Talk:Efforts to impeach George W. Bush/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

NPOV Dispute

I understand that a topic like this is bound to have POV, you might as well take the Impeach Bush Campaign from an NPOV. Using words like "maliciously lied" is anything but neutral.--EatAlbertaBeef 03:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I concur that "maliciously lied" is POV and have replaced it. But the article is reporting a situation and feelings that exist. Those who would impeach Bush certainly have a POV but the article seems fairly neutral. Is there anything else that you object to? Shoaler 14:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This seems perfectly NPOV to me - it outlines what allegations have been made against Bush, without stating that they are anything more than allegations. The language used isn't even that emotive. Gypsum Fantastic 18:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article is nothing but POV - how about a section on why he shouldn't be impeached? If the article doesn't get deleted, maybe that will be next month's project :) --Larryfooter 9 July 2005 00:56 (UTC)

This article is not a page on The Theoretical Impeachment of Bush, it concerns a particular campaign. It needs no rebuttal. If you believe the article should be deleted add a VFD tag. freestylefrappe July 9, 2005 05:40 (UTC)

I've reread the article and I don't see anything but factual reporting of an effort to impeach the President. It seems very careful not to take one side or another. I think the POV banner shoule be removed. --Shoaler 9 July 2005 12:06 (UTC)

The article has been checked as requested in the POV tag. If there are no objections, I'm going to remove the tag. Shoaler 18:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The article is NPOV. I support removal of the tag. ---asx- 19:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not only POV, it's inaccurate and misleading. Many quoted "allegations" can not even be traced to a source.

Google results for 'Bush and alleged overseeing of "bribery and coercion of individuals and governments"' yields 1 result - this wikipedia page

The charge of 'Alleged "Concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment;"' seems to have been copied verbatim from http://www.votetoimpeach.org/notes_5.htm, but the source has no supporting evidence to back up this claim ... and it should also be noted that the author of the web site in question is none other than Ramsey Clark, who is Saddam Hussien's and Slobadan Milosevich's lawyer, as well as a leader in the World Worker's Party - ie. not the most credible source, especially when he presents no supporting evidence to back up his claim that the US President actually was "Concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment"

I can go on and on about the rest of the allegations and how absurd they are, but I'll just save that for my new section to this article titled "Response to allegations"

--Larryfooter 18:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

You make a number of good points, but I think you are forgetting that this article does not purport to make valid allegations against Bush. The point of the article is to describe a movement (if you can call it that) to impeach Bush. In order to serve this function, it is necessary to state the reasons impeachment proponents give for wanting to impeach Bush. It is not the place of this article to evaluate, prove, or disprove these allegations, but merely to indentify them as part of a scientific exposition of a particular political phenomenon. I think it's a good idea to add a section called "Response to Allegations." It's definitely an appropriate addition, in my opinion. -asx- 04:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

the purpose of this article is to besmirch the name of the president by citing Saddam Husein's lawyer as its sole source. I'm nominating it for deletion. At most, it should be merged into the George W. Bush article as a section (and a small section at that). we'll see how the deletion votes go and take it from there. Larryfooter 03:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

There is no substantial, notable movement to impeach Bush. It shouldn't be an article. Possible impeachment charges? It's not worthy of Wikipedia at this point. I concur with Larryfooter...a small section (or SENTENCE) concerning the so-called "movement" would fully suffice at this point. --68.184.170.73 21:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

POV Redux

I read this article and could not find a single reason to tag it. There are hardly any opinions; most of the sentences are statements of fact. It could certainly use more cited sources, but there are other tags for that purpose. -Acjelen 04:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree, again, and again, this article has been subjected to "tag attacks." The movement to keep the POV tag on this article is representative of the movmentment to challenge anything critical of Bush. Seriously, we've been over and over this, as previous sections show. POV or Neutrality tagging are so obviously used to create the impression that something is "wrong" with an article. I've reviewed this article again and it's not at all lacking in neutrality. If it were calling for Bush to be impeached, that would be lack of neutrality, but in discussing the issues and facts of a Bush impeachment, the article does not lack in neutrality at all -- not even a little bit. I would like to see 1) the tag removed, 2) an effort to not let this kind of time-wasting dispute continue to bog down the development of the article. Calicocat 05:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

There have been reasons in the past for the tag. When a tag is placed, the person placeing the tag is obligated to provide actionable reasons on why the tag is being placed, so as to allow others the opportunity to fix the problem, otherwise as you say tags can be abused. With this article, in all the confusion, its hard to tell who placed the tag and why. But if you remove it, and someone puts it back, whoever puts it back is obligated to provide specific and actionable reasons why. Partly the problem is folks are not challenging the tag as the article is edited and updated. --Stbalbach 06:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

More NPOV

I removed the last sentence, because it was blatantly POV. Edit: Addtionally, that whole last paragraph was out of place, so I removed it. Here is the text, in case it relates to one of the above sections:

The Executive Order 13233, drafted by Alberto R. Gonzales and issued by Bush on November 1, 2001, is used to restrict access to the records of former presidents.

--DNicholls 04:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Straw poll regarding POV issues (if any)

• Poll Started: 01:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Current date: Saturday 25 May 2024

I'd like to take a straw poll over the next few days to see if there's consensus on any issues regard factual accuracy or neutrality (WP:NPOV) problems with this article. Please vote, I'd really like a reading on this. Thanks in advance.Calicocat 01:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

---

• Please vote below under Votes and vote either
  1. No (Article does not have POV/Factual issues)
  2. Yes (Article has POV/Factual issues)

---

Vote: No The article does not have POV/Factual issues

1. No Calicocat 23:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
2. No Gypsum Fantastic 19:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
3. No Christiaan 07:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
4. No RichardMathews 19:25, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

The article factually presents the points of view of named individuals. If there were an organized anti-impeachment movement, it would be appropriate to include their point of view here. I have looked for and have not found such a movement.

Vote: Yes (Article has POV/Factual issues

1. Yes -- Example Vote = Name, signature, date

Removal of NPOV

I have issues with the behaviour of Mirror Vax. He has contually replaced the Totallydisputed tag on this article, yet has made no substantive points as to why and has not contributed one word of editing to improve the article. I opened up two specific talk sections calling for him, by name, to contibute his exact examples of where the article is lacking in factual accuracy and neutrality. Rather than making use of those sections, he put them down as "empty" sections and then also put down a simple staw poll section I put in the talk section to get a reading from the other editors here. Mirror Vax's objections are nothing more than a few minor issues more in the area of clean-ups. Again, Mirror Vax, has done no editing at all on this article, other than to continually challenge its neutrality and accuracy. He has done no research or writing to help improve this article. His only contribution is to snipe and make uncivil remarks to other editors and I feel he is acting as a kind of agent provocateur. He has been highly uncivil to me and to other editors of this article. (He left a message with a highly insulting personal comment on my user talk page, which he weakly attempted to veil by phrasing it in the negative, "it's not like I'm saying X." I will not repeat what he said here, but it was completely inappropriate). Finding no substantive points in the article with regard to neutrality or factual accuracy, I have again removed the totallydisputed tag. Calicocat 21:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is very POV. I'm sorry, but "bribery and coercion" is just the view of one man. NPOV policy requires you represent views in proportion to how widely they're represented. This is a fringe minority view, yet it's represented prominently in the charges section, along with others that are rarely (if ever) mentioned by other critics. This kind of problem arises when trying to list criticisms from a movement that doesn't exist, you end up listing stuff from individuals who don't represent anything.

Now that's not even to mention the fact that this article contains ZERO criticisms of the reasons for impeachment beyond a single paragraph which amounts to nothing more than "they are wrong," which is a blatant NPOV violation. I think often people seem to think they can get away with POV by the fact that they don't come out say something l ike "bush should be impeached!"

I'd also like to see someone cite their sources for the "public opinion" section so I can actually see the polls, those are clearly represented in a POV and an incorrect way. The wording is also very POV It's nice to see statistics on Wikipedia misrepresnted to promote propaganda and false conclusions like "This suggests a general increase in pro-impeachment sentiment from the last such poll."

Nathan J. Yoder 06:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The first poll was conducted by Zogby, a Republican pollster. The second was conducted by Ipsos, but comissioned. Both of these are listed in the article. Once again, a factually incorrect complaint in support of an NPOV tag which - after three months - still has not come up with one substansive criticism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stirling Newberry (talk • contribs) 00:53, 28 October 2005.

Excuse me? Perhaps you should read the article on John Zogby, he is a self-described liberal democract, please don't spread misinformation. I don't know about Ipsos' affiliation, but they were both comissioned by AfterDowningStreet, which quite obviously is liberal. And as I stated, the statements made represent a misunderstanding of statistics. If within the margin of error, that wouldn't represent an increase. Not just that, but the polls aren't actually full cited, so I can't actually read them in full to make sure they're quoted properly. self note reference Nathan J. Yoder 05:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

That is incorrect. The original Zogby poll was not commissioned. And you are also incorrect about the use of margin of error. Still batting zero on NPOV Bush Leaguers. Stirling Newberry 05:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, it wasn't comissioned, but it's still a self-admitted liberal polling company. You say I'm batting zero, but you got their political party completely reversed (it was liberal), and forgot to mention that the other poll was comissioned by a very liberal group. Ok, sure, clearly biased agendas in polling represents batting zero. Oh, and I'm right about margin of error. I notice you're not bothering to address my other criticisms. Nathan J. Yoder 05:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Rather than whine, complain and tag, why not, firstly, see previous sections on NPOV issues with this article, secondly, expand the article as you see fit and to including information that would make a positive contribution to the developing article. Calicocat 15:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Nathan's comments are spot on. He gives actionable reasons why this article is POV. He has every right to put up a tag so long as he provides actionable reasons why it is so. As for editing this article, it is like walking into a minefield. There are a number of authors who will find any excuse to revert changes that dont fit a pro-Democratic anti-Republican agenda. For example this line was deleted from the article:

Currently there is no offical governmental investigation into George Bush in regards to impeachment.

..on the technicality that "currently" shouldnt be used in an encyclopedia, so the entire sentence was deleted instead of just editing and simply removing the word "currently", the entire sentence was deleted. Stuff like that, you have to fight tooth and nail against a strong wind blowing in a certain direction. I dont blame Nathan, and others, for not stepping into these troubled waters. You have to watch this article on a minute by minute basis, its too much trouble and work for most people, the best you can do is point out the problems and hope to shame the authors into taking a higher road. Stbalbach 16:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The bushites have done more damage to this article and have to be watched more carefully. It has survived a nonsesne deletion attempt, several rounds of inaccurate NPOV tagging, and mangling by Pro-Bush POV warriors at various times.

Yeah, that sums it up pretty well. Any significant changes I do are likely to be met with bold opposition and edit warring. To avoid that, I placed objections here on the talk page so that people can DISCUSS them first, therefore we can come to a consensus about how to make those edits. There's also the fact that being a minority (in terms of not inserting pro-Democrat information), I'd have to do the brunt of the research to find verifiable counter-claims/criticisms to everything said in this article, this tag alerts others with information that this needs other criticism added to the article. The fact that Calicocat wanted to remove a very critical fact from the article, that there is no investigation for impeachment, says something about his motives in wanting to remove the NPOV tag. Nathan J. Yoder 22:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Please state where the article lacks neutrality? All I hear are complaints, but I see no positive editing to address any failings of neutrality in the article. This appears to be just another instance of playing with tags and fomenting long drawn out, and rather useless discussion, rather than expansion of development of the article. Naturally, those who are following this article are making mention of individuals and groups in favor of impeachment of Bush, but that does not mean those who edit this article are themselves for or against it. Editors working in good faith would observe neutrality and I don't see where the article is lacking in neutrality on the other hand, thusfar, I see no edits by those who claim this article lacks it to improve or expand it. Calicocat 21:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I already explained where it lacks neutrality quite clearly, I'm not going to repeat myself because you're pretending I didn't say anything. Everything you said here was already addressed and someone else has already expressed that they understand the situation perfectly. You're the only one contesting the NPOV tag and you're INSISTENT on removing the key fact from the article that there is no impeachment investigation. That edit is a clear violation of NPOV policy and is one of several reasons this article needs an NPOV tag. I really have to question the good faith of someone who keeps removing and NPOV tag while simulteaneously using a _minor edit_ to remove an important fact from an article, making it POV. Nathan J. Yoder 21:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

So far you haven't said much that is accurate, and haven't done anything that is productive. As far as anyone can tell, you are just doing bad faith spinning to keep the tag in place. The article clearly labels the charges as "charges", it clearly and realistically labels the chances of actual impeachment. So far it seems the pro-bushites have a problem with even mentioning this, and having lost that round several times, are now trying to non-edit to keep the POV tag.

It seems like the whole section on "Charges" is unsubstantiated and most of it is not really grounds for impeachment. The NPOV portion of this article is that there are quite a few well-known and influential people who support impeachment. That is fact. Opinions as to whether particular allegations are true or impeachable, and whether Bush is a nice person or not don't really belong in the article. I would drop the Charges section. Can we get an NPOV from that? –Shoaler (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Under the constitution the defintion of what is grounds for impeachment is within the province of Congress. Stirling Newberry 04:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Charges are ok to put in an article as long as you can show that they're widely held and you provide sources showing that they're widely held. In this case though, it seems to be just this single list from a single guy. Only a few of those in the list are actually common criticisms... Nathan J. Yoder 22:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps "charges" could be renamed "proposed charges"(or "accusations?). Georgeslegloupier 03:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• I suggest "proposed grounds for impeachment" - charges implies that something has actually been charged in a court of law, but nothing has been brought by any official body, so there are no "charges".  BD2412 ^talk 04:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • That sounds fine, my issue wasn't really with how it was phrased though. The issue was that every single minority viewpoint regarding charges is being represented, including ones regarding bribery/coercion. There is only one man who made those accusations and he never provided evidence of what he considers bribery/coercion, so it's fairly biased to include it. It'd be like including every single conspiracy theory ever conceived on Wikipedia, no matter how much of a fringe minority it represents even within the conspiracy theory community. Nathan J. Yoder 18:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, folks, what needs to be done to remove POV tag?

I think that it reflects badly on Wikipedia when a POV warning stays on an article, rather than folks hashing through editing until all sides can agree that it's neutral. I tried to clean up some complaints tonight after reading the extensive discussion. Come on. We can do better than to tediously argue. Arbitrators, what's the solution? I'm fairly new here.--Beth Wellington 09:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Nathan, it would be helpful to provide a clear list of content in the current article that you feel is POV. I have gone over your comments and failed to find specific objections which have not been addressed. I think if you give a specific and thorough account of them we can resolve this. Dev1n 20:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to re-list everything I already said, that's redundant. I have already listed concerns, so it is your job then to tell me which HAVE been addressed. I checked the edit history and the edits Beth made on the 20th were completely unrelated to the problems I mentioned, so her comment is wrong. The only edits she made related to what problems I mentioned were on the 23rd to the poll section (which is just one of several problems I mentioned even if she fixed it perfectly).

She added new polls, but it's still represented in a POV manner. Note, the polls use a conditional "if the presdeint lied...." and since about 50% believe he lied, that would mean that with high estimates only 25% (50% of 50%) actually believe he should be impached. The Clinton polls (which directly asked if he should be impeached without conditionals) range from 12-32% and this falls into that same range. Therefore, there are about as many willing to impeach Bush as there are Clinton.

Also, several of the higher end estimates are listed before the low one. They don't even mention the range of estimates before going into details. At the end, an unscientific poll is included with a ridiculously high number. I'm sorry, but unscientific polls, especially ones which admit they are not scientific, shouldn't be used. There is also still the problem that we're using polls paid for only by anti-Bush organizations. So the one attempt to address a single one of the problems I mentioned failed. Nathan J. Yoder 07:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

None of these concerns are legitimate, with the exception of possibly an admittedly unscientific poll (provided that it can be shown to be skewed). Kevin baas 14:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll note that the above user supported someone who removed the statement indicating that there were no impeachment proceedings, and who afterward tried to insert speculation implying that there were going to be some. I understand that you think a controversial article with no criticism isn't ivolationg NPOV policy, but that's simply not valid. Nathan J. Yoder 17:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

"supported someone who removed the statement indicating that there were no impeachment proceedings, and who afterward tried to insert speculation implying that there were going to be some." - this is kind of difficult to parse here, and after parsing it, I have no idea what you're talking about. As far as I can tell, you are attacking a straw man. "I understand that you think a controversial article with no criticism isn't ivolationg NPOV policy, but that's simply not valid." - Again, it is clear by what you write that you don't understand what I think, or what I say. Kevin baas 17:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Go read the "phase II investigation" section where you supported Stirling Newberry, who did all of that. And since you seem to think there is criticism in this article of the so-called movement, please point it out. Nathan J. Yoder 19:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Again...Nathan, I trust that you are willing to cooperate in earnest to resolve this POV conflict, folks are clearly having trouble clarifying your POV objections. If you are seeking a resolution, you need to participate in that process rather than telling others that it is their "job" to extrapolate your specific concerns. Making a simple list will help to move the discussion forward and define distinct POV issues. If I had a clearer sense of the unresolved POV objections I would be putting up the NPOV tag myself. Dev1n 19:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you seriously asking me to repeat what I said? You said the problems were resolved, which means that you must understand what they were. If you didn't understand what they were, why would you say they were resolved? Please list what you think has been resolved. It's not my job to repeat myself. I even added MORE concerns about the existing polls. It is disingenuous for you to ask me to clarify myself when you haven't even told me what part of what I said is unclear. So I either have to repeat every single thing I've ever said, which is supposedly the reasonable solution OR you could just tell me what parts of what I said are unclear or what you think has been resolved. So in essence, your request is "Everything has been resolved, although I won't specify what. I won't bother asking for clarification of any specific part of what you said, instead I'll just ask you to repeat it in its entirety, rephrased in a way that I haven't specified.." Nathan J. Yoder 19:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You are not being asked to repeat yourself but to simply clarify your objections one-by-one. That way your concerns can be thoroughly addressed and appropriate changes can be made. If you don't want to nail down specific changes you feel need to be made to meet NPOV standards I don't see how this can be resolved. It sounds like this may still be an AFD issue for you. Dev1n 21:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

How can I clarify something if I don't know what was unclear about it? Is "there are practically no criticisms of the movement mentioned" somehow unclear? Nathan J. Yoder 21:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I strongly support this. If we can find reference to further criticism it should certainly be mentioned in the article. Is this your only POV objection at this point Nathan? Dev1n 22:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

No, that's not the only objection. All I did there was repeat something I already said when I first inserted the NPOV tag. You agree that it was clear, despite it being a repitition of what I said before, and yet you removed the NPOV tag anyway, which suggests you didn't actually read my original criticisms. Please read my original criticisms and then ask me what's unclear. I'm not going to keep repeating myself since apparently you find everything I already said to be clear, despite your claims that it isn't. Nathan J. Yoder 13:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Have you been able to find any reference to further criticisms? I think criticism should have it's own section in the article. Why don't you want to list your other objections? Again, you are not being asked to repeat anything, but rather to clarify and enumerate the POV objections that have been raised. Your unwillingness to do this suggests that perhaps you are not genuinely seeking a resolution, but rather, are seeking to prolong the situation in order to keep the article tagged. Assuming this is not your motivation, why not take a moment to provide quick list so everyone can work together to make the article as NPOV as possible? Dev1n 18:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

What clarification is needed? You've already admitted that what I've said isn't unclear. All you have to do is read my original statement made when I originally inserted it. Your repeated unwillingness to ask which points I was unclear about suggests that perhaps you are not geuninely seeking a resolution, but rather, are seeking to prolong the situation in order to keep the article untagged. Assuming this is not your motivation, why not take a moment to provide a quick list of questions of clarification so everyon can work together to make the article as NPOV as possible? Nathan J. Yoder 20:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

List of POV objections as of 12/24/05

• 1 "there are practically no criticisms of the movement mentioned" (Quoting NJyoder 12/26/05 )

"The article factually presents the points of view of named individuals. If there were an organized anti-impeachment movement, it would be appropriate to include their point of view here. I have looked for and have not found such a movement." (Quoting RichardMathews 9/1/05)

That wasn't in response to anything I said and it was made a while before I ever edited this talk page. He is wrong and that is a blatant violation of NPOV policy. NPOV policy requires represnting any significant viewpoints and he is denying that. His reasoning is false, there only needs to be criticism of the so-called movement for it to be included. Why would you deliberately exclude reasons for defending him against impeachment? Not including those is a blatant NPOV violation and a whitewash. Nevermind that many reasons and support for impeachment were given in this article from people who weren't even part of the movement. That's a nice double standard. That's like saying that in order for criticism to be included in the George W. Bush article, the criticism must need to come from another president. Criticism is criticism regardless of the source. You seem to acknowledge that this is an important issue in itself, so how can you possibly justify leaving it out and NOT NPOV tagging it? Nathan J. Yoder 20:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9

etc.

Ralph Nader

I don't get how impeachment could have been an objective of the Nader campaign. If Nader had been elected, there would be no need to impeach Bush, right? Or does this mean that the Nader campaign wanted to promote the idea of impeachment? (I forgot to sign this yesterday) -asx- 18:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I've removed this statement: "Impeachment of Bush was also one of the major goals of Ralph Nader's 2004 presidential campaign." because it doesn't seem to make sense. If someone can provide a cite, we can restore it. -asx- 18:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Um, hello? Nader campaign volunteer here. You don't actually believe that the main thrust of Nader's campaign was to get elected, do you? Nader said many times that the war in Iraq was an unconstitutional one, because the power to make war rests solely in the hand of the Congress. both Congress and the President violated the constitution by voting the war power into the President's hands. Nader also very much believed that Bush had misled (to put it mildly) in making the case for war. In fact they still have an online petition for impeachment going at the campaign website, here (go ahead and sign it!). --Dmcdevit 21:42, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

There is no need for you to get all worked up and excited; you will note my more than accomodating tone of voice in both of my statements above. This was an attempt on my part to understand and clarify the statement.

Of course I don't think Nader or anyone else expected that Nader would get elected. I appreciate all of your clarifying comments about what the statement is intended to convey, but as it stands, the statement is poorly written and simply confusing. For one thing, a campaign cannot impeach a president, and therefore it cannot be a goal of a presidential campaign to impeach a president. Only the US House of Representativse can impeach a president. Perhaps it should say, "One of the major goals of the Nader campaign was to bring attention to Bush's crimes to help promote the cause of his impeachement." (Or words to that effect.) -asx- 04:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

And how is it shaving with your eyes closed? Seriously though, I think it is a sad reflection on our political and governmental structures that Ralph Nader would run for the office of President of the United States not to be elected but to try to impeach one of the other candidates. It just doesn't make sense. Think how much easier it would have been to defeat him at the polls than to impeach him (after he had won re-election I suppose)? -Acjelen 03:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Shaving with my eyes closed. There's an expression I haven't heard before..... But, yes, I agree with your point. -asx- 04:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay,I wasn't getting worked up or anything. Actually, I thought I was kindly answering your question in an article that I'm not even involved in. But thanks for twisting my words (obviously impeachment wasn't the main thrust of the Nader campaign either, far from it). And thanks for belittling me for trying to help. This is why I stick to editing history articles. And your welcome. --Dmcdevit 04:36, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

OK, let's forget it. And please feel free to contribute to this article as much as you wish! But please recognize that statements like "Um, hello?" and "You don't really believe" are insulting, especially given the fact that I was asking for clarification! Peace, -asx- 04:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I've modified the statement to say, "Ralph Nader's 2004 presidential campaign also promoted the cause of a Bush impeachement by raising public awareness of the numerous alleged crimes of the Bush Administration." Feel free to edit further if you think it can be cleared up or made better. Thanks, -asx- 04:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Article name

Is this the official name of a campaign? If so, the article should state such. Otherwise, the article certainly needs a new title. The present title is vague and hardly even colloquial. Movement to impeach President Bush (or Campaign to impeach President Bush) is certainly the shortest I could come up with. In formal usage, the person referred to as President Bush is no longer President of the United States and not subject to impeachment. Movement to impeach the President brings up the problem of which president the article is about. We could use Movement to impeach George W. Bush or Movement to impeach the American President as well. -Acjelen 21:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Campaign to impeach President Bush would be a good one.--Kross 00:06, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Movement to impeach George W. Bush would be the ideal name, George W. Bush being the title of his own page. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:48, 2005 July 11 (UTC)