Controversion on the Subject of Impeachment

Well... I'm not sure if that's right or not. We may be getting tangled up over the term "historical accuracy". Here's a bit about each of those two words; which also gets into another of our major policies/review criteria, neutrality (handled differently on Wikinews than on Wikipedia).

• History is the province of Wikipedia. History is not news. History is written later, and contains in it all the biases that people develop from discussing things and from knowing what happens later.
• Our news articles aspire to be absolutely accurate for all time. We shouldn't say it unless it's true. If we ever say anything that's wrong —and the article gets beyond 24 hours post-publication, so that our archive policy kicks in— we issue a {{correction}}. We hate like blazes to do that, at the same time as it's a point of pride that we are completely up-front about it while msm tends to downplay it or even sweep it under the carpet.
• A major tool we (and careful journalists elsewhere) use to maintain accuracy is attribution: if there's any possible question about a claim-of-fact, rather than report it as fact in our own voice, we report factually that such-and-such-party claimed it. (One also does this if the reader should known where it came from in order to be better able to judge that it is accurate, and one also does it to give credit to another news service for having gotten an exclusive, just as we would expect them to give us credit when repeating an exclusive of ours.)

If somebody claims Trump hasn't really been impeached, that honestly sounds to me like politically-motivated semantic quibbling. That it's in the New York Post tends to support that theory. In any case, getting back to the question of this article and its writing (which btw is in theory a topic for the article's talk page, rather than its opinions page, but this thread straddles that line so I see no need to try to move or split it) — a common-sense summary description of what happened is that the House impeached him, and the article goes on to be very clear on the specifics of exactly what did happen, so I don't think there's any reasonable grounds for a {{correction}} here.

Thank you for clearing it up, I see why making a whole separate article is preferred now. I don't think that's necessary though since people can just go to these discussions (right?).

Have a merry new years :)