Talk:Impeachment of Alejandro Mayorkas
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
Requested move 7 February 2024 edit
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved to Impeachment of Alejandro Mayorkas given recent events. (non-admin closure) elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Impeachment inquiry into Alejandro Mayorkas → Impeachment process into Alejandro Mayorkas – The previous title covered the inquiry and the impeachment filing, which is the division that has been established for other articles. There will not be a separate article on Mayorkas' impeachment should it come to fruition today. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support because there will likely be another potential impeachment vote, and either way it goes, this is a process not a mere inquiry. If the second vote fails, that implies the process has failed twice, and if it succeeds it will be the first impeachment of a cabinet official in about 150 years. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Confusing wording edit
This statement (in the lead) is very confusing. Can someone please reword it? Thanks. Mayorkas is the first sitting Cabinet member and the second to serve the position to be impeached after Secretary of War William W. Belknap in 1876. Thanks. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Restore article content edit
Users are repeatedly reverting my edit to the article lead that expands upon the information in the article. I added information to state that the Senate vote on the point of order dismissing the impeachment was along party lines, much like the vote to refer the impeachment to the full House as stated above it. I also added that the point of order "falsely" stated that the articles did not allege crimes, since they alleged failure to comply with immigration law, dereliction of duty, perjury, and contempt of congress. All crimes and all stated in the article's infobox. Finally, in my most recent edit, I added information about the republican senators who spoke after the adjournment and cited C-SPAN. Since I was inexplicably blocked for reverting reverts to my own work, could someone kindly re-add my edit. Thank you. MonsterMash51 (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- The first infraction in your long list of disruptive edits was the "falsely stated" bit, which was your opinion expressed as if it were fact--you tried that five times. The second part, well first of all it was sourced to a C-SPAN video, and here on Wikipedia we use secondary sources, not primary sources; besides that, its content really just said "Republicans stayed afterward and complained", which is not unexpected, but also unencyclopedic. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure why you're attacking me as being disruptive. The articles do allege crimes so it would be false to say they don't. The not using primary source thing is dubious. According to WP:PRIMARYCARE, "Material based on primary sources can be valuable and appropriate additions to Wikipedia articles, but only in the form of straightforward descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source." Also, WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. MonsterMash51 (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- How is saying you are disruptive an "attack"? You are currently actually blocked for disruption, so... The material you inserted doesn't meet the PRIMARYCARE requirement, and at any rate it can be valuable--meaning it doesn't have to be, and thus it depends on consensus. You didn't have consensus. Drmies (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure why you're attacking me as being disruptive. The articles do allege crimes so it would be false to say they don't. The not using primary source thing is dubious. According to WP:PRIMARYCARE, "Material based on primary sources can be valuable and appropriate additions to Wikipedia articles, but only in the form of straightforward descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source." Also, WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. MonsterMash51 (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- The Senate agreed to a point of order which found that the articles of impeachment were unconstitutional. You cannot add a "false" moniker because that's what the Senate found. Your later point probably works in the body but I think putting it in the lead is likely WP:UNDUE. Esolo5002 (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- That gets into whether the Senate can be wrong. Impeachment is ultimately a political process and it would seem Senate Democrats agreed to the point of order for political reasons rather than legal or factual reasons. That's my opinion about why they made that conclusion but it still seems like a false conclusion. The plain text of the articles allege crimes (again, listed in the infobox). Whether those crimes were committed is another question that ultimately wasn't decided.I would not be against adding the mention of the Mike Lee's colloquy to the reaction section. I was actually looking into expanding upon it there before I was blocked. I disagree that it would be WP:UNDUE because it's referencing the widely held viewpoint of one of the two country's main parties. MonsterMash51 (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think you are demonstrating a few errors of perception here. You saying there's a widely held viewpoint doesn't make it so, and even if it were true, it would require proper secondary sources. Our guidelines for balance do not require every possible viewpoint be represented, and again, in "a point of order that falsely stated that the articles of impeachment did not comply with the United States Constitution", your insertion is your opinion. And maybe that's the Republican opinion too, but that's not what you wrote: you wrote it as if it were an objective fact. Drmies (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- That gets into whether the Senate can be wrong. Impeachment is ultimately a political process and it would seem Senate Democrats agreed to the point of order for political reasons rather than legal or factual reasons. That's my opinion about why they made that conclusion but it still seems like a false conclusion. The plain text of the articles allege crimes (again, listed in the infobox). Whether those crimes were committed is another question that ultimately wasn't decided.I would not be against adding the mention of the Mike Lee's colloquy to the reaction section. I was actually looking into expanding upon it there before I was blocked. I disagree that it would be WP:UNDUE because it's referencing the widely held viewpoint of one of the two country's main parties. MonsterMash51 (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- (driveby gawker here) the part that makes it disruptive is doing it five times. It sounds like you may possibly be trying to do the right thing, and may even know something about American politics. What I would recommend is a long slow re-read of the reliable sources policy with particular attention to verifiabilty and primary sources. Right now I am thinking that a sanction of some sort may be needed to get your attention and I plan to say so at ANI. Note, I am not watching this page; just came by to assessnthe situation. Elinruby (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)