Talk:Impeachment of Andrew Johnson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

what are the advantages and disadvantages of impeachment as a means of removing a president from office?

[edit] 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" and wonder where the missing bit is. jae 13:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Triple Flags

Where to begin with 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)

[edit] 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)