Talk:Impeachment of Andrew Johnson/Archive 1

Some problems

 * 1. Why is the first heading titled "follow up?"
 * 2. This article is incomplete as it does not include the results of the trial.  (Like the votes for/against impeachment)

Rooot 05:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It really is an "articulus interruptus" ;) You come to the "end" wonder where the missing bit is. jae 13:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions
Yes, I agree that the grammar and neutrality are horrible. But what needs to be done first is the citations. Getting the right information out there is the most important thing to do, then the grammar and neutrality should follow. Socrates Jones (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Triple Flags
Where to the problems with this article...

First, the article is overly sympathetic towards Andrew Johnson. It sounds like it was written by a Democrat who was out to prove that the Radical Republicans were unjustified in impeaching Johnson. It needs to be re-written to conform with NPOV standards.

Second, the article is utterly devoid of citations. It contains questionable statements from the very first sentence, such as that the impeachment of Johnson was "the biggest affair of Recontstruction" and also contains quotes with no sources to back them up. For an article this long, two references is hardly what I would consider to be adequate. And even if it were, there still need to be in-text citations to support all of the article's numerous specious claims.

Thirdly, the grammar in the article is on a high school level. If I wanted to take the time to go through and correct all its problems, I would. Maybe I will, just not right now. Someone needs to go through and make the article conform with standards of proper written American English. If no one else does it then I will whenever I get the chance. --Antodav2007 20:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to help with this situation that is unpredictably bad you can help ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.34.124 (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Follow Up
Based on various suggestions above, I will edit the article to present a more neutral point of view. I personally noticed that alot of the verbiage used presented a persuasive essay in the advancement of Johnson's cause. I'm not an expert at this, but I will attempt, rather than fussing over it here and taking no action. Sir Adrian Fayan Talk  02:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV problem?
The last paragraph under "later vindication" seems to not be NPOV. Could somebody take a look at this? I don't want to change it myself since it is a long-standing edit from January of 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Impeachment_of_Andrew_Johnson&action=historysubmit&diff=265918305&oldid=264787529 69.246.10.88 (talk) 01:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you are right; there is certainly historical doubt as to whether Johnson was really "vindicated". Please feel free to make the changes you see fit.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Kind of went a 180... Now, instead of being edited for balance, it's just two contradictory viewpoints sitting next to one another. Editing for clarity and balance... nf utvol (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Presidential impeachment
Actually Richard Nixon was impeached before William Clinton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.120.31 (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, actually no. Nixon would have been impeached (and convicted) but never actually was. I do, however, admire the certitude with which you were wrong.--172.190.110.169 (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 13 May 2016

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Nothing moved - RMs should be discussed and resolved here not elsewhere Mike Cline (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

– Right now, we have three different formats used for these article titles. Over at WP:VP/Pr, I've proposed renaming all of them, but I can't figure out how to make the template automatically direct readers to that page, so I have to set it up here. Please go to WP:VP/Pr to offer your opinions, rather than leaving them here. Nyttend (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Impeachment and acquittal of Andrew Johnson → uncertain1
 * Impeachment and acquittal of Bill Clinton → uncertain2
 * Impeachment of Fernando Lugo → uncertain3
 * Impeachment of Merceditas Gutierrez → uncertain4
 * Impeachment of Renato Corona → uncertain5
 * Impeachment of Shirani Bandaranayake → uncertain6
 * Impeachment of Warren Hastings → uncertain7
 * Impeachment process against Dilma Rousseff → uncertain8
 * Retain current titles for now. With central discussion ongoing, time to leave them alone temporarily until the central discussion is over. George Ho (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We need to have some degree of precision. Impeachment of Warren Hastings, for example, involves an unsuccessful attempt at impeachment. The problem arises in the ambiguity of the term itself. In the United States government, impeachment is the first step in a two-step process, where a public figure is sought to be removed from office by a congressional vote. There are other systems where this is a one-step process, so the "impeachment" is like a trial, not the result of one. bd2412  T 22:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a massive multiple-nomination discussion. If titles are not proposed, why discussing this in the first place? Also, I have done multiple-nomination discussions before, and some... well, they do not turn out successful. Also, we still have a central discussion, and I was nearly reluctant to call it forum shopping because... I've been accused of doing so. If closing the discussion now is impossible, what else are we gonna do? George Ho (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Impeachment and acquittal of Bill Clinton which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Untitled
What are the advantages and disadvantages of impeachment as a means of removing a president from office?
 * Well for one it means that there's a legal option and assassins aren't the go to option anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.77.9.98 (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Table like Bill Clinton's page has
Clinton's page has a nice table of showing how each senator voted sure would be nice to see that on the Johnson page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.19.89 (talk) 19:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * https://www.archives.gov/historical-docs/todays-doc/?dod-date=516
 * http://digitalexhibits.wsulibs.wsu.edu/files/original/68f2deb285c0b1b1dab51ebcc2c6dffd.jpg the other 2 roll call

Should it be noted that 10 states (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia) had not been readmitted to Congress? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.19.89 (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Impeachment of Andrew Johnson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101104111013/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/impeach/articles.html to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/impeach/articles.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101104111013/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/impeach/articles.html to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/impeach/articles.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

heritage foundation citation
Citation #23 is by the Heritage Foundation, en extreme right wing propaganda think tank. Any chance we can reevaluate or remove the statement or find a more reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.186.238 (talk) 23:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Petition regarding abolition of the presidency
A section with the title above was added with this edit several years ago without any discussion. The source is an archived copy of the actual petition that was apparently signed by only a couple dozen people. There is no indication that the petition ever resulted in any actual action being taken. This seems to be a very trivial entry. I have removed the section. If someone objects, please continue with this discussion that I have started. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Poorly worded
The following sentence: "Together, they have gained a historical reputation as an act of political expedience, rather than necessity, which was based on Johnson's defiance of an unconstitutional piece of legislation, and which was conducted with little regard for the will of a general public which, despite the unpopularity of Johnson, opposed the impeachment." is very long and very unclear, involving the use of the word "which" three times. I don't even know what the author is trying to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.211.71.120 (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Info Box
Would be nice to have a info box like the one for Clinton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.61.143 (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Wiki list of articles of impeachment does not match U.S. Gov. list.
I suggested changes earlier but the editor did not understand the reason (my bad) and reverted them. Whoever created the Wiki list for this article apparently was not careful when going through the actual text of the Article of Impeachment. It is a slog, but a more careful reader will see that the earlier contributor was sloppy. I only fact-checked Article 10 and 11 and saw glaring difference.
 * FINAL PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 10	In the Wikipedia article, this charge appears as #11
 * "Which said utterances, declarations, threats, and harangues, highly censurable in any, are peculiarly indecent and unbecoming in the Chief Magistrate of the United States, by means whereof said Andrew Johnson has brought to high office of the President of the United States into contempt, ridicule, and disgrace, to the great scandal of all good citizens, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did commit, and was then and there guilty of a high misdemeanor in office."


 * ARTICLE 11
 * Johnson "...unlawfully, and in disregard of the requirement of the Constitution, that he should take care that the laws be faithfully executed"..."unlawfully devising and contriving, and attempting to devise and contrive means by which he should prevent Edwin M. Stanton from forthwith resuming the functions of the office of Secretary for the Department of War...."  blah blah

I URGE A WIKIPEDIA EDITOR to visit the Federal site to determine the correct content to summarize and port here for visitors. It's possilbe that all the Articles need correction. Go to -

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry11565 (talk) 21:58, 24 December, 2019 (UTC)

✅: I have imported text of 1868 articles of impeachment from Congressional Research Service document 98-763. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)