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.
![]() | 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. |
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
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
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:
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
Due to a "page move" archive (rather than via "cut & paste") which was done tonight by Prometheuspan, the very informative talk page history for this article has been obscured. You can see the full history here: Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush/archive3. Merecat 06:49, 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
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)
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
-- Astrokey 44 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
I'm not sure why we're doing everything in boxes, but strong delete per nom; this is an extremely POV OR fork. -- Rory096 07:38, 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
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
Discussion moved to Talk page Thatcher131 20:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply
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.
![]() | 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. |
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
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
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:
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
Due to a "page move" archive (rather than via "cut & paste") which was done tonight by Prometheuspan, the very informative talk page history for this article has been obscured. You can see the full history here: Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush/archive3. Merecat 06:49, 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
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)
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
-- Astrokey 44 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
I'm not sure why we're doing everything in boxes, but strong delete per nom; this is an extremely POV OR fork. -- Rory096 07:38, 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
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
Discussion moved to Talk page Thatcher131 20:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC) reply