Talk:Efforts to impeach Barack Obama

RfC: Should the last 3 paragraphs in the public debate section be separated into a different section?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I believe the content about the lawsuit, as an alternative to impeachment, should be separate from the public debate section. Another editor (see this talk page) has objected citing WP:STRUCTURE and WP:UNDUE concerns. I fail to see how those two policies would apply if we were to put a section heading such as "A lawsuit as a possible alternative to impeachment". Earlier in the discussion a 3rd editor opined that there is not enough information about the lawsuit to merit having it in its own section, but the content has now increased to mitigate that concern. How hot is the sun? (talk) 12:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• RFC comment: Hi, I think this RFC would be easier to comment on if the issue was described in a clear and concise way. Having looked at the three paragraphs in question, I don't think it makes much of a difference either way. Overall, this article seems to be way too long concerning the marginal relevance of this topic. In fact, now that I think of it I'm not immediately convinced we should even have an article about this in the encyclopedia. --Dailycare (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It's all about a futile political point-scoring exercise, and will be looked back upon in future years (see WP:10YT) as a complete waste of time and effort. HiLo48 (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• I reiterate my position stated above; the fact that some experts believe that the lawsuit is intended to divert impeachment efforts deserves one line in the article. Since nothing more than that is merited, that is all that should be said about it, and a separate section is undue. bd2412 T 23:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep. HiLo48 (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

At the moment, the topic occupies 3 paragraphs:

A number of prominent Republicans have rejected calls for impeachment, including House Speaker John Boehner, Sen. John McCain and Rep. Blake Farenthold. McCain said impeachment would be a distraction from the 2014 election, and that if "we regain control of the United States Senate we can be far more effective than an effort to impeach the president, which has no chance of succeeding." Farenthold said that impeachment would be "an exercise in futility."[26]

Boehner put to vote an authorization for the House of Representatives to file a lawsuit against President Obama for delaying the implementation of the employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act. Political commentators have speculated that he proposed this lawsuit to divert recent Republican calls for impeachment, which would delight Democrats if pursued. In the words of Clarence Page in a Chicago Tribune editorial about calls for impeachment, "Democrats can barely conceal their glee. It's hard to think of anything that would give a bigger boost to the Democrats".[27]

Roll Call's David Hawkings likewise described the calls for impeachment as "politically problematic" for Republicans. Hawkings noted that the plan for suing Obama sends a "decidedly mixed message" since Republicans themselves previously "passed legislation specifically written to codify the president’s employer mandate delay". He also criticized the move as not likely to have legal standing since the plaintiffs would have to demonstrate that "they’ve been tangibly harmed" beyond the "loss of political or institutional clout". Additionally, the lawsuit would not be filed until more than a year after the President issued the postponement of the employer mandate, and the lawsuit might also be considered moot by then because the postponement may have already expired. With "almost no chance for even a preliminary resolution before the midterm elections", Hawkings concluded the intent of Republicans is not a successful lawsuit but rather an opportunity for focusing their "red meat rhetoric" and "venting their bloodlust" before the elections.[28]

— article rev as of 00:09, 25 September 2014

What do you think should be removed? How hot is the sun? (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Of those three paragraphs, the first is not about the lawsuit. Republicans can oppose calls for impeachment without having anything to do with a lawsuit, and the lawsuit does not involve John McCain (a Senator), nor does it particularly involve Blake Farenthold, who is not an architect of it. The first two lines of the second paragraph relate to the lawsuit, the rest relates to speculation by political commentators on the effect that calls for impeachment will have on the election. The first line of the third paragraph also relates to the potential effects of impeachment. The rest of that paragraph is primarily about the lawsuit and not at all about impeachment, and should be in the article on the lawsuit, not in this article. bd2412 T 00:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The material could certainly be included in the article on the lawsuit, but I think the material here is needed because it makes the case that the lawsuit is intended to be an alternate to impeachment. How hot is the sun? (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the first paragraph is not specifically about the lawsuit, but it does set up a transition for the lawsuit as an alternative. How hot is the sun? (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not our job to "make the case" about anything. We merely report the facts that are relevant to impeachment. The reasons for which this is believed of the lawsuit are relevant to the lawsuit, not to impeachment efforts. bd2412 T 01:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• As explained, this article is about efforts to impeach—it is not about efforts to not impeach. How many editors are pushing this UNDUE stuff? Johnuniq (talk) 01:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, my preferred conclusion here is that nothing about the lawsuit appears in this article, for the obvious reason that the lawsuit is explicitly NOT about impeachment. Including it just makes the article and the people adding that content look silly. HiLo48 (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

How many editors pushing, you ask? Two, if I've counted correctly - after it was initially introduced by a 3rd editor here on July 15. BD2412 and How hot is the sun? both want the proposed lawsuit at least mentioned in this article, with the latter editor also wanting it to have its own section, its own header, and several paragraphs of coverage. That's odd, considering Boehner himself has empahtically stated several times (and continues to insist) that “This is not about impeachment. This is about his faithfully executing the laws of our country.” Yes, the content looks silly in this article, but then so does the rest of this article, as there have been no concrete "efforts" to impeach, and the spokesperson and leader of the only body able to make such an effort has clearly stated on the record, "We have no plans to impeach the president." Xenophrenic (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Move any content about a proposed lawsuit into an article about that proposed lawsuit, for the obvious reasons stated above. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Xenophrenic, I wasn't aware of this reference. It wouls certainly be appropriate to add to this article, but I'm not going to do that, because it appears that consensus is leaning towards removing all mentioning of the lawsuit in this article, because "the lawsuit is not impeachment". I have already stated that if WP:RS are making the connection, then for the sake of completeness of the article, it's appropriate to make the connection here. How hot is the sun? (talk) 23:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Would we then need to rename the article to Efforts to impeach Barack Obama, or not? Otherwise, it just becomes another poorly named catch-all article for multiple things the Republicans and Tea Partiers don't like about Obama. HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Your proposal is made in jest, of course. How hot is the sun? (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

While the specific proposal may have been made in jest, the underlying concept is a serious concern expressed by several of us many times on this page. The purported subjects of the article just don't exist. 2600:1006:B011:BA79:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I used humour to make a serious point. We won't have an article called Efforts to impeach Barack Obama, or not, yet that is an accurate description of what some want the article to contain. (And even, perhaps, what it contains now.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Seems like a article primed and ready for AfD.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
• Only someone totally oblivious to the political situation in the US would not see the direct connection between impeachment and the House lawsuit. The suite has been described in numerous sources as a way for the Republican leadership to deal with the pressure from the base to initiate impeachment proceedings, without really doing it as that could have resulted in them paying a political price during the midterms. Clinton anyone?- Cwobeel (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, you appear to understand the present "political situation", but your wording is inaccurate when you say "the direct connection between impeachment and the House lawsuit". There has been no impeachment and there is still no House lawsuit. According to some sources, Some have speculated that the case is slight of hand on Boehner's part, appeasing elements in his party that want to impeach Obama while not going so far as to actually do it. But even if this speculation is true - and it is just speculation - it just confirms there is no "effort to impeach", and there is now even less chance of such an effort materializing. As for the proposed lawsuit, both law firms (and Rivkin, the legal theorist behind the idea) enlisted by Boehner to prosecute the case have backed out. So given the real situation, what are your thoughts on having 3 paragraphs of text about a proposed lawsuit which doesn't yet exist in an article about nonexistent "efforts to impeach"? Xenophrenic (talk) 04:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Source part of the introduction

"Many want Obama impeached for being responsible for the Ebola Virus coming to America, along with the possibility that he can also be Osama Bin Laden."

Is there any source for this information? Source 3 in the endnotes reveals a poll about impeachment but makes no mention of this conspiracy theory. From intuition alone, I am sure people blame Obama for ebola but have any important figures or congress members actually claimed that Obama IS Osama Bin Laden. A quick google search does not provide any sources. It could just be a typo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.44.42 (talk) 14:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

That's just somebody's vandalism. Only the vandal in question has been accusing Obama of being Bin Laden. Feel free to revert any suspicious edits on sight.Crboyer (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Opening sentence

I have been watching some of the recent edit warring involving the opening sentence. Clearly, based on what I have observed, I have to conclude that the original line ("Republican Congressmen") seems to indicate some sort of Liberal Bias because the broad interpretation of that line would give the impression that anyone who supports impeaching Obama is Republican when that is not necessarily true. In accordance with WP:NPOV, I've had to rewrite that line in order to make it more neutral without taking any sides.--Loyalmoonie (talk) 06:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)Chris

• We go by what reliable sources state, and take a look at this Talk page and the sources in the article. Also, you have logged out as an IP and violated 3RR. Stop it. Dave Dial (talk) 06:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  • For your information, those IPs were not me; I was only logging into Wikipedia when I noticed what was happening. Please do not accuse me of socking, and remember to assume good faith. Nonetheless, if you disagree with my interpretation, I respect your decision not to uphold it.--Loyalmoonie (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Chris
• Darn those "liberals" for being biased toward reliable sources and factual accuracy, rather than personal observations. But you know what they say, reality has a well-known liberal bias. I read the WP:NPOV policy you linked, and could not find "Liberal Bias" mentioned at all. I did see several admonitions against "Editorial Bias"; like when an editor knows a source says "A whole slew of Republican lawmakers have floated impeaching Obama..." or "large swaths of the Republican base seem to support impeachment", but then quietly leaves out the "Republican" fact, or equates "A whole slew"/"large swaths" to merely "several members". Avoiding editorial bias, in accordance with WP:NPOV, will help to ensure that we create a factual, informative encyclopedia instead of a Texas textbook. On a side note, if Loyalmoonie and the IPs are two different people as Loyalmoonie claims, they should really consider introducing themselves to each other so that they can collaborate on articles. They aren't likely to ever again find another editor who shares such an interest in Sailor Moon and Mitsubishi Motors and Obama impeachment. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
• I'm not sure that this indicates a political bias by the article at all. If we were, for example, to report that only Democratic congressmen consistently vote to keep Obamacare, and only Republican congressmen consistently vote to repeal Obamacare, that would betray no bias, because it is merely a statement of fact. In each case, the congressmen voting would assert that their position was correct and the other position was incorrect. In this case, to remove "Republican Congressmen" from the lede would suggest that Republicans need to be defended from being associated with an incorrect position, and therefore that impeaching Obama would be incorrect (i.e., that Obama has done nothing impeachable). bd2412 T 14:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I see.--Loyalmoonie (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)Chris

The subsection titles in this article

I'm concerned WP:POV was breached by User:Xenophrenic. His edit https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Efforts_to_impeach_Barack_Obama&oldid=755890148 said "to properly convey speculative nature". WP:OR is not the job of Wikipedia. I could just as easily edit George Bush's to properly convey the section "Invasion of Iraq" as "Bush's stupid misadventures" because speculation is needed there, am I right? Nudge nudge. Knowing what to expect, I will now go through the titles.

First, I would argue that repeating "Impeachment for" a dozen times is good for creating a mocking tone rather than simply covering the subject at hand.

Suggestions of impeachment

This title is rather trivial as the article is already named "efforts of impeachment". I replaced it with the category of the efforts like was done in George Bush's Correct title:

Political views and actions

1.1 Impeachment for offering someone a job

This is proclaiming Wikipedia has backed the job as legitimate. Correct title:

Legitimacy of a hire

1.2 Impeachment to prevent Obama from doing things

This is proclaiming Wikipedia has characterized Obama's actions as simply not being comatose. Correct title:

The President's agenda

1.3 No one talking about impeachment to prevent Immigration reform

This is proclaiming Wikipedia has backed Obama's Immigration as "reform", AKA the improvement or amendment of what is wrong, not the neutral "policy". Also, it misquoted the senator as saying that the fact that no one spoke yet was a reason to impeach. Correct title:

Immigration policy

1.4 Impeachment for "the most egregious cover-up in American history", Benghazi attack

This is proclaiming Wikipedia would put scarequotes on someone's claim (scarequotes are when there is no person being quoted). Further, the long title serves to mock the contents of the section. Finally, the topic was a response not an attack. Correct title:

Benghazi attack response

1.5 Impeachment requested by a towhall meeting audience member

This is proclaiming Wikipedia believes the words of the audience member were in this case, incomprehensible. Lazy at best. Correct title:

Background check policy

1.6 Impeachment for being born outside the United States

This is proclaiming Wikipedia is fine with having the long title serve to mock the contents of the section. Correct title:

Birthplace

1.7 Dreaming of impeaching Obama

I have to say here that before I noticed there was an article explaining why the congressman dreamed of impeaching Obama, there was a justification for it, being the IRS. User:Xenophrenic decided it was good enough for wikipedia to quote one of the most cherrypicking NYT articles I've ever seen lambasting a congressman for how he felt, but not why he felt it in the same interview. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Efforts_to_impeach_Barack_Obama&oldid=763740080

IRS policy

1.8 The impeachment hearing that wasn't

This is proclaiming Wikipedia believes the words of the congressman were in this case, incomprehensible. Lazy at best. Correct title:

The President's regard for the constitution

1.9 Impeachment for allowing transgender students to use bathrooms

This is proclaiming Wikipedia has A: taken the position that Obama was personally responsible for this legislation and B: Characterized the legislation as impacting only trangender people C: Overly broadly stated it would prevent them from using all bathrooms. Correct title:

Gender identity legislation passed during the Obama administration

Because of the total revert of my edit and incompetence of User:Xenophrenic I'm calling in the cavalry so this doesn't end up in an edit war.02:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Whats the question? - I didn't see anything asked about so will only offer that MOS:SECTIONS says some things to avoid and otherwise I'd look to use the WP:COMMONNAME. Markbassett (talk) 03:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
• Do not open RFC on every trivial editing disagreement. Please close this now. Consider starting an RFC after a normal discussion occurs, and keep it brief. Not everyone wants to ponder over all that stuff. Before seeing this, I reviewed the recent changes and think the current (31 March 2017, at 03:01) version is good. Johnuniq (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok I closed the RFC. Sorry, I'm still getting used to Wikipedia and didn't know the option of RFC wasn't always available.Lumbering in thought (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for the proposed changes, Lumbering in thought, and for initiating a discussion about them. Addressing the issues you've raised in order:

I'm concerned WP:POV was breached by User:Xenophrenic. His edit https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Efforts_to_impeach_Barack_Obama&oldid=755890148 said "to properly convey speculative nature". WP:OR is not the job of Wikipedia. --Lumbering

If you'll read the (actual edit) and edit summary more carefully, you'll see it said "rtn summary wording to properly convey the speculative nature of the commentary", and that is what the edit did: it inserted "may have" and "may face" to more closely convey what the source said. Nothing "OR" about that; perhaps you misunderstood what WP:OR is? If you have specific concerns about the speculative "may be impeached" verbiage, please spell them out here. Your references to the Efforts to impeach George W. Bush article are lost on me, by the way, as the same speculative language ("possibly impeachable offenses") is used in the lead sentence of that article, too. And please keep in mind during this discussion that there were actual efforts to impeach Bush, whereas there were no actual efforts against Obama. Perhaps we should be discussing renaming this article.

repeating "Impeachment for" a dozen times is good for creating a mocking tone rather than simply covering the subject at hand --Lumbering

Repeated only four times, actually, but as noted above, the "subject at hand" is "efforts to impeach" (see the article title) which is not covered under any of the nine sub-headers in the article. If you'd like to reduce the redundancy, we can certainly discuss that,

Suggestions of impeachment ... I replaced it with the category of the efforts like was done in George Bush's Correct title: Political views and actions --Lumbering

Again with the comparison with Bush, where actual "efforts to impeach" exist? We probably shouldn't be comparing apples to oranges here; such comparisons don't advance the discussion. Neither "political views" nor substantive "actions" exist in the content which follows your proposed header. What is conveyed are idle speculation, talk-show and townhall bluster, and wishful thinking - no actual "efforts to impeach" exist in our article as it presently stands.

1.1 Impeachment for offering someone a job - This is proclaiming Wikipedia has backed the job as legitimate. Correct title: Legitimacy of a hire --Lumbering

"Offering someone a job" does not make a statement in Wikipedia's voice either way about the legitimacy of said job, whereas inserting the word "legitimacy" into the header uses Wikipedia's voice to imply there is a legitimacy issue, against WP:NPOV.

1.2 Impeachment to prevent Obama from doing things - This is proclaiming Wikipedia has characterized Obama's actions as simply not being comatose. Correct title: The President's agenda --Lumbering

Your correct title is non-descript, and doesn't fit the subsequent content. How would you feel about: Impeachment to prevent Obama from pushing his agenda?

1.3 No one talking about impeachment to prevent Immigration reform - This is proclaiming Wikipedia has backed Obama's Immigration as "reform", AKA the improvement or amendment of what is wrong, not the neutral "policy". Also, it misquoted the senator as saying that the fact that no one spoke yet was a reason to impeach. Correct title: Immigration policy --Lumbering

I don't see a misquote of a senator, you'll need to be more specific in pointing it out. As for the word "reform", that can certainly be replaced with "decisions". The key point of the content following that header, as it relates to the article subject, is that no one is yet talking about impeachment - so that should be conveyed by the header.

1.4 Impeachment for "the most egregious cover-up in American history", Benghazi attack - This is proclaiming Wikipedia would put scarequotes on someone's claim (scarequotes are when there is no person being quoted). Further, the long title serves to mock the contents of the section. Finally, the topic was a response not an attack. Correct title: Benghazi attack response

That's not scare-quotes, as it is indeed a direct quote from a person (Inhofe). And the topic is actually Inhofe's invocation of impeachment for an alleged cover-up of the Benghazi attack. (Yes, there was a Benghazi attack.) I have no objection to adding "response" after Benghazi in the header.

1.5 Impeachment requested by a towhall meeting audience member - This is proclaiming Wikipedia believes the words of the audience member were in this case, incomprehensible. Lazy at best. Correct title: Background check policy

That's an incorrect, cherry-picked title, as the source says It was unclear what specific instance Coburn was referencing as possible grounds for impeachment, and the source speculates on other possible motivations, saying the Internal Revenue Service was also discussed, for example. A header titled "Background check policy" implies there were "Efforts to impeach Barack Obama" for it, which is not conveyed by the source or the section.

1.6 Impeachment for being born outside the United States - This is proclaiming Wikipedia is fine with having the long title serve to mock the contents of the section. Correct title: Birthplace --Lumbering

Mocking the contents? I don't see it; care to explain in what way there is mocking? Looking at your proposed replacement, I don't see in the cited source where Obama's "birthplace" was ever the stated grounds for impeachment. I do, however, read, "Last year's Washington Post-ABC News poll found that a third of self-identified Republicans and conservatives suspected or believed that the president was born outside the United States."

1.7 Dreaming of impeaching Obama - I have to say here that before I noticed there was an article explaining why the congressman dreamed of impeaching Obama, there was a justification for it, being the IRS. User:Xenophrenic decided it was good enough for wikipedia to quote one of the most cherrypicking NYT articles I've ever seen lambasting a congressman for how he felt, but not why he felt it in the same interview. IRS policy --Lumbering

Both cited articles explain the congressman's "dream" to impeach, hence the header title. If you'd like to add "for IRS policy" to it, I wouldn't object. The "sic" tag is there because he said "evidence of impeachment" (there is no evidence that Obama has been impeached) when he clearly meant "evidence for impeachment", and we don't want to confuse our readers. (As for why you linked to an edit of mine where I changed "site" to "blogsite", I don't see the relevance.)

1.8 The impeachment hearing that wasn't - This is proclaiming Wikipedia believes the words of the congressman were in this case, incomprehensible. Lazy at best. Correct title: The President's regard for the constitution

There is nothing in that paragraph about the President's "regard for the constitution", but there is content explaining that the hearing had nothing to do with impeachment. Hence the present header. The actual "fix" would be to remove the content and the header as inapplicable for this article.

1.9 Impeachment for allowing transgender students to use bathrooms - This is proclaiming Wikipedia has A: taken the position that Obama was personally responsible for this legislation and B: Characterized the legislation as impacting only trangender people C: Overly broadly stated it would prevent them from using all bathrooms. Correct title: Gender identity legislation passed during the Obama administration

"responsible for this legislation"? I see no mention of legislation in the header or our article or in the cited source. I do agree that "allowing" could be made more precise by changing it to "directive to allow", since Obama only issued a non-binding directive.

Hopefully that better explains some of my concerns with your proposed wording changes. I understand your concern that present wording conveys a bit of "mockery", but I believe that is just as much due to the fact that the article is ostensibly about "Efforts to impeach" when there have been no such efforts. That "mocking" tone is actually conveyed by several of our cited sources - most prominently the very first one cited, in fact - so it is understandable that our Wikipedia article reflects that. Looking forward to your thoughts, Xenophrenic (talk) 11:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I thought I had picked the one where you made the massive changes. Instead I actually meant this edit where you were "informing the public" on what we agree are pure allegations of various articles mocking the impeachment efforts. If you were still neutral, you'd come out with overly precise "NYT allegation: Bush's stupid misadventures" rather than the Bush page's "Justification for Invasion". I'm afraid you'll still have to respond to my points even if the article is mocking it (which of course you did, but not after your use of kettle logic).

during this discussion that there were actual efforts to impeach Bush, whereas there were no actual efforts against Obama. Perhaps we should be discussing renaming this article.

Thanks for reintroducing your evident bias, in selectively forgetting that impeachment effort doesn't equal impeachment trial and impeachment trial doesn't equal impeachment success. Regardless, from Bush's page:

"At another unofficial hearing convened by Conyers on January 20, 2006, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) called for the committee to explore whether Bush should face impeachment, stemming from his decision to authorize domestic surveillance without court review."

Now to dive in. Legitimacy is not saying that something has legitimacy or not, because it's a noun. Hitler had little (adjective) legitimacy. Yes, I wanted to eliminate the mocking redundancy, and you just acknowledged it... nice filibuster. You shouldn't have put redundancy in either case (you were wrong anyway). The misquote was your title "1.3 No one talking about impeachment" when the congressman said no such thing. The article which you wouldnt say alleged this also didn't slander him in that way. If you wanted to change from that was the reason he wanted to impeach to "Immigration policy that a congressman thought he was the first to talk about" that would be pedantic as per WP:COMMONNAME. I noticed you didn't even revert the article to decisions, which the article itself mentioned policy (decisions can be immaterial, policy isn't). If he was quoted it would've said his name in the title. Maybe that's why you shouldn't have included quotes in the title, making it even longer than it needed to be. And if you didn't include response it would be the attack itself as the coverup, and we wouldn't want that would we? I added the same incidents background check context, but I will add the IRS too. You shouldn't have included an incomplete title (lying by omission) without foreseeing someone coming along and summarizing what the source said, where it was unclear although for this and that. The Birthplace was literally what you said "Being born outside the US" without of course a conclusion for you to mock. I reworked it to "Birth Certificate Eligibility" which has more of the words from the article in it. A poll isn't relevant to this section. Again, pedantic to say "He dreamed about this" or "He thought he was the first to say it". Another summarization that had to be done. Fine, since 1.8 was mere saber rattling I'll remove it, or it would've been given a legitimate title. I put back the sic after seeing it was not really subjunctive (of a legitimate impeachment). Changed the Legislation to the immaterial Policy which may or may not have resulted in unconstitutional legislation. I also didn't vandalize because I accommodated some remarks. Lumbering in thought (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Lumbering in thought. I'm having trouble making sense of most of your response. I see a link you describe as "I actually meant this edit", but it doesn't link to an edit. Then I see a bunch of comments disparaging a fellow editor: ...if you were still neutral...your use of kettle logic...your evident bias...selectively forgetting...nice filibuster...pedantic...lying by omission... Then there are some comments about Bush and Hitler, neither of which pertain to this article. A difficult read.

Of your few points I could decipher, one says there is a "misquote"? I couldn't find it (and I did a complete search of the page for all quotation marks). Only one header has an actual quotation, and I verified that the words were said as written. Another point is that I didn't change "reform" to "decisions", which is correct, as I was waiting for your input. I've now changed "reform" to "decisions" ("policy" is not mentioned in the article, but "decision" is mentioned twice). We can work to improve the wording, of course, but we should strive to maintain the accuracy of the wording, while keeping in mind that "efforts to impeach" is the focus of this article. For example, Inhofe did not say there should be impeachment because the administration responded to the Benghazi attack — which would be silly — he said there should be impeachment for an alleged "cover-up". So changing the header to "Benghazi attack response" would be grossly inaccurate. As for the occasion when an audience member at a townhall asked about impeachment, our source specifically says "It was unclear what specific instance Coburn was referencing as possible grounds for impeachment"; and that is why none of the specific "reasons" (there were 6 discussed, according to the video of the event) appear in our header. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit

This version diff better meets NPOV requirements, IMO. Hence I implemented the edit as shown. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

No, it doesn't at all, which I've explained in my edit summary. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with user:K.e.coffman and user:Grayfell . " false allegations that Obama was born outside of the United States" is how this should read. If user:Joefromrandb wants to make a case for removing "false" from that line then it should be made here, on the talk page, not in edit summaries. I'm also going to restore the source confirming that this was a false accusation that User:Beetlejuicex3 added and that Joefromrandb removed. Meters (talk) 04:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Uh, no. You're the one who wants to change from the long-standing version, so it's not on me to make a case here. Also, where did I remove this source? Joefromrandb (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, I see it now. I think I can fix this. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Please don't Leave it be and discuss things here. Meters (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Ex cathedra pronouncements are not helpful for reaching WP:CONSENSUS. Omitting false would present nonsensical posturing as if it had the status of normal allegations which may be true. Omitting false would mislead readers. Johnuniq (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I retained the source, and also noted that the allegations were proven false, while more-closely following the source, which simply debunks the allegations. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

They were always false. This wasn't a later thing that was plausible at the time, it was always a witch-hunt. It seems clear to me from context that "false allegation" does not mean the same thing as false accusation here. If anyone really think that's a likely problem, some other phrasing could be used to explain, in the lead, that it's not true and was never credible. That's the important part. Grayfell (talk) 04:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. I've changed it yet again, to follow even more closely what the source says. Obviously, President Obama was born in the U.S. There are, in fact, plenty of trolls who know this fully well, yet allege otherwise. Not all of them though. Some people believe this nonsense because they truly don't know any better. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok I'm probably going to get accused of trolling but I was curious to see Joefromrandb's recent edits as I came across him on another page where I totally disagreed with his logic but here I would tend to agree with him that an allegation is an allegation until it is proven to be true or false which comes later. An allegation can be made with no evidence to support its truth but this doesn't make it false. An allegation that has been proven to be false may have been made in good faith so the person making the allegation is not making a "false allegation" even if the evidence does not support it. There are a lot of feeble minded people that refuse to believe the evidence and continue to make allegations and really believe that they are true so despite being told the allegation is false they continue and believe what they say. By saying "false allegations" we are saying that we know for a fact that all the people that are making that allegation know it is not true but are saying it anyway. This is impossible to prove without being a mind-reader. Maybe it would be semantically more correct to say "unsubstantiated allegations" rather than false but what would be a compromise and less messy than the "(which had already been proven false)" after the word allegations. Domdeparis (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I actually prefer "unsubstantiated allegations" -- vs "false allegations" or allegations that have been proven false. This is short and to the point. I also removing the citation, as the fact that these allegations were never substantiated is not controversial. Any feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I changed it to "unsubstantiated". As far as the cite, it's not really necessary, but it doesn't really hurt. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with "unsubstantiated" - it is the most accurate way to describe the allegations during the relevant time frame. bd2412 T 22:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

A better word might be "disproven" (or "previously disproven" or even "already disproven"), since per the citations the allegations had been disproven before he took the office of President and even before the 2008 election. Softlavender (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

They had certainly been disputed and shown to be without basis. That's not quite the same thing as "disproven". The fact that people were talking about impeaching a president over unsubstantiated allegations about his birth provides sufficient context. bd2412 T 23:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

In my view the allegations had been disproven; see the citation. The birth certificate, which by law cannot be released except to persons with a tangible interest in the vital record, had been viewed, verified, and confirmed in a written statement by the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii and the Hawaii Registrar of Vital Statistics. Softlavender (talk) 03:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The claims are disproven, full stop. There is literally nothing more that can be provided to create total metaphysical certitude, short of time-stamped and geotagged film of baby Obama popping out of the womb — although I'm sure the conspiracy nutters would have argued endlessly over its provenance too. We have a literal birth certificate. The claims are false. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @NorthBySouthBaranof: this is a discussion about wording in an article that needs consensus as it has been the object of multiple reverts, it's a shame that just at the moment that a consensus seems to have been reached you have unilaterally decided that your version is better and have imposed it without discussing it first and reaching consensus again. I would suggest that you revert your own edit and wait until there is consensus to accept your point of view. I personally feel that allegation and claim are very similar and we are back to square one because it is impossible to know that the person making the claim knew and believed that his claim was false but it was most certainly unsubstantiated. An allegation or claim can be disproved but at the time of their making can we know that everyone making that claim knew that it was false? As I said before you would have to be a mind reader to be certain. Domdeparis (talk) 08:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

There wasn't necessarily a consensus. Three people agreed on "unsubstantiated", whereas Grayfell, Beetlejuicex3, Meters, Johnuniq, NorthBySouthBaranof, and I appear to have still maintained that that wasn't strong enough and have not agreed on "unsubstantiated", preferring "false" or something similar. In my mind, saying the allegations were "unsubstantiated" is somewhat comparable to saying that the allegation that the moon is made of cheese is "unsubstantiated". Softlavender (talk) 10:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The efforts to remove false from this and other similar articles are often based on a worthwhile desire for philosophical purity—when people have to start with cogito ergo sum, how can anything be known to be unequivocally true or false? That's very fine, but this topic is not about logic. Instead, the issue concerns a political game of muck smearing—repeat a false allegation to distract opponents and to snare the gullible. As Softlavender says, the claim that the moon is made of cheese is unsubstantiated. By contrast, if the word "false" has any meaning, the allegations concerning Obama's birth were false. Using a weasel word like unsubstantiated misleads readers. Johnuniq (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I see no consensus here, and describing false claims about a living person as anything other than directly false is a substantive violation of the biographies of living persons policy insofar as it falsely portrays a living person — Barack Obama — in a negative light. When we make statements about a living person that have been proven false without stating that they have been proven false (stating that there are "issues with Obama's birth certificate", stating that there are "allegations" that he wasn't born in the United States), we are lying by omission about Barack Obama, and that is a clear violation of multiple policies, not only WP:BLP but also WP:DUE and WP:RS. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

By the way, the source for Farenthold's impeachment claims says he made them in a town hall meeting in 2013 — that is two years after Obama publicly released his long-form birth certificate (in 2011) which should have, for all time, put to rest and disproven any such conspiracy theories. At any point after that time, a person is not just making "unsubstantiated claims," they are repeating nonsensical lies, and Wikipedia must say so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the focus of this article is efforts to impeach, for which the substance of this particular accusation is of minor importance. bd2412 T 14:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The substance of any accusation about a living person is of the utmost importance in any article. We cannot present false claims about a living person as anything other than false. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The sword cuts both ways. Are we making the accusation that the Congressman, Blake Farenthold (also a living person) knowingly made a false claim about Obama? bd2412 T 16:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The article text does not say that Farenthold "knowingly" made a false claim; any such supposition is entirely inference on your part. Intent or knowledge is not at issue here — the claim was and is false, whether or not he knew it or should have known it. Not "knowing" that a claim was false doesn't somehow make that claim "unsubstantiated" rather than false. If I claim that Donald Trump is a space alien from Omicron Persei 8, do we describe that claim as "unsubstantiated" or "false"? Maybe I don't *know* that Trump isn't Lrrr's long-lost nephew, but that claim is still false whether I "know" it or not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I still maintain that someone making a false claim is doing so in the knowledge that it is false and there is nothing to prove that they did but there is proof that it was unsubstantiated. @Softlavender: your exemple of green cheese is not really applicable because no-one in their right minds would suggest that, because it is clearly impossible. Even if it is not true it is perfectly feasible that a particular person was not born where or when he says he was born. I could make the claim that you were born in 1954, I have no idea if it is false or not but it is clearly unsubstantiated and contrary to what you have written on your user page but you would have to present your birth certificat for it to become false and even then I could say I don't believe that it is a real birth certificate etc. If however I had been at your birth in 1955 and I said that you were born in 1954 it is clearly a false claim. What I'm trying to get at is there is a difference between making a claim that one knows to be false (and only the claimants are capable of telling us if that was the case) and claiming something without proof or not believing that the proof is real. Domdeparis (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe @Grayfell:, @Beetlejuicex3:, @Meters: and would like to say what they think as for the moment myself, Joefromrandb, Ke Coffmann and bd4212 prefer "Unsubstantiated" (which by the way is factual and absolutely not a WP:WEASEL word) to "false" and NorthBysouthbaranof and SoftLavanender and Johnuniq wish to retain "false". Domdeparis (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

A claim which is "unsubstantiated" may be true. The claim that Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii is false. Describing the false claim that Barack Obama has lied about his birth and citizenship as possibly true is a) not supported by reliable sources and b) a flagrant violation of BLP. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I think we should just day "false". The claims were known to be incorrect when they were made. We are not saying anything about the motives behind the claim. There's no BLP issue there. It's not for us to say whether the claimants were unaware that the claims were already known to be false, honestly didn't believe the proof, or knew that the claims were false and didn't care. What is important is to say that the claims were inoorrect. They should not be described as simply "allegations" or "unsubstantiated allegations" or even "unsubstantiated allegations (later proved to be false)".

I got involved in this because an editor had removed the source showing that the claim was false, and then came back later and removed "false" completely. The other alternatives suggested are all improvements over a bare "allegations" but I don't think any of them are as goof as "false allegations". Meters (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of motive, the conspiracy theory was fabricated without any evidence, and available evidence easily proved to a reasonable standard that it was false. "Unsubstantiated" imparts no real meaning. It was unsubstantiated from the perspective of people who hadn't looked at it closely, or disregarded contrary evidence. Isn't that true for pretty much everything, though? Object permanence is unsubstantiated to a new born, but that doesn't mean it's unsubstantiated in the general sense. It's more important to note that it was disproved long before impeachment was an option. Using "unsubstantiated" as a synonym for "made-up" is incorrect, or at least euphemistic. That's not going to work. Grayfell (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

False claims

"False claims" is short and to the point, so I made the change: diff.

In addition, I don't think we need the citation in the lead as it suggests that, somehow, there's still possible doubt (which there's not, just conspiracy theories). I kept the cite for now, however. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to removing the cite that I restored if the lede is stable and no-one considers "false" controversial. Meters (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I originally added the citation, but I agree with you that it should be removed. Beetlejuicex3 (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)