Talk:Efforts to impeach Andrew Johnson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Johnson
Andrew Johnson

Created by SecretName101 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

It's an appropriate standalone article because it largely details efforts to impeach Johnson separate from his actual 1968 impeachment. Much like efforts to impeach Donald Trump largely describes efforts to impeach him separate from the two impeachments he actually received. The "previous efforts to impeach" section on the article about Johnson's impeachment did not even exist until after this article (which discusses those efforts in greater detail) was written SecretName101 (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • New enough, long enough, and sourced. Hooks are short enough, sufficiently interesting, and supported by citation. No QPQ requirement -- three prior DYKs.
One issue requires attention. Earwig detected a few instances of close paraphrasing with the House History web site (here). Nothing egregious but a little work would be appropriate to address this.
Example 1. Wikipedia: "Around this same time, in 1866, the popular Major General Benjamin Butler, a candidate for the House, regularly denounced Johnson from the stump and called for his removal from office.." House History: "the popular Major General Benjamin F. Butler, at the time a candidate for the House, routinely denounced the President from the stump and called for Johnson’s removal."
Example 2. Wikipedia: "Based upon Ashley’s impeachment resolution, the Judiciary Committee began gathered evidence from witnesses in closed sessions. While the committee did run out of time, with the 39th Congress expiring, they ruled that they had received “sufficient testimony” to continue their investigation in the new 40th Congress." House History: "Working from Ashley’s impeachment resolution, the Judiciary Committee receded from the public spotlight as it gathered evidence from witnesses in closed sessions. Eventually the committee ran out of time and the 39th Congress came to an end. But the committee had gathered “sufficient testimony” to continue the investigation in the new 40th Congress".
Example 3. Wikipedia: "President Johnson kept secret tabs on the House impeachment inquiry through the Pinkerton Detective Agency." House History: "Johnson secretly kept tabs on the House impeachment inquiry using the Pinkerton Detective Agency." Cbl62 (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Example 3. Wikipedia: "...offering Republicans a chance to register their displeasure with Johnson, without actually formally impeaching him." House History: "... allowing Republicans to register their displeasure with the Johnson without committing to impeachment."

Cbl62 (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I felt I could be a little looser with paraphrasing, since, as a work of an officer of the United States government as part of their job, the work featured on the House of Representatives website is not copyright-protected, and is therefore public domain. SecretName101 (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have revised example one, however. SecretName101 (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improvements made to the paraphrasing issues detected by Earwig. And I hear what the nom says about this being a government work. Still, and as a double-check, it would be good if the queue creator or someone with specialized copyright knowledge were to give this a second look before it appears on the Main Page. Cbl62 (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before promoting this to prep, I checked the copyright position and found it to be OK. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]