Talk:Impeachment of Andrew Johnson

3 additional Republicans who voted not guilty
Dixon (CT), Doolittle (WI), and Norton (MN) are all listed as Republicans on multiple wikipedia pages, yet the article only talks about 7 Republicans (all named) who vote not guilty. Anyone know why these 3 seem to be forgotten ?

earlier attempts
I notice that the 1867 attempt, which got out of the committee and failed, as well as the attempt against John Tyler, isn't mentioned. I'm not sure that the Tyler stuff is Germaine, and the 1867 attempt should be here. I made a few small revisions to reflect that those events happened.

Old vandalism
I just reverted this edit by an IP with only two edits, both vandalism, that has lain undisturbed since 27-Sep-2011! For more than 8 years and 4 months, nine hundred edits have been made, and nobody noticed this obvious anachronism! It should be obvious that no senator was offered cash cards either to acquit Johnson or to convict him! -- 76.15.128.196 (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are implying that we would be happy to have you stick around and help us fight vandalism, then you are correct.  G M G  talk  20:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Only Two Have Been Impeached
in the introduction it mentions he is one of two president to have been impeached. The number is now three, warrants updating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.215.16 (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, the last sentence in the introduction mentions that for over a century Johnson was the only president to be impeached: "". Though three presidents have indeed been impeached, no updating is needed, as the statement remains historically accurate. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Your claim of the introduction remaining historically accurate is in error as the third impeachment is factually now a part of accurate history and remains relevant to this article which references the impeachment of Presidents.

Popular culture
The movie with Lionel Barrymore. Jplvnv (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Unsure about what you want, as you made a statement rather than a request. Presuming you're referring to the 1942 film Tennessee Johnson and wishing to have it mentioned in the article, I have added it to the See also section. Drdpw (talk) 02:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Table on impeachment article votes is helpful
I don't know why you feel your prerogative must be the default. The table was non-detrimental. How come you insist that I must discuss it in the talk page to make the addition, rather instead having you need to talk here first to make that subtraction. I asked you not to engage in borderline edit warring. You have not given a legitimate argument against the table being useful. Despite your insistence, two sentences of prose do not provide more information than the table does. As I said, the table greatly helps visual learners (particularly those who learn visually about numbers, and have difficulty picturing math when described in prose). The table's storability also readily allows for comparisons to be made between how many votes were cast in what way by each party compared to other articles, which is useful and engaging for readers, and would otherwise require great work for them to figure out on their own. On votes this consequential, it is important we be as illustrative as possible of how they played-out. On similar articles on other impeachments, we have tables for each article of impeachment, rather than prose describing them as "largely party line, except for....". Why should this impeachment differ? SecretName101 (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * First, yes, it was my prerogative to revert what I considered an edit that, IMO, did not enhance the article. To this visual learner it was just a wall of numbers, as I stated in my edit summary. Everything else is moot now; the tables you have most recently added are vastly better and in sync with the others. Drdpw (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)