Controversion on the Subject of Impeachment

There is an argument to whether or not he was actually impeached since Nancy Pelosi is holding the Articles of Impeachment from the Senate, should this not be mentioned? I would add but I just made an account here and am still figuring things out.

Here's some articles on the issue: https://nypost.com/2019/12/20/trump-may-not-be-impeached-if-pelosi-declines-to-send-articles-to-senate-harvard-professor/ https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats

@DudePotato: Some things to keep in mind about covering the holding-back-articles story:

• It would be a separate article. A Wikinews article is a snapshot in time: each one covers a specific event, which must be current at the time the article is published, and is limited to that particular event at that time. For a different specific event, or a significantly later development related to the earlier event, a new article is needed. Once an article is published, substantive changes to it are only allowed for another 24 hours. Eventually, all the articles in our archives are fully protected; but we don't fully protect at article until we remove it from the list of most-recently-published on the main page, and we keep at least ten articles on the main page so people can see a representative sample of our work.
• Each article starts with a focal event, around which it is built. The focal event has to have three properties, which collectively we call newsworthiness: it must be specific, relevant, and fresh. Relevance isn't a problem in this case. If you can't pin down on what day it happened, it's not specific. If the day you pin it down to isn't either today, yesterday, or maybe the day before yesterday, it's probably not fresh. If it happened the day before yesterday, that could make it very difficult for us to meet our deadline, because it's not enough for the event to be fresh when the article is written; it has to still be fresh when the article is published: that means it has to be fully written and pass a rigorous review by an authorized volunteer reviewer. This has been compared to taking a Wikipedia article all the way from an initial concept to good article status in one or two days.
• I usually recommend reading first Wikinews:Pillars of writing (a short overview of what we do here), then Wikinews:Writing an article (a tutorial on writing one's first article here).

Ah okay, I think I understand. Basically, it literally cannot be edited to retain historic accurateness?

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 :)