Battles of Cabin Creek

Page contents not supported in other languages.

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)[reply]

If you are implying that we would be happy to have you stick around and help us fight vandalism, then you are correct. GMGtalk 20:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Actually, the last sentence in the introduction mentions that for over a century Johnson was the only president to be impeached: "Johnson remained the only U.S. president to have been impeached and face a Senate trial for over a century, until Bill Clinton became the second in 1998". 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Table on impeachment article votes is helpful

@Drdpw: 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)[reply]

@SecretName101: 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)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Impeachment of Andrew Johnson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lingzhi.Renascence (talk · contribs) 01:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SecretName101. It looks like this nom is languishing. I'll look at it. Please be advised that I am juggling things IRL and will work on this at a slow pace. The GAN instructions say seven days, but I think I'll be lucky to be done that fast. Maybe 2 weeks. If that's too slow, let me know and I'll bow out... I am old-fashioned. I can already say that there are too many collapsible tables etc. for my taste, BUT please don't go crazy and start deleting them for that reason. I absolutely will not fail the GAN because of that. I assume you're gonna go to FAC some day; let them worry about it... I also hope you won't get bothered if I request some sources from time to time (?). That's just who I am. Anyhow, later § Lingzhi.Renascence (talk) 01:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. This article is somewhat long and detailed and will take a while to process. If I raise a point that is actually covered later in the article, please forgive me.
  2. The very first mention of Thadeus Stevens says Johnson denounced him as a traitor, without explaining why this serious charge was made; the second reference is "Despite Thadeus Stevens being the chair of the committee...", yet we have no idea why good ol' Tad deserves the word "despite". It's really much farther down below where I see something like "Tad was considered to be the leader...". So, that raises a question: does the background section need to discuss the main figures involved, what roles they played, and why they were involved? It might not take more than a few sentences. § Lingzhi.Renascence (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I've been doing some reading of sources. I don't think this article handles the topic with the depth or nuance that I would like to see in a FAC, but this ain't FAC. I will consider this... After thought, I'm gonna make recommendations for expansion, including citing sources, whenever/wherever I think they might be useful. Hopefully this will aid any article expansion or FAC drive. As I go forward, I will be operating under the assumption that these are not items that would make the article fail GAN under WP:WIAGA item 3. When I'm totally done and I have a better understanding of the topic, I may decide that some omission(s) is/are large enough to violate WIAGA. Any suggestions will be indented below this. § Lingzhi.Renascence (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sources spot check:
    Source with highest number of cites is "The House Impeaches Andrew Johnson", currently 18th note. It is WP:RS.
    Source: "Stevens took the floor to criticize the Committee of Seven for letting Johnson off too easily". WP: "Stevens took the floor to criticize the committee of seven for going too easy on Johnson"
    Source: "The articles of impeachment before the House, Stevens said, failed to address just how much Johnson had endangered America’s governing structure". WP: "Stevens argued that the articles put before the house had failed to address just how much Johnson had imperiled the governing structure of the United States"
    Source: "Hoping to strengthen the case they were about to bring before the Senate, the impeachment managers asked the House the very next day, March 3, to consider additional charges.". WP: "The following day, in hopes of strengthening the case that they would bring before the Senate, the impeachment managers requested that the House consider additional charges".  § Lingzhi.Renascence (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Second source checked, "The Impeachment of Andrew Johnson (1868) President of the United States", currently the 26th note. With 7 cites, source is 404 Error (not found). Using archived link instead:
    Source: "...the president hoped to replace him with Ulysses S. Grant, whom Johnson believed to be more in line with his own political thinking. In August of 1867, while Congress was in recess, Johnson suspended Stanton and appointed Grant as secretary of war ad interim. When the Senate opposed Johnson’s actions and reinstated Stanton in the fall, Grant resigned, fearing punitive action and possible consequences for his own presidential ambitions. Furious with his congressional opponents, Johnson fired Stanton and informed Congress of this action, then named Major General Lorenzo Thomas, a long-time foe of Stanton, as interim secretary. Stanton promptly had Thomas arrested for illegally seizing his office. " WP: "When the Senate adopted a resolution of non-concurrence with Stanton's dismissal in December 1867, Grant told Johnson he was going to resign, fearing punitive legal action. Johnson assured Grant that he would assume all responsibility in the matter, and asked him to delay his resignation until a suitable replacement could be found." Our WP text here seems to be a combination of ideas from more than one source, but there is only one cite. Forex, highlighted text not in source. Second, this phrase "adopted a resolution of non-concurrence with Stanton's dismissal" is in other sources; will check. § Lingzhi.Renascence (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Third Source: Trefousse, Hans L. (1989). Andrew Johnson: A Biography. New York City: W. W. Norton & Company. p. 306. Currently cite 35, with a link to book text. WP: "On February 21, 1868, the president appointed Lorenzo Thomas, a brevet major general in the Army, as secretary of war ad interim. Johnson thereupon informed the Senate of his decision. Thomas personally delivered the president's dismissal notice to Stanton, who rejected the legitimacy of the decision. Rather than vacate his office, Stanton barricaded himself inside and ordered Thomas arrested for violating the Tenure of Office Act. He also informed Speaker of the House Schuyler Colfax and President Pro Tempore of the Senate Benjamin Wade of the situation." I can't find anything of this on cited page. Thomas delivering the letter is on p. 312, and his arrest is on p. 314. There's no mention of Schuyler Colfax or Benjamin Wade in any page nearby, and in particular, not of them being specifically notified. § Lingzhi.Renascence (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fourth source check, Gerhardt, Michael J. "Essays on Article I: Trial of Impeachment". Currently citation #79. Source: "In the first presidential impeachment trial in 1868, Chief Justice Salmon Chase claimed the authority to decide certain procedural questions on his own, but the Senate challenged several of his rulings and overruled him at least twice." WP: "The extent of Chase's authority as presiding officer to render unilateral rulings was a frequent point of contention during the rules debate and trial. He initially maintained that deciding certain procedural questions on his own was his prerogative; but after the Senate challenged several of his rulings, he gave up making rulings." Nothing in source about Chase giving up. No mention of a rules debate. This cite is perhaps a little better than previous ones. § Lingzhi.Renascence (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to say that this review has Failed as per WP:V and WP:CLOP. If you believe that you did not receive an adequate review, you may ask for additional input on the GAN discussion page. § Lingzhi.Renascence (talk) 03:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lingzhi.Renascence the source you claimed had close parahprasing is public domain material. Work of historian of the United States Congress (government work product). I have been told in the past in this that closer paraphrasing than usually-permitted is allow4ed for cited material that is in public domain, such as government work product and works with expired copyright. SecretName101 (talk) 04:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and sorry. yes. Striking through the "The House Impeaches Andrew Johnson" item. That still leaves WP:V issues, which seem nontrivial... § Lingzhi.Renascence (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi.Renascence I agree. At a cursory look, a lot of these appear to be in sections of the "background" section the pre-existed my contributions to the article (work that I had retained without revisiting). But they certainly need to be addressed. SecretName101 (talk) 04:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest overhaul and re-nominate. If you wish, you can ping me when it is done, and I will review again. But again I can't promise speed. § Lingzhi.Renascence (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    c. (OR):
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    b. (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Speaking of expansion, personally I would not recommend any overall expansion. The word count is about what I like to see at FAC considering that a some of the article's material is in bullet points or tables that are not counted in prosesize. Expanding any more is likely to worsen readability more than it helps comprehensiveness. That said, it should be possible to remove some content (possibly splitting off into sub-articles) at the same time as adding new content if there is other content that needs to be in the article. (t · c) buidhe 23:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. Every article should be exactly long enough to cover the topic in a way that accurately reflects the major thrust of WP:RS; any reviewer's opinions about size are of course of distant, secondary importance. Can anything be deleted from this? How much should be added? I dunno yet. We'll see. § Lingzhi.Renascence (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For some topics there is enough RS coverage to fill bookshelves. An encyclopedia article cannot be that long if it's going to be readable. Hence it's worthwhile to keep articles concise to help our readers, and that's why there are guidelines for article size. (t · c) buidhe 23:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your insights. I'll keep them in mind as I continue the review... § Lingzhi.Renascence (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Impeachment_of_Andrew_Johnson