Talk:Trump–Ukraine scandal/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Research requests

I’m traveling, only have my phone, and can’t really do research or significant additions to the article. Two things I believe I heard on news reports that could be worth adding to the article if verified:

• That the notes or transcript from the infamous Oval Office meeting in 2017 with the Russians were also stashed into the top-secret server. If true that seems worth adding to the Misfiled Transcripts section.
• That Giuliani met with Ukrainian officials in January and February of this year about getting them to open investigations into Hunter Biden. Our lead currently says that the Trump-Giuliani push for this began in May. Should be changed if the earlier date can be verified.

If somebody cares to look into this, thanks! MelanieN alt (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

There is a blurb about the notes or transcript from the infamous 2017 Oval Office meeting with the Russians being stashed in the secret server in the "Misfiled transcripts" section. I'll see if I can add more. It will take some time though. Are looking for more than a blurb? Regarding the second request, I'll check the lead and see what it says. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

So, far I am unable to find the sources that say Giuliani met with Ukrainian officials in January and February of this year. Maybe someone else can. 01:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. The current thing in the "misfiled" section is about the content of the meeting (Trump telling the Russians he didn't mind their interfering, which may not belong in this article at all). It does not say that the minutes of that meeting are in the secret file. When I get home in a couple of days I'll work on it. MelanieN alt (talk) 03:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories requests

Also: the conspiracy theories section contains easily debunked material, like the claim that the Crowdstrike guy is Ukrainian when in fact he is Russian born, or that Crowdstrike is owned by a rich Ukrainian when in fact it is publicly traded. Or the attempts to drag in George Soros who AFAIK has no connection at all to this Ukraine stuff. If there is reliable source debunking of these things IMO we should use it - rather than repeating obvious nonsense without a challenge. MelanieN alt (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: regarding the conspiracy theory stuff regarding Ukraine it has been debunked in the sources I provided. The idea is to recount them as "conspiracy theories". The actual reality is also in that paragraph. The Crowdstrike guy is an American citizen and it says so in that paragraph and in the source or sources - see the in-line Daily Beast source for that. He is Russian born, but he is an American citizen. Actually, he was born in the Soviet Union.

It also says in the source that Crowdstrike is a publicly traded company not owned by a rich Ukrainian. But again, the idea is this is merely a conspiracy theory - like the section title says. With a section title like that, then "Conspiracy theory" should be recounted, otherwise why have the section? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm looking at the George Soros part and you're right that at least one source doesn't belong there because it is not debunking the theory. So, I am going to remove that. The Daily Beast source debunks the theory. I will check the Washington Post source and see what it is talking about. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

OK I cleaned up the "Conspiracy theory" section. Two of the sources on George Soros was weak, so I removed them and the text. Also, I will go over the Daily Beast and debunk the theory in the paragraph for the readers. The other text - wondering who wrote the whistleblower complaint does not seem to be a conspiracy theory so I removed that. I will also go over the Crowdstrike text and see how that can be improved. All the sources in that section debunk the theory as far as I know. Caio. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

About the Crowdstrike guy, I changed it to: Crowdstrike's co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch is a naturalized American citizen born in the Soviet Union. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Steve Quinn MelanieN, the sources are not weak and I object to removal of the material. There is obviously a concerted effort to invoke the all-purpose Soros conspiracy theory, and various people have claimed that the whistleblower was helped, including by Schiff's staff (which I had not added yet), so they are claiming it's a conspiracy. soibangla (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The two sources were weak because one was a very short page with a video that only showed a conversation including Hannity and with a short transcript of the event. It was not a reliable source in the sense that significant coverage is needed - especially some sort of counter argument against Hannity's assertions. The Washington Post source had a page full of coverage about the internet being abuzz trying to find out the whistleblower's identity - and then a short blurb about George Soros at the end. This is not significant coverage of the George Soros conspiracy. Also, the text the went along with that seemed to inflate Soros's connection without anything in that article to back it up - it was pretty much synthesis. The only source that had significant coverage is the Daily Beast.

soibangla You were not supposed to restore what I removed without first discussing it. Please remove it.

All this is UNDUE:

Appearing on Hannity, attorneys Joseph diGenova and his wife Victoria Toensing asserted the whistleblower is linked to Soros. Breitbart amplified the Soros narrative and extended it to include an array of other organizations. [Timberg, Craig; Harwell, Drew (September 28, 2019). "Amateur pro-Trump 'sleuths' scramble to unmask whistleblower: 'Your president has asked for your help'" – via www.washingtonpost.com.]

For one thing you are giving UNDUE weight to Hannity and Breitbart. They both have only passing mentions in this source. And the fringe right wing internet is going crazy trying to identify the whistleblower because of Trump not because of anything else, and Soros is one part of this. I don't see where Breitbart "extended the narrative to included an array of other organizations". This is not backed up by the WAPO source. All it says is 'Breitbart News said the “so-called whistleblower” marched to the orders of a vast operation bankrolled by George Soros, a longtime target of conservative conspiracy theories'.

That's all it says. It seems Breitbart or Soros is being attributed to all the various events discussed in the article. Where does Breitbart "amplify" anything - according to this source. I'm sorry but it looks like wp:synthesis to me, as well as undue. I recommend elaborating based on the Daily Beast source and forget this one and the other one. These are very weak sources. And please remove that text until the discussion is complete. Hopefully others will weigh in here. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not taking it out. soibangla (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC) didn't see DS. I strongly disagree with you, but I'm not willing to debate it. soibangla (talk) 01:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

OK thanks. Please discuss. What are your thoughts? Steve Quinn (talk) 01:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The WaPo story seems to give more emphasis to how the self-appointed detectives are racist, misogynistic and crude than to the Soros angle. For example: the whistleblower is not white,” one 4chan commenter asserted Thursday, probably misreading a part of the complaint in which the whistleblower calls himself or herself a “non-White House official.” I just had to share that so other people could facepalm as hard as I did. XOR'easter (talk) 02:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, XOR; the laughs in this situation are few and far between. so thanks for sharing this one.

About the Soros stuff, I think we should include the other people invoking Soros to show that it isn't just Giuliani. And it isn't necessary that the source includes the debunking; they can be separate sources as long as the debunking is there. I do agree with deleting the nonsense about the whistleblower having help; of course he did. He wouldn't have needed help to write a strong, well written, legally tight complaint, given his position; nevertheless he almost certainly did have "help" in that he consulted with his attorney in drawing up the complaint, to make sure that it was all absolutely within the law - and there would have been nothing in the least wrong with that. MelanieN alt (talk) 03:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Is it established he consulted a lawyer? Who's to say he's not a lawyer himself? There are countless millions of people who write legalistic sorts of documents every day, in all walks of professional life. Even college students do. These people are trying to suggest he had help from, wink wink, the deep state conspiracy. Some have suggested Schiff's staff helped him. soibangla (talk) 03:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's more: "it's a big law firm... a team of lawyers and possibly a research team...a group like Media Matters" soibangla (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

And yet more: Davis and co-host Steve Doocy also floated the unfounded claim that “there could have been coordination between Adam Schiff and the intel community” in authoring the complaint soibangla (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

How about Soros was also invoked, again without evidence, by the right-wing media organization Breitbart? I think the WaPo source is adequate to support that. XOR'easter (talk) 03:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

XOR'easter, that sounds good to me. We can also say Hannity had some unkind words to say as well, since that WaPo source said it. I would also like to build up the section some more based on the Daily Beast source, and in agreement with MelanieN we could have multiple people saying whatever they say. During the recent Congressional hearing with acting DNI Maguire present, it was mentioned a number of times that the whistleblower does have a lawyer. This WaPo article also says the same. Also, this is how the acting DNI is communicating with the whistleblower. There has been no confirmation whether or not the whistleblower had help with the complaint, so Wikipedia cannot really say. And I don't know how much that matters anyway. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but it sounds like the whistleblower's current legal representation, led by Andrew Bakaj, was established well after the complaint was written and filed. See this announcement on the 21st. XOR'easter (talk) 12:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Here is Tom Bossert, Trump's former Homeland Security Advisor, telling ABC News that the Crowdstrike conspiracy theory is "debunked". XOR'easter (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Both of these are very interesting. So, the whistleblower got legal representation later in the process. Well, I'm glad he/she did before "they and them" were able to retaliate against him/her. By now I'm assuming you know that he/she, at first, anonymously filed the complaint with the top CIA attorney (I forget her title), who then, by law, notified White House officials and DOJ officials. Anyway, seeing this was going on, he/she filed a whistleblower complaint with the intelligence IG, and officially became the whistleblower. See one of the discussions below. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that link to Tom Bossert clearly saying and showing the theory has been completely debunked. I went from that Twitter feed to the linked ABC News web page on this matter. There is the video and some text so, I am going use this in the Conspiracy theory section. This has significance because Mr. Bossert is the former National Security Advisor to Trump - the first one, and he resigned after the first year. The other thing that matters is he appears to be really level headed. I recommend watching the whole video to see his take on recent unfolding events. It's really good. Here it is: [1] I wonder if this will be useful in other parts of this article. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

OK. Well, it looks like you're ahead of me on using this in the Conspiracy theory section. This is good. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Newsweek has some good coverage on the conspiracy theory that Soros funded the whistleblower. Seems like a classic case of string theory based on a footnote. ^Falling_Gravity 03:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! My favorite footnote in the whistleblower report is number 3: "I do not know why the President associates these servers with Ukraine." Great shrugs of history! XOR'easter (talk) 03:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Giuliani on Stephanopoulos

I reverted an edit which used this source to support the claim that Giuliani eventually released these documents [sworn affidavits from five Ukrainians] on September 29th, 2019. The only "document" mentioned there is the affidavit from Shokin ("Google Shokin Affidavit!" per the anon from earlier today... or don't; it's just more John Solomon). Claim not supported by source; edit reverted. Reversion disputed by original editor, so I'm bringing the matter here for somebody else to sort out. XOR'easter (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I should have said, Solomon, with a side of Firtash. XOR'easter (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

​​​​To clarify: the article currently says Giuliani claimed he has sworn statements from five Ukrainians stating they were brought into the Obama White House in January 2016 and told to "go dig up dirt on Trump and Manafort", he eventually released these documents on September 29th, 2019. Neither of the cited sources support this claim. The first, CBS News, follows the quote of Giuliani saying that with the flat statement, "Giuliani has not produced evidence of that alleged collusion." The second, to RealClearPolitics, doesn't mention the supposed five Ukrainians and their sworn statements at all. It links to a statement by Shokin wherein Shokin blames Biden for getting him fired ("There were no grievances against me") and makes no mention of Manafort or the digging up of dirt thereon. (Nor, of course, would the assertion of the existence of those five sworn statements actually amount to producing them.) Someone needs to clean this up. XOR'easter (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I removed the content. Iksnyrk - please discuss, see above. starship.paint (talk) 02:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

There's two separate things here: Rudy's claim of five Ukrainian affidavits, and the Shokin affidavit. My original edit said "Giuliani claimed he has sworn statements from five Ukrainians stating they were brought into the Obama White House in January 2016 and told to "go dig up dirt on Trump and Manafort," although he has not provided evidence of that." That remains true, so that should go back in. Someone else later added the bit about the Shokin affidavit with the RCP ref, which is unrelated. soibangla (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I think your original edit with the CBS News source is fine and should go back in. XOR'easter (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@XOR'easter and Soibangla: - I restored that part, I wasn't aware that part was not disputed. starship.paint (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: - you accidentally rolled me back. starship.paint (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint, yep, sorry. Was trying to rollback the edit before yours. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

No biggie, I restored the sentence then. starship.paint (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Solomon?

How much should we say about John Solomon's opinion pieces, and where should we say it? I think this block of removed text has good material (though of course we might want to edit for tone and such). Right now, the one mention of Solomon reads almost like a non sequitur, making me wonder why it is included, while there is no mention of how Solomon has been credibly described as being of dubious reliability. I think we should either say more or say less; splitting the difference is remarkably awkward. XOR'easter (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I think we need to say more. I've read a bit on how Solomon's commentaries led to the conspiracy theory we have today. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Should we include it in "Background", where it might fit chronologically, or in "Conspiracy theories", where it might fit thematically? XOR'easter (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we need to summarize the fact there are conspiracy theories, that they are being coordinated and promulgated by Trump and his supporters, and then give only a very brief summary of each. The problem we face with the current treatment is that they become narratives and capture the hearts and minds of 30% of our readers, not to mention an unknown percentage of our industrious and imaginative editors. The major yarns will have their own articles to which we can link. SPECIFICO talk 20:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I tried reorganizing the "Crowdstrike" subjection on the "truth sandwich" philosophy: start with the reality, briefly summarize the spin, conclude with the reality. XOR'easter (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I made it easy for you guys and took out the other reference to Solomon also. Now I invite you to accuse me of being a sock and find some rogue admin to block me. That's what happened last time I tried to edit an article with eiditors with this kind of ownership issues. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

LynnWysong, assume good faith. If you were blocked, I assume there was a good reason. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, you know what the common definition of "assume" is don't you?Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

LynnWysong, I just looked and saw you were blocked twice, and then unblocked both times, so now I assume they were unjustified, or at least your behavior was defensible. Still, assume good faith when dealing with other editors. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I've been around long enough to know when to AGF and when to know it's not warranted.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

LynnWysong, i still think your initial comment shows you needed the reminder. But I'm done discussing this with you and returning to discussing article content. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

This seems to have some good context. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The key point for us convey, and I think WP is doing a much better job than in the past (pizzagate, Seth Rich, etc.) is that these events have nothing to do with Biden or any other Democrat. It's about Trump's attempt to fabricate conspiracy theories to go viral with his base and the media and as many additional voters as can be roped in. So details about the Bidens and the conspiracy cast of characters must be kept to an absolute minimum. The mainstream media, analysts, and factcheckers seem to have learned from past mistakes and I we have lots of good sourcing to draw upon. SPECIFICO talk 21:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The whistleblower complaint mentions The Hill specifically as a conduit for allegations (starting at the bottom of page 4). I think that and the WaPo story dedicated to it are grounds enough for us to include something on that angle, but it's definitely true that too much detail can be a bad thing. (I've lost track of who's added and removed what, and I don't particularly care. I just want an article that isn't confusing.) XOR'easter (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree. I believe that LynnWysong may have removed the brief contextualizing mention of The Hill bit. Worth checking? SPECIFICO talk 21:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm still conflicted about whether a brief treatment of Solomon would be more appropriate in "Background" or in "Conspiracy theories" (and I'm too tired to check who might have favored which position in all the edits that have happened today). XOR'easter (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it has to be considered both. Dimitry Firtash wanted Shokin to swear in an affidavit that the Bidens were Bad. Giuliani and Solomon used the affidavit to push the Bidens are Bad conspiracy theory, with Solomon writing columns and Giuliani going to the Ukraine in efforts to fabricate an investigation, and then there was the Trump/Zelensky phone call. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, I could be convinced the right answer is "both". But I'm getting a headache and may need to step away for the evening. XOR'easter (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Go rest up. I'm about to go out myself. Tomorrow will be a big day. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

And Firtash is now represented by diGenova/Toensing, and “Two high-profile Washington lawyers, Joe diGenova, who’s been a fierce critic of the Democratic investigation, and his wife Victoria Toensing were working with Giuliani to get oppo research on Biden,” Chris Wallace said soibangla (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Return tomorrow. I can also use the break. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Another conspiracy theory for us to write about. XOR'easter (talk) 13:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Counterpoint - https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/01/left-tries-to-wave-away-ig-changes-allowing-whistleblowers-to-weaponize-hearsay/. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The Federalist is not a reliable source. XOR'easter (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The author of that piece is not a journalist, he's a right-wing political activist and failed Republican candidate for elective office. Not sure why we'd cite his opinion when we have a wide array of actual journalism discussing this issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Good point. See also here (I'm not a big fan of Chait in general, but he sounds on-the-ball in this case). XOR'easter (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Hunter Biden's company received $3.4 million from Burisma

Here's my suggestion for how to improve the article.[2] Thoughts?

Hunter Biden's company Rosemont Seneca received $3.4 million from Burisma Holdings.

Because Vice President Biden played a major role in U.S. policy towards Ukraine, some Obama administration officials would later privately criticize Hunter Biden for potentially creating a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest by joining the board. Hunter Biden’s ties to Burisma Holdings was criticized as a conflict of interest in a New York Times editorial. The White House dismissed nepotism accusations against Biden's son.

References

User:SPECIFICO obviously disagrees.[3] SPECIFICO's edit summary: "Undo poorly sourced SYNTH UNDUE BLP smear insinuations. Use talk and stop re-inserting on multiple articles." -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Specifico seems to be applying a weird standard for BLP where documenting someone's work and qualifications is not appropriate. There's no issue with BLP, all of that is well sourced and the BIden's are public figures. Let's see how consensus shapes up, but we need to cover this, as more focus will likely shift to the Biden's as this develops. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

It appears SPECIFICO removed one paragraph. This is hardly "mass blanking". That section title seems a little over the top and frankly sounds like a Fox news segment. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Tobby72 has been inserting a load of UNDUE SYNTH BLP smears, many with weak sourcing, (e.g. to Fox News, PR Newswire (primary), various opinion pieces, etc.) that insinuate the Trump/Giuliani narrative that there really is some problem with the Bidens and that recent events are in fact about the Bidens rather than about an increasingly evident abuse of power in the US. Eyes are needed on a number of articles in which I have reverted these edits. SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

As I said at Talk:Hunter Biden, in addition to violating WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE, this material also violates WP:NPOV by not mentioning how, for example, the New York Times looked into allegations of Hunter Biden's shady dealings with China and found them groundless, and the Washington Post fact-checkers deemed them "more like smoke than fire" [4][5]. It also neglects to mention that there were legitimate differences of opinion among ethics experts about whether Hunter Biden's involvement with Burisma amounted to a violation of the proprieties — Melanie Sloan said no, Richard Painter said yes [6]. XOR'easter (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The content, which deleting does not make a "mass blanking", seems troubling. "Some administration officials say"? Citing an editorial to say it's a COI? We're better off without that I think. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, using outdated editorials and articles (such as Dec. 11, 2015 [7]) does not seem to work to well, except to present a POV narrative. The information in these articles and editorials has evolved over time, between 2015 and now, besides being a substantial amount of information not conveyed in the removed material. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I think at least this text should be included in the article: "Hunter Biden's company Rosemont Seneca received $3.4 million from Burisma Holdings". -- Tobby72 (talk) 04:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant to this article's topic. SPECIFICO talk 04:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

And calling Rosemont Seneca "Hunter Biden's company" doesn't represent the cited sources well, either. XOR'easter (talk) 04:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I was also going to say this seems irrelevant and doesn't really mean anything. Also, if citing sources is a problem then that needs to be worked on. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

​This same conversation is happening at Talk:Hunter Biden. XOR'easter (talk) 13:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Hunter Biden co-founded a company called Rosemont Seneca Partners.[8] Burisma paid $3.4 million to a company called Rosemont Seneca Bohai. Rosemont Seneca Bohai made regular payments to Hunter Biden that totaled as much as $50,000 in some months.[9] -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Trump’s increasingly wild comments

How much of Trump's recent rhetoric should we include? I am disturbed by the latest addition to the article, where he demands to meet the whistle blower and makes wild accusations against Adam Schiff. This kind of thing has prompted the whistle blower to fear for his/her safety. I didn't remove it because it is getting some coverage, but I would like to discuss it. Are there limits to how much we should report when someone makes comments that could create a danger to someone else? Or even which just seem beyond the pale of acceptable things to say in a civilized society? MelanieN alt (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Those are darn good questions for which I do not have adequate answers. In one sense, we are an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff: the words are already out there, and we're just gathering them up. For example, I was concerned when the NYT revealed the whistleblower to be a CIA official — it seemed like the information they revealed could narrow down the possibilities quite a lot, maybe to a handful of individuals — and I wasn't the only one to worry about that. But does our including that here really give it more prominence or accessibility than the NYT already did? I doubt that. XOR'easter (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Calling for Schiff's arrest for treason is pure psychological projection. That said, I don't know if it's worth including. Hopefully the whistleblower is having adequate protections put in place for their safety, there's nothing we can do about that. There's no easy answers here, but I do think we should tread carefully. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I think we just need to be selective and include tweets and outburts that stand out as especially noteworthy. I don't think we have a role in filtering any material that has been widely reported in impeccable sources, provided that it is of enduring value to readers.- MrX 🖋 16:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

In addition to his Schiff comment, we should also mention his tweet about a "Civil War-like fracture" if he's impeached. This could be interpreted as a threat of an armed insurrection if he is impeached. soibangla (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree.- MrX 🖋 16:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it's fair to also include mention of Rep. Kinzinger (R-IL) calling it "beyond repugnant" [10]. XOR'easter (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

There is plenty of coverage viewing his tweets as unhinged, so maybe a summary that doesn't get too bogged down in the specifics is best. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. My own thinking is that a criticism from within his own party is a detail more worth including than, say, his retweeting the shark bot. Such criticism has been rare and rather tut-tut-y when it has occurred. XOR'easter (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

“How much of Trump's recent rhetoric should we include? I am disturbed by the latest addition to the article, where he demands to meet the whistle blower and makes wild accusations against Adam Schiff ... acceptable things to say in a civilized society? User:MelanieN” —— So much for this claim. Major news outlets are all reporting the same. The proof being, doesn’t matter if one is disturbed by rhetoric, no one in the end cares. Turns out Adam Schiff knew about the complaint days before the complaint was filed, the Times, Post, Washington Examiner are all reporting this. Also, is there anything in this article on Schiff’s opening statement at House Intelligence Committee Hearing on Whistleblower Complaint on 09-26, where Schiff makes up a conversation between Trump and Zelensky? This statement was read into the House Committee transcripts and was also taped. So much for the wild accusations narrative. 10stone5 (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@10stone5: - Adam Schiff knew about the complaint days before the complaint was filed - so what? Is that treason or some other crime? is there anything in this article on Schiff’s opening statement - there wasn't, so I added it [11] - do note that Schiff never said he was quoting from the non-verbatim memo. starship.paint (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Timeline?

I'd find it helpful to have a timeline of the Trump-Ukraine events, similar to Timeline_of_investigations_into_Trump_and_Russia_(2019). I'd also be willing to contribute.

Where's the best place for such a timeline?

--Lumpish Scholar (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I like the idea of a straight-up chronological list of events (the current page is a bit chronological, a bit thematic). Maybe that should be its own page, since this one is already big and will doubtless get bigger even without a timeline. XOR'easter (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Lumpish Scholar: Sources to build Timeline of events in the Trump–Ukraine controversy : Reuters / Associated Press / Washington Post / CNN / CNBC / ABC / Wall Street Journal / Global News / Quartz starship.paint (talk) 01:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Just be prepared to keep adding! [12][13] XOR'easter (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Lede rewrite

I've written new versions of the first two paragraph of the lede [14], but I haven't finished changing the later paragraphs of the lede to match. Feel free to have a look and improve it (especially the later paragraphs) starship.paint (talk) 05:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: I've tweaked a few bits here and there, but this is the only part that I think needs revision:

"Trump confirmed he had withheld the aid, while offering contradicting reasons for doing so; he first claimed that it was withheld it was because of corruption in Ukraine, but later claimed it was because European nations were not contributing enough aid."

I know Trump has railed against NATO states not meeting their GDP commitments in the past, but what, specifically is he referring to here? Is he claiming a) that the Europeans were not meeting their commitments to Ukraine, b) trying to put pressure on Europe to support Ukraine or c) trying to get NATO states to commit to their expenditure? Or is it something else? It just seems vague and if that's down to Trump being vague about it, then the article probably needs to quote him. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17:: “But my complaint has always been, and I'd withhold again, and I'll continue to withhold until such time as Europe and other nations contribute to Ukraine,” he continued. “Because they're not doing it. Just the United States. We're putting up the bulk of the money. And I'm asking, why is that?” starship.paint (talk) 07:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

[15] - version as of this post. regarding the above, I used but later claimed it was because other nations including those from Europe were not contributing enough aid to Ukraine. I'm confident in paragraphs 1, 2 and 5, not sure about 3 and 4. There is overlap between 2 and 4. Not sure if that former transition team adviser to Zelensky should go in the lede as per 3. starship.paint (talk) 09:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: the paragraph on Leshchenko could probably be moved to the body of the article. It's really more an opinion than anything else. The paragraph on contact with other governments could probably be summarised for three reasons:

1. The Morrison government is calling it "national security", which it probably is, but it's also their favourite way of dodging questions.
2. There is a bit of content creep in the article. The focus of the Ukraine call controversy was the Bidens and CrowdStrike, but the Australia/Italy/UK stuff is more to do with the Barr investigation. The way it's being reported down here is that Trump thinks the Russian interference in 2016 was actually Ukrainian interference intended to help Clinton; when he won anyway, the Democrats and Ukrainians supposedly conspired to frame it as Russia helping Trump. Trump then appointed Barr with investigating CIA and FBI agents that may have played a role in this conspiracy. Assuming that is what Trump is trying to prove, I haven't seen anything where Trump has specifically tied the Bidens to this conspiracy theory aside from Joe Biden being a Democrat (if anything, Trump has tried to keep this separate from the Mueller inquiry).
3. There was no apparent quid pro quo offeres to Morrison. Yes, he was a guest at a state dinner recently, but Morrison is ideologically pretty close to Trump: religious (devoutly Pentecostal, insists on greater freedom of religion provisions in anti-discrimination legislation), conservative (down here, "Liberal" means conservative), a climate change sceptic (he brought a lump of coal into the houses of parliament in 2017), architect of our draconian immigration policies (illegal immigrants sent to off-shore detention facilities indefinitely; basically prison without charges or access to medical facilities and hidden behind national security), and he came from behind to pull off an election upset. Trump probably doesn't have anything Morrison wants.

That ... turned out to be longer than expected or intended. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mclarenfan17: - I'd just like to point out that the storing of calls from other countries in the classified server for personal political purposes may be considered as abuse of power. That would not be content creep in my view. Nothing else I disagree about. starship.paint (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: oh, I'm not disputing that by any means. I'm just conscious of letting the content expand too quickly without a clear direction as to where it will expand to. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The lede looks better than it did yesterday. Good job so far! XOR'easter (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

While we're thinking about the lede, what about that sidebar? I'm not sure if it needs to be in the top position. What if we moved it down somewhere and put the thumbnail of the memorandum alongside the lede? (I feel like writings about government scandals should have documents with red stamps in a prominent position; it's just traditional.) XOR'easter (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I continued rewriting the lede. BullRangifer - what do you think about the current last paragraph of the lede... can it be removed... I inserted a rewritten version of it above... starship.paint (talk) 04:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: regarding [16], when you removed The Trump White House confirmed that a record of that conversation was indeed stored in a highly restricted system., please see sources: Associated Press: The White House acknowledged that a record of the Trump phone call that is now at the center of the impeachment inquiry had been sealed away in a highly classified system at the direction of Trump’s National Security Council lawyers ... At the White House, it was a senior administration official who acknowledged that the rough transcript of Trump’s conversation with Ukraine’s Zelenskiy had been moved to a highly classified system maintained by the National Security Council. The official was granted anonymity Friday to discuss sensitive matters. and CNN The White House acknowledged Friday that administration officials directed a now-infamous Ukraine call transcript be filed in a highly classified system, confirming allegations contained in a whistleblower complaint that have roiled Washington. starship.paint (talk) 05:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Apologies. I will restore it. Hopefully with a confirming source cited at the sentence. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I put it back. Since I see that you normally cite your references as bare URLs and expand them later, I took the liberty of using a bare URL reference. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I see that you suggested removing the last paragraph. I already did that, before seeing this discussion. You are right that the information is better presented higher in the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

P.S. And since you are still working on it, I will wait till you are done before making any more changes. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: - I'm done! :) I'm sorry, I don't have time to fit the lede content and references into the body if they weren't there already. Someone else will have to help. starship.paint (talk) 05:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

whistleblower complaint issues

I am relatively new and cannot add to this article. The Whistleblower complaint did not meet the stict regulatory guidelines for a complaint when it was submitted. Only first-hand information could be used in the complaint and there was no firsthand info. On or about the 24th of August, the ICIG changed the regulation to allow second-hand information. Without this change he could not accept the complaint. Also, the Office of Legal Council opinion establishes that the ICIG has no jurisdiction here. I have added this material with references to the Article on Michael Atkinson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddoughery (talk • contribs) 16:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC) — Ddoughery (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please read this twitter thread thoroughly, including the subthreads. The assertions you're citing are false: https://twitter.com/kpoulsen/status/1177734528833445888. soibangla (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I bet that by tomorrow evening — Monday morning at the latest — there will be a fact-checker piece in a more usable format than a Twitter thread. We should keep a lookout for it. XOR'easter (talk) 02:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

False report from The Federalist about whistleblower complaints fuels Trump defenders in impeachment inquiry soibangla (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• The current wording in this section states that the Federalist article falsely asserted there had been such a requirement. What does "such a requirement" refer to here? Answer: it refers to a requirement in the ICWPA that a whistleblower must have first-hand information. The ICWPA is a law that was passed by congress and signed by President Clinton in 1998. So, according to our current wording, Sean Davis alleged that the ICIG secretly changed the 1998 law by altering an internal form. Is that what we think Davis alleged? I don't think that's what he alleged. I don't think he ever thought that the ICIG changed the ICWPA itself at all, but only that the ICIG changed their internal policies about how to determine whether a whistleblower claim was credible--something the law leaves to the ICIG to determine. That's why Davis refers to "ICIG requirements" and to an internal ICIG document stating "first-hand information required". Davis is clearly aware that these requirements came from the ICIG, not the law itself. Our wording should therefore not put the claim in his mouth that the law itself was changed--a claim that is obviously false and frankly silly. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on this article's use of The Federalist on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on this article's use of The Federalist on the reliable sources noticeboard. The discussion also mentions other aspects of the "Whistleblower evidence rules" section. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § The Federalist (website). — Newslinger talk 21:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Repetition

Surely the article only needs to mention Pompeo's claim about bullying the State Department once. The section "Impeachment proceedings" has it in a paragraph with context, and later, "Trump and the White House" repeats it as a disconnected factoid. I've already removed a contextless repetition once — no, actually twice! I had forgotten about the earlier example until just now. Anyway, it's a minor thing, but I think we should take care not to let a naturally sprawling article like this one get too disorganized. XOR'easter (talk) 19:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I removed it from the "Trump and the White House" reactions section. Pompeo is with the State Department, not the White House, and as noted his comment is already given detailed coverage in the earlier section. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. XOR'easter (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Not contributing enough aid to Ukraine?

Yes, that's an excuse used by Trump for withholding the promised aid, but how much truth is there in his claim? We should include such facts. We currently have this content:

"...not contributing enough aid to Ukraine.

Here is a RS for perusal and possible use. Please examine it:

• Not Contributing Enough? A Summary of European Military and Development Assistance to Ukraine Since 2014

BullRangifer (talk) 09:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources

Hunter Biden was paid up to $50,000 a month

This information has been reverted, with the following edit summary: "remove BLP smear irrelevant to the subject of this article." I think it is relevant and should be included.

He was paid a varying amount, up to $50,000 a month in some months, for his services.

References

-- Tobby72 (talk) 10:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

It is not relevant. Quoting a number for this peripheral bit of information gives it both a sense of precision not warranted by the available information and undue weight. XOR'easter (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like undue weight to me. It's well reported in reliable sources and important context for the underlying issue with the call. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 21:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

It's widely reported, but it's a factoid, a disconnected number to which no reliable source has really imparted a meaning. Was he paid $50,000 a month for two months or ten? Did someone cut him a check for that suspiciously round figure exactly? What were the "services" that he provided, and how did his rate per billable hour compare to the industry median? It provides no context, for it has none to bring. XOR'easter (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

We should report what reliable sources say. Requiring a full analysis of context for every fact that goes into an article is an unnecessary set of hurdles. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 22:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't expect a "full analysis of context" (I don't even know what "full" would mean for that), but I'd like to see any at all. XOR'easter (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

As I understand it—and my source on this is the ABC's Planet America, so I'm having a hard time getting a version that is readily accessible (maybe try their Facebook page or ABC iView; the segment is "The Big, Beautiful Wall" from last Friday)—the investigation was focusing on a time in the company's history before Hunter Biden was hired. In light of that, how much he made in his job there seems irrelevant. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

That sounds like the gist of this Reuters story. XOR'easter (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@XOR'easter: and that's the problem. Understanding how this whole situation came about requires more than just general knowledge—you'd have to go back to the Euromaidan protests to really get all of the background on it. It needs research and a lot of people don't have time for that. In light of this, "Hunter Biden earned $50,000 a month but no-one can really explain what he did" is an easily-digestible statement that can be twisted to make him look guilty. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore [17] There is no evidence of wrongdoing by either Joe or Hunter Biden.. There's at least other 5 major sources saying that. starship.paint (talk) 07:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I find this whole approach revolting and disgusting. In no situation and place outside of corruption-infested political circles is it normal or even possible that a nobody staff lawyer gets 50k/month or even more ( The Hill quotes 166,000 per month jointly for Biden and his buddy Devon Archer) for a no-show job in a foreign country for which he does not posses a shred of qualification. This is corruption, pure and simple. As Matt Yglesias wrote in Vox, "Hunter Biden’s whole career is being Joe Biden’s son", "Hunter had no apparent qualifications for the job except that his father was the vice president and involved in the Obama administration’s Ukraine policy. He got paid up to $50,000 per month" and "an examination of the life and times of Hunter Biden does provide a reminder that most Americans thought politics as usual was corrupt long before Trump arrived". (I obviously differ with Yglesias "this is just normal DC corruption. Pass on, nothing to see here" approach). In any ethical sense, Biden is guilty as hell for that, and the pretzel logic of law and power in the US may or may not come to the same conclusion later on. In light of this it would be prudent for us to be at least silent on the matter of corruption and guilt, or let the facts speak for themselves. Saying more would be OR, which is not the way we write articles. But suppressing facts in order to make Biden look blameless, that is lying by omission. That should have no place in Wikipedia, either.

A good example of such a lie by omission is this sentence in the article "Hunter, then an attorney with Boies Schiller Flexner, was hired to help Burisma with "corporate governance best practices," ". This suggests Biden got this job as normal billable hours for Boies Schiller Flexner. Nothing could be farther from the truth - as we know he was paid via Rosemont Partners, a firm that at this point was exclusively owned by himself and Devon Archer (their third partner, Chris Heinz, had immediately withdrawn from this and all other dealings he had with the criminal duo once he learned of the Ukraine job). We should not lie, neither by statemnet nor by omission. This sentence should be corrected. Wefa (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Uptick of interest at Talk:Hunter Biden

Just in case anybody is watching here but not there. Cheers, XOR'easter (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Protection

@Muboshgu, Neutrality, and Izno: I think the article may need semi-protection again. The recent history shows multiple instances of IP's adding POV material. I'm traveling and don't have access to my tools so could one of you take a look and see what they think? Thanks. MelanieN alt (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN alt and MelanieN: The vandalism looks routine and under control for such a popular topic as I'm sure this one is right now. If someone here feels otherwise feel free to head to WP:RFPP, point them here, and let them know they can choose to take action if they see otherwise. --Izno (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This anon complained about deep state leftists. Another, reverted here, said that Biden blackmailed Ukraine (into cleaning up its act the way the entire Western bloody world wanted, presumably), downplayed Giuliani, and asserted The Washington Post is obviously being fed this information by a deep state operative. Yet another IP, reverted here, accuses us of spreading liberal squalor lies (which I guess are even worse than liberal clean-and-tidy lies?), and generally appears innocent of a proper education on punctuation. I support semi-protection just so we don't have to waste time cleaning up this kind of nonsense, and so people visiting this highly-trafficked page don't have to read past the graffiti. XOR'easter (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about this. Maybe take it to WP:RFPP to see if an WP:UNINVOLVED admin believes protection would be beneficial or not. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I've requested an outside opinion at WP:RFPP. XOR'easter (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Another concern is the incendiary language mentioned in the section below. We're going to see more of that, I'm sure. Is it wise to leave the article wide open for any drive-by IP to add it, given how much deliberation writing about it will actually require? XOR'easter (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

There has not been any additional vandalism in the past few hours. I see protection was declined at RfPP and I'm OK with that - for now. I do think this topic is explosive enough that we will have to keep a continuous eye on it and be ready to protect if necessary. Thanks for your opinions, all. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

​​​​Foreign interference in the 2020 United States elections is now listed as a "Did you know?" item on the Main Page. It could doubtless use eyes. XOR'easter (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. I've watchlisted it. So far so good. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Well. The narrative on the conservative side is that this is basically just another tempest in a teapot engineered by Democrats and their willing helpers withing the government to unseat Trump. Thus the focus on Schiff's previous knowledge (so the whole whistleblower process was engineered and thus abused, a claim bolstered by the fact that the whole whistleblower rule set was changed just days earlier to permit this kind of hearsay) and also the outrage over the contant drip of anonymous claims of disclosure. As of yet, none of the competing narratives is irrefutably supported by factual evidence, so a neutral POV would try to abstain from taking sides. But while I may be mistaken in this, the preceding exchange suggests to me that some here assume this place to be an undisputably antitrump environment whose job it is to keep the article clean of spoilage by conservatives. If so, this approach is misguided. Wefa (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

a claim bolstered by the fact that the whole whistleblower rule set was changed just days earlier to permit this kind of hearsay — no, it wasn't [18][19][20]. XOR'easter (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

LOL. There are a few good arguments against the claims in those sources - but my argument is that we should NOT attempt to try re-ligitating those issues here, but just present that facts as they are published. Wefa (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Adam Schiff had prior knowledge of whistleblower prior to filing of complaint

I want to change sentence:

"The whistleblower complaint was filed on August 12, 2019, reportedly by a CIA officer detailed to the White House.[21] It was based both on "direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct" and on the accounts of more than "half a dozen U.S. officials""

To this:

"The whistleblower (reportedly a CIA officer detailed to the White House) first approached a House Intelligence Committee aide[21][22] before subsequently filing the complaint on August 12, 2019.[21] It was based both on "direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct" and on the accounts of more than "half a dozen U.S. officials"" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.251.210.39 (talk • contribs) — 46.251.210.39 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Oppose. Details of how the complaint originated are unsuitable for the lead section (and the sources provided are dubiously reliable at best). We now have (a) the White House memorandum, (b) the State Department texts, (c) a second potential whistleblower already speaking to the press, and (d) the president soliciting foreign electoral interference on TV. Trying to spin the story of people following procedure into an attack on the first whistleblower's credibility is last week's conspiracy theory. XOR'easter (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - this is being misrepresented and used as the basis of a Trump/GOP talking point. If it lives past the next week's TV pundit babble, we can reconsider whether it's DUE. SPECIFICO talk 17:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

"and the sources provided are dubiously reliable at best"-The Washington Post? Please confirm, you're saying it's dubiously reliable at best? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.112.119.54 (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm saying that the Washington Examiner recycling the WaPo fact-checker is "dubiously reliable at best". XOR'easter (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Support. This is an important detail, widely reported, and it takes very little to include it. Here are additional sources showing that it's due:

[1] CNN says [Schiff's] office acknowledged Wednesday it had been in contact with the whistleblower before the complaint over President Donald Trump's conversation with the leader of Ukraine was filed..

[2] PBS says The whistleblower who raised concerns about President Donald Trump’s dealings with Ukraine spoke to staffers on the House Intelligence Committee before filing a formal complaint, giving Democrats advance warning of the accusations of wrongdoing that triggered their impeachment inquiry.

[3] NYT was the original source of the report; they also report that the whistleblower first reached out to an aide of Schiff, who advised the whistleblower.

[4] WaPo reports the same: The intelligence officer whose allegations of presidential wrongdoing have sparked a full-blown impeachment inquiry sought guidance from a Democratic-led congressional committee days before filing his complaint with an inspector general, according to panel aides.

Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

These don't add up to due-weight-for-the-lead. The article already discusses this detail at a fully adequate length in the body, where it belongs. XOR'easter (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Please quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.112.119.54 (talk • contribs) — 212.112.119.54 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hm. What would it take to demonstrate due weight? Want some more major news reports? Because there obviously are more--do you want them all? Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

An arguable case for lasting significance, that's all. XOR'easter (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Try The whistleblower, a CIA officer previously detailed to the White House, first approached a House Intelligence Committee aide, who directed the individual to file the complaint through the ICIG soibangla (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

The phrasing is definitely better, but it still reads to me like detail overkill, taking the lede in the wrong direction. To be honest, that entire paragraph already reads more like body text than lede text; as the contours of the controversy develop over the coming days, I could see it being trimmed. XOR'easter (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it could use a trim soibangla (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Reading over it again, I'd say that everything in between the first two sentences and the last sentence of it would belong better in the "Submission of complaint and withholding from Congress" subsection below. XOR'easter (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

​I migrated some details from the lede down into the main text. See what you think. XOR'easter (talk) 21:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I would be ok with above suggestion:

"The whistleblower (reportedly a CIA officer detailed to the White House) first approached a House Intelligence Committee aide[23][24] before subsequently filing the complaint on August 12, 2019.[21] It was based both on "direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct" and on the accounts of more than "half a dozen U.S. officials""

It's relevant detail that could potentially be significant. Otherwise there is systematic bias. There already seems to be plenty already in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.112.119.54 (talk • contribs) — 212.112.119.54 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Support. Easily verifiable from plenty of sources. I would add an additional detail of Schiff’s office not notifying other House Committee members of this prior knowledge as a significant detail, again, that detail is easily searchable, citable and verifiable. 10stone5 (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

The article already discusses this topic. Verifiability is not the concern. XOR'easter (talk) 20:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

You already noted your Opposition. So then why are you commenting on my decision. My decision stands as noted, Support 10stone5 (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Nobody is questioning the cited reports. But nobody has shown or convincingly argued that this event is so significant that it belongs in the lead summary, or even that it will survive a month or more in the article body. It's only Trump who is claiming without any rhyme or reason that this is important. Actually it is irrelevant to the topic of this article. SPECIFICO talk 21:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

As with the above commenter, You already noted your Opposition. Again my decision, Support 10stone5 (talk) 23:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I would expect the relative importance of the original complaint to diminish as it becomes more widely confirmed by other sources, and so the details of its particular journey will become of historical interest (which is different than being of no interest). We have covered this point since the day the NYT broke the news, but I don't think it's ever been judged worthy of inclusion in the lede. XOR'easter (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I assume this detail about the committee is in the article text. I don't think it needs to be in the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Body, yes. Lede, no. starship.paint (talk) 00:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Romney Conspiracy Theory

What is the conspiracy theory involving Romney? According to WaPo, it's that Romney “had phone calls or meetings, whatever, with Pelosi and assured her there was Republican support to remove Trump.” This is what WaPo says is a baseless claim that drove conspiracy theories on conservative news sites. So when we're summing up the situation at the end, Starship.paint, it seems like the language I used is more accurate to the source, wouldn't you agree? Also: I don't think they deny he had ties to Burisma; rather, they denied that he had "meaningful" ties. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

In the conspiracy-obsessed echo chambers of conservative talk radio and far-right websites, Sen. Mitt Romney has some explaining to do — answering for ties to the Ukrainian gas company that put Joe Biden’s son on its board, and accounting for conversations with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi about Republican support for impeaching President Trump. In reality, neither claim is true. No meaningful ties exist between the Utah Republican and Burisma, and he had no such conversation with Pelosi. The flood of baseless attacks and misleading innuendo buffeting Romney ...

... claimed on Sept. 25 that Romney “had phone calls or meetings, whatever, with Pelosi and assured her that there was Republican support to remove Trump.” The baseless claim, denied by Romney’s office and debunked by a fact check, nevertheless drove conspiracy theories ...

... But there is no sign of any connection between Romney and Burisma. ...

... Without evidence or explanation, Lifson suggested it was an “odd coincidence” that Romney’s former adviser was associated with Burisma.

@Shinealittlelight: - There's two conspiracy theories, one where he colluded with Pelosi and one where he was connected to Burisma. Did you miss the bolded part, which goes further than the first 2 paragraphs starship.paint (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

No need to be mean, Starship.paint, we're all friends here. There's obviously a tenuous connection, that's why at one point they say "no meaningful connection". Charity leads me to interpret their "no connection" talk as meaning "no meaningful connection". Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not being mean, Shinealittlelight. There wasn't an insult there. Assuming good faith, I simply asked if you missed a sentence. I have changed the article text to As a result, this sparked false theories online and on radio shows that Romney himself had suspicious ties to Burisma. starship.paint (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't actually say you were being mean, Starship.paint, I just reminded you that there's no need to be mean in case you felt like being mean, just as a friendly reminder. Well I like the version you've now produced better than the one we started with, so that's better than nothing. But I'm still worried because 'suspicious' is not really a word in the RS. How about 'meaningful ties' since that's what the source says? But then I'm worried because 'meanignful ties' is just terribly unclear, and they should have said what they meant. I guess I think that, because we are presenting this under the "conspiracy theory" section, we should base what we say most closely on the part of the source that talks about conspiracy theory, which is this quote: The comment appeared to be the fodder for a fabricated notion by Rush Limbaugh, the pro-Trump radio host who claimed on Sept. 25 that Romney “had phone calls or meetings, whatever, with Pelosi and assured her there was Republican support to remove Trump.” The baseless claim, denied by Romney and debunked by a fact check, nevertheless drove conspiracy theories on conservative news sites, which also celebrated a video posted by Trump on Twitter mocking the senator from Utah for losing the 2012 presidential election. I still say that my wording really accurately reflects what this quote says, while you seem to be straying from it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - I just reminded you that there's no need to be mean in case you felt like being mean - that’s either kind of insulting or I am totally not self aware. How many times have you seen me being mean to editors? I’m pretty sure meaningful ties means suspicious ties. They clearly imply Romney is doing something wrong. It’s up to you, if you feel meaningful is better, I will change it. starship.paint (talk) 23:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

It's really hard for me to see a real distinction between meaningful and suspicious in this particular context. Maybe there's a shade of connotation between them, but I don't think either would be unacceptable. XOR'easter (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, Starship.paint, no insult intended. I was just being silly, but it seems you are in no mood. You've always been very good and reasonable, you're right. As for the matter at hand, I prefer 'meaningful ties', since that's what the source says. However, as explained in my last comment, it's not very good, since who knows what it means. And I think that my wording was better for the reason I stated above: my wording accurately explains what the source itself sees as a conspiracy theory. You can do whatever you think is most reasonable. I'm just here to help, but you should really listen to me. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Wording updated Shinealittlelight - As a result, this sparked false theories online and on radio shows that Romney himself had meaningful ties to Burisma. However, the ex-adviser is no longer affiliated with Romney, and he joined Burisma in 2017, years after Romney's presidential campaign ended. starship.paint (talk) 04:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)