, we have:

• violating the torture conventions: w:Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse - the Abu Ghraib torture case is extremely well known, you can hardly claim that it is unrelated - please suggest a better article referring to Bush's alleged involvement in torture if you think that Abu Ghraib is unrelated- there's a huge amount of claims to this effect, if you can suggest a better NPOV wikipedia page summing up all the claims, then please propose it.
• "leaking classified national secrets to further an agenda". Can you suggest more accurate wikipedia background pages than w:CIA leak grand jury investigation and w:Downing Street memo? The Downing Street memo is the best known document claiming that Bush had an agenda of attacking Iraq independently of the reality of Iraqi WMD possession and/or construction.

Making these links is not claiming that they are True Facts. On the other hand, MrM, you seem to be suggesting that the legislators are making these claims on the basis of no evidence at all, or on the basis of as-of-yet unpublished evidence. This implicit suggestion of yours is IMHO a rather unreasonable interpretation, given that we know that wikipedia authors have spent a good deal of time preparing NPOV articles on these subjects. i would suggest that you could provide better links rather than suggesting that the legislators are referring uniquely to something totally unknown. After all, if legislators prepared a law to protect US citizens captured by aliens we could make a link US citizens captured by aliens or w:Allagash Abductions, without necessarily suggesting that aliens have really landed on the Earth... Boud 10:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The wikilinks are helpful to the readers. I have reinserted them after they were removed. Neutralizer 09:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)