Talk:Impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson

Would copy-edit assistance (via Sandbox or otherwise) help the Review process?
I’m newish; I’m close to 500 edits, the vast majority of which are basic copy edits. I saw that this article is up for formal review. I don’t have the WP skills to handle all aspects of a worthwhile review, but I am interested in the topic and can credibly offer copy editing. In a preliminary read of a few hundred words, I saw several formulations that I thought warranted editing. So far, in my dipping in and out of dozens of articles by whim, I have just published my edits (while trying to learn WP policies & MOS as I go). In this case, though, would it be more helpful to you, User:SecretName101, for me to set up my Sandbox (which I have not done yet) and accumulate a batch of proposed edits for your review? (No pun intended, I guess.) Or should I just publish as I have the last few months, and let you and other users decide if I am ‘improving’ the article? I don’t want to interfere with the review process; that certainly would NOT improve our encyclopedia. IMPORTANT: I have very limited capacity most days; hence my decision to be an editing dilettante most of the time so far. Sandbox (or other logistical tactics) would be a significant change for me, and I cannot promise quick comprehensive suggestions. Thanks for all your work on this article, and for your ‘advice & consent’ (pun definitely intended). Left Central (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not having replied (just realized I never had). Any copy editing help would be wonderful and invited! Thank you so much for offering. If the offer still stands, I'd be grateful. SecretName101 (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Oops! Just saw this Talk thread (and the gracious reply to me by @SecretName101, above). Sorry for the tardy attention. Upshot for @Kwkintegrator: there are still many unresolved copy-edit needs, and I am not certain I can meet the 9 pm Eastern timeframe (although I will try — see the copy-edit thread). More soon. Left Central (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @SecretName101 — Please see my note on the GA Review thread. I sincerely apologize for not seeing your courteous reply until this morning. (I’m currently on Pacific Breakfast Time. :) I immediately jumped back into the Article and still see a lot of specific problems. And I would be honored to apply my skills to the awesome work you’ve done on getting this High-Importance Article this far!! Two issues: First, the timing is tough. I have many other pending obligations this week that will make it hard for me to be done by 9 pm Eastern tomorrow. Second, in the quarter since my April offer, I’ve doubled+ my edit total, learning a bit more every week. SO: here’s my proposal for us proceeding together now (which I very much want to do): No Sandbox (in the interests of time), but rather I would just jump in at the top and work my way down, as quickly as I can make the time work, edit by edit. THEN (using soccer metaphors): You (I propose) would Revert anything you see as a Red Card and we would hash it out in Talk if necessary. And you would go to Talk on this thread for anything you see as a Yellow Card, tagging me in the Talk Reply. On my other edits, no news is good news. WikiMagic will Notify me on any Reverts or Talk citations; I will see those on my phone and will respond ASAP. Does that work for you?? BUT this is a pretty huge article, and I may well be the bottleneck on timing — again, sorry! That’s for you and @Kwkintegrator to work out: above my pay grade, but I will do my best to plow ahead. Thanks again for all your excellent work on this Article! Be well — Left Central (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, Hell… embarrassing. I muddled the threads. Anyway, @User:SecretName101 and @User:Kwkintegrator, at least I did propose a copy-edit plan. Please just let me know if that makes sense. Best wishes! Left Central (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi @Left Central, don't worry about finishing things by Friday, Friday is just when I wanted to know if there was more work to be done before movign forward. Happy to wait for @SecretName101 to offer their thoughts. If Sandbox is your preferred method I have no issues with that, but also happy from my end to just review your edits direct in the article (it probably is easier for me that way, but I can work with either direction). Kwkintegrator (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks like we’re going with « direct in the article » plus Talk for discussion. Simpler for all 3 of us (plus, of course, anyone else who wants to cannonball into this swimming hole we’re in). 🙏🏼 Left Central (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

At the moment I have no major edits planned. Unless further research (Every now and then I am digging up some harder to reach sources just to further cover my bases) leads to me find significant additions, I see none coming on my part. Happy to see Left Central contributing copy edits. SecretName101 (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'll go ahead and process this tomorrow. Kwkintegrator (talk) 03:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Discrepancy between two articles on the same subject
Hi, I've noticed two articles on this same topic speak of two different results on voting on the Eleventh Article:

This article says: "The eleventh article saw a vote of *32–21* to convict, falling one vote short of the two-thirds majority needed for a conviction."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Andrew_Johnson#Verdict says the following: "The Senate was composed of 54 members representing 27 states [...] at the time of the trial. At its conclusion, senators voted on three of the articles of impeachment. On each occasion the vote was *35–19*, with 35 senators voting guilty and 19 not guilty. As the constitutional threshold for a conviction in an impeachment trial is a two-thirds majority guilty vote, 36 votes in this instance, Johnson was not convicted.

Which one of these is correct? FatMax1492 (talk) 10:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)