Talk:Trump–Ukraine scandal/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Do not want to make account for edit request. Can someone please help me out?

I would like to propose a modification to the following section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Ukraine_controversy#Ukraine_and_the_Bidens

Please amend the text after this line. "In a December 2015 interview, Joe Biden said he had never discussed Hunter's work at Burisma."

to include the following information

"In his new interview, Hunter Biden says he and his father have an understanding that Hunter can pursue his own interests. He described the one exchange he said he and his father had about his decision to accept a paid board directorship at Burisma: “Dad said, ‘I hope you know what you are doing,’ and I said, ‘I do.’”"

Source:

I cant for the life of me right now figure out how to word that information to incorporate it in to the article. I am really hoping someone can take the reigns from here and get this included. Thanks in advance. 2600:1702:4420:7C80:D9A6:AD0A:191C:BF25 (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

That page is just a summary of Entous' profile in the New Yorker, so any modifications should be based on the original. (The splitting of hairs between "discussing Hunter's work" and "being aware that Hunter had taken the job" seems below the threshold of interest or salience for an article about a story that is much, much bigger than the Biden family, if you ask me.) XOR'easter (talk) 01:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that it is irrelevant. It seems relevant as it contradicts the statement his father made and specifically mentions acceptance of the board role at Burisma as being discussed. Since you seem to be familiar with the original source and not the abcNews one, and you seem to be interested in this article, would you mind updating it? Or at least having another editor consider the request as well? 2600:1702:4420:7C80:D9A6:AD0A:191C:BF25 (talk) 01:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Whether it actually contradicts the statement in the article now is the kind of follicular subdivision that I have already spent too much of my life on and don't wish to engage in further. (For example, my family knows what I do, but they stopped discussing my work with me once it started to involve calculus.) Forgetting a thirty-second conversation that could have happened over a year earlier wouldn't exactly be news. XOR'easter (talk) 02:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I can understand where you are coming from. However, it is information, from a valid source. Maybe something could be added to say that "Joe Biden was aware of Hunter's role on the board at Burisma and reportedly told him "I hope you know what you are doing"". Im not going to argue with you any further but I would recommend that you at least maybe phone a friend and allow them to weigh in on the matter as well, so its not just an argument between you and I 2600:1702:4420:7C80:D9A6:AD0A:191C:BF25 (talk) 02:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Anyone else is welcome to chime in; I just happen to be the only one hanging out here at the moment. XOR'easter (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me. 2600:1702:4420:7C80:D9A6:AD0A:191C:BF25 (talk) 02:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it seems to be WP:UNDUE. The essential message is that Joe Biden had a "hands-off" attitude about his son's career choices. Saying that Joe and Hunter did discuss Hunter's work based on two passing mentions is not accurate. Saying it is accurate is an overgeneralization and results in using those passing mentions to mischaracterize their overall interactions that has occurred over the course of years. Reading the whole New Yorker article shows that Hunter set his own course in his own life. Joe Biden did not direct or get involved in Hunter's life. In fact, I think Hunter mentioning that interaction depicts how little Joe Biden was involved. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree, the quote says he didn't discuss "Hunter's work at Burisma", not didn't discuss him "working at Burisma". One is talking about what he did there specifically, which is the question all the conspiracy theorist are asking. The other is the simple fact that he did work there, which I'm sure had to have come up in general conversation especially when he was traveling. It doesn't seem like Biden was every trying to feign ignorance in his son having the job. WikiVirusC^(talk) 10:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The request is the equivalent of taking Joe Bidens statement so literally that it loses any sense of meaning and proportionality; "discussing" Hunters "work" does not and should not ever be understood to mean that he is unaware that his son has a job, and is employed in Ukraine, for Burisma.

This is also SYNTH. Koncorde (talk) 11:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Look, Im not trying to create a narrative, imply one, or infer meaning from the statement. Im just trying to discuss with people how and if the above information should or could be included in the entry. Telling people how to interpret the information given to them and what they can infer from said information is not the purpose. It is a factual statement that Hunter Biden and Joe Biden discussed his role at Burisma, based on the statement from Hunter Biden and the publication of that statement by news agencies. The depth and breadth of that discussion is unknown at this time so speculation about what that conversation entailed should obviously not be mentioned, nor should it be considered when evaluating if the above information should be included in the article. The insinuation that Joe Biden must obviously know what job his son holds is conjecture, as Hunter Biden engages in many activities unbeknownst to his father. I think the following could be seen as an acceptable compromise:

"Joe Biden, upon being informed by Hunter of his intention to accept a paid board directorship at Burisma cautioned Hunter saying, "I hope you know what you are doing". Per an understanding between Joe Biden and his son Hunter, Hunter can pursue his own interests. There is no evidence at this time of any further communication between Hunter Biden and Joe Biden regarding his duties at Burisma, or the day to day operations of Burisma." 2600:1702:4420:7C80:C431:7DA8:E075:46C (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The depth and breadth of that conversation is known and covered in the New Yorker article. Hunter said, "I work at Burisma" Joe said, "Oh, I hope you know what you're doing." And that is as far as it went - based on that reliable source. And Wikipedia covers what reliable sources say. It does not speculate as to whether or not there was more to the conversation. Also, sources say Hunter stated he would not work on anything related to U.S. policy while Joe Biden was in office. It may be he said that when Biden became Obama's running mate. So, either way, that pretty much characterizes the situation because nothing untoward has been uncovered according to reliable sources. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

As I said before this is UNDUE. It is actually trivial. It is UNDUE mostly because this exchange between father and son is being used to show that it purportedly contradicts Joe Biden's statements. It does not. Rather it promotes a false balance equivalence. So all this has already been said. If nothing new shows up I'm done with this discussion. The conversation is beginning to go around in circles. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

So I went and read the New Yorker piece.

Source:

This is the entire context of the conversation;

"Several former officials in the Obama Administration and at the State Department insisted that Hunter’s role at Burisma had no effect on his father’s policies in Ukraine, but said that, nevertheless, Hunter should not have taken the board seat. As the former senior White House aide put it, there was a perception that “Hunter was on the loose, potentially undermining his father’s message.” The same aide said that Hunter should have recognized that at least some of his foreign business partners were motivated to work with him because they wanted “to be able to say that they are affiliated with Biden.” A former business associate said, “The appearance of a conflict of interest is good enough, at this level of politics, to keep you from doing things like that.” In December, 2015, as Joe Biden prepared to return to Ukraine, his aides braced for renewed scrutiny of Hunter’s relationship with Burisma. Amos Hochstein, the Obama Administration’s special envoy for energy policy, raised the matter with Biden, but did not go so far as to recommend that Hunter leave the board. As Hunter recalled, his father discussed Burisma with him just once: “Dad said, ‘I hope you know what you are doing,’ and I said, ‘I do.’ ”"

I think the fact that even members of the Obama administration opined that he should not have taken the position makes the context of the conversation much more relevant. Since you are not going to mention the conversation regarding Burisma in any way shape or form, then I am going to ask you to include information about the objections from the Obama administration officials, specifically the quote about the appearance of a conflict of interest. None of this information is noted in the section about the Ukraine and the Bidens.

I am sorry you are getting frustrated but I do try and explain my reasoning, line of thinking, and have discussions with people. Im sorry that we are not seeing eye to eye on this Steve, but please understand, I am not trying to intentionally annoy you. This will be my last response and I will yield to the community consensus 2600:1702:4420:7C80:C431:7DA8:E075:46C (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Ukraine has been notoriously corrupt since its Soviet days, so naturally anyone would be concerned that Hunter could be subsumed by that corruption himself, and thereby complicate American policy. But Burisma had international expansion aspirations, and Hunter was hired for expertise in "corporate governance best practices," which loosely translates as "establishing corporate policies and rules to eliminate corruption so international partners could have faith in doing business with them." I don't think "concerns" about conflicts of interest carry much weight unless there's evidence those concerns were borne out, and there isn't. And lacking any evidence, including that material creates an insinuation of malfeasance that isn't warranted. soibangla (talk) 01:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

References

incorrect info

umm. this story isn't about election interfering its about asking for intelligence on wrongdoing by a maybe, but not quite potential candidate. please show the facts and not opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.204.189 (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

asking for intelligence on wrongdoing is election interfering. Next! starship.paint (talk) 05:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2019

Change the opening sentence "The Trump–Ukraine controversy is an ongoing political scandal in the United States." to "The Trump–Ukraine controversy is an ongoing political issue in the United States." Crs0zero (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done - "Scandal" seems to be the correct descriptor. [1][2][3]. If you wish to change this, you will have to seek consensus on this page. - MrX 🖋 12:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

New York Times & White House

Here's my suggestion for how to improve the article.[4]

Hunter Biden's relationship with 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

The content has been removed, with the following edit summary: "BLP." I think it is relevant and should be included. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I think that the editorial article doesn't say anything about their being a conflict of interest - only that Hunter being on the board of Burisma is potentially problematic. The second one is talking about the accusations from what I can read (unfortunately paywalled) so I cannot verify that it supports the claim either. We should be careful when we use two articles four years apart to SYNTH a statement, and there must be better sources and a better way to write these statements if they are significant. Koncorde (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I would add WP:SYNTH and grammar as reasons for opposing this content as well. The conflict of interest highlighted by the second source concerns Joe Biden, not his son. The first source (an editorial), does not speak to a conflict of interest per se, and also doesn't meet WP:DUEWEIGHT. The second sentence attempts to argue nepotism based on opinions about appearances, rather than actual fact. - MrX 🖋 12:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

At the time, there was actually a variety of opinions among ethics experts about whether Hunter Biden's taking the Burisma job affronted the proprieties. For example, Melanie Sloan said no, while Richard Painter said yes [5]. There was no official ruling or anything like that to settle the question (though the wording of the sentence The White House dismissed... rather makes it sound like there was). So, yes, there are lots of problems with these two sentences. XOR'easter (talk) 12:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Throwin' shade on Hunter Biden again and Joe Biden again, by implication. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

United Russia member and Putin ally

@MrX:, please explain why is this WP:SYNTH information so important? Some new Russiagate conspiracy? -- Tobby72 (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

It provides context. However, I would be fine with removing the entire paragraph. Pushkov's opinion is WP:UNDUE anyway.- MrX 🖋 16:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Why not use the transcript itself?

It seems weird that there isn't a source for the transcript itself. Why shouldn't we use it? It's the most direct source of information, isn't it? https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf is the transcript. 216.107.203.147 (talk) 11:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• It is embedded in the page in the section "Communications with Ukrainian officials" (as a government work, it's public domain and can be mirrored on Wikipedia). It is also linked to indirectly in the reference <ref name="press secretary"> "Statement from the Press Secretary". I don't think we need to link directly to the PDF too.-Ich (talk) 12:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• It's also in the External links section, which seems appropriate. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Another subpoena

Subpoenas filed on October 10, 2019

• 
  Subpoena issued to John M. Dowd, regarding his clients Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman
• 
  Congressional subpoena for Rick Perry, Secretary of Energy

I'm not sure if today's document would fit into this article, but it's on Commons if anyone wants it.

Your clients' failure or refusal to comply with the subpoenas, including at the direction or behest of the White House, shall constitute evidence of obstruction of the House's impeachment inquiry and may be used as an adverse inference against your clients and anyone with whom they are acting in concert, including the President.

It goes on to talk about Naftogaz. XOR'easter (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

And the one for Rick Perry. XOR'easter (talk) 21:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

XOR'easter. I placed one of the images in the relevant section - see diff: [6]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2019

All accusations MUST be clearly stated as "alleged". This article is unacceptable as fact. The facts have not been established. It is completely irresponsible to use terms as if they have.

Your credibility is at stake. 2601:484:8102:190:81B9:404B:EEB5:ADFA (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done - This is not an edit request. - MrX 🖋 23:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2019

The interjection of the EU providing more than twice the amount of aid than the US is misleading. While it may be true, it does not speak to the context of the paragraph. President Trump did not say the EU was not giving enough aid. 64.171.224.83 (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done - This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". - MrX 🖋 22:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Trump was indeed implying that they weren't giving enough aid, and knowing how Trump rolls, he probably had no clue when he said it, because he has a habit of inventing false and misleading statements on the spur of the moment, and his aides are then forced to spin it so it doesn't look like an outright lie. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2019

There is alot of politcally charged language and soe bias in the writing, some grammerical issues and scources that dont even match with what there are linked to. Sambaker1924 (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done - This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". - MrX 🖋 00:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Sambaker1924, your concerns may or may not be legitimate. If you aren't specific, we can't help you. Here is some procedural advice. The template you used is only used for non-controversial edits, so the way forward is to be extremely specific (exact quotes and sources from the article) and then discuss them to find out what other editors think and how we can improve the article. Don't give up. You have several concerns all packed together above. Deal with each one seperately here. Start new threads for each one. Then we can try to help you. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Time for separate articles on Parnas and Fruman?

Time for separate articles on Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman? Now that they have been arrested, there is considerably more info on these two players in reliable news feeds, and I think they merit their own articles now. However, because the current article is a redirect from an article called "Lev Parnas" I don't know how to establish the new, full "Lev Parnas" article. VanEman (talk) 04:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@VanEman: Hi. I was thinking the same thing. I started such an article in my User space, but I am not sure how much time I have to work on it. (It is located here). I solved the redirect problem you mentioned by combining the two in one topic, and I can redirect the "Lev Parnas" page to this one when it is in main space. I think it is best to combine the two because there isn't much biographical information on each of them individually. I was intending to change the title when I moved it to the main space. You are welcome to work on this with me. The title can be changed once it is moved to main space. In fact, I would appreciate your help if you're up for it. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@VanEman: I think the history of them working for Giuliani goes back to 2016, but I have to double check the sources to see if I come across that again. I know their connection to Giuliani and the Trump people goes back to at least 2018 ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I just moved it into the main space here. --Steve Quinn (talk) 12:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I would have held off on this at least momentarily, giving the story time to develop and for detail to emerge because of BLP concerns. By forking content you can cause a lot of confusion when people start arguing about what is relevant to their articles with due weight. To be clear; they may be notable for their arrest at the moment - but at the present they are still innocent parties. Absent of their arrest, they do not carry any significant notability for their own articles I would suggest.

Having a single article for two people also gives me significant concerns. That is usually reserved when their are two protagonists of a single event (such as Columbine) rather than an article about two people alone, or of a named group (be it a band, or organisation).

I would suggest what is relevant we ensure is in this article because and the creation of an article for these two individuals is really considered further down the line. Koncorde (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Useful?

• Is this article in Politico useful in this article? This Is What a Legitimate Anti-Corruption Effort in Ukraine Would Look Like. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
• Also, The New York Times has published "Timeline of the Ukraine Affair" if anyone wants more clarity. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Federalist neglecting to mention possibility of secondhand complaint

As our article notes, there have been conspiracy theories about the first whistleblower complaint. Some of these stemmed from an article by The Federalist, which pointed out that a section entitled First-hand information required present in the May 2018 old version of the whistleblower complaint form was absent in the August 2019 version. The Federalist also had a screenshot that the new August 2019 form had checkboxes (a) I have direct and personal knowledge, (b) I heard about it from others.

What The Federalist did not point out, but other sources such as FactCheck, Washington Post and Politifact did point out is that the May 2018 old form already had checkboxes like so: a) “I have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved,” b) “Other employees have told me about events or records involved” or c) “Other source(s) (please explain).” The Daily Beast noted this omission from The Federalist:

[7] The kernel of fact near the center of the conspiracy theory is that there is, indeed, a new version of Form 401 dated August 2019. A question on the form explicitly anticipates tips based on secondhand information, and asks the whistleblower to check a box: “I have direct and personal knowledge,” or, “I heard about it from others.” The Federalist used a screenshot of that field to illustrate its story. What the article didn’t mention or screenshot is a nearly identical field gracing Form 401 since at least May 2018, making it impossible that it was added as an easement for Trump’s whistleblower. The major difference in the fields is that the old form includes three options instead of two, subdividing secondhand sources into outside source and “other employees.”

As such, I would like to question this edit [8] by Shinealittlelight (The sources do not say that the Federalist story failed to mention this; rather, the DB source says that the Federalist included a screenshot of the boxes.") on two grounds. (1) The Daily Beast does say that The Federalist failed to mention the May 2018 boxes. (2) There is a clear error as Shinealittlelight's edit claims that the old form also included checkboxes where the whistleblower could indicate whether they had "direct" knowledge of the information they were providing, or whether or they "heard about it from others", that is actually in the new form.

What I am proposing is a revert to the language of: The Federalist's article neglected to mention that the old form did have checkboxes where the whistleblower could indicate that their information was from either "other employees" or other sources other than firsthand knowledge. starship.paint (talk) 07:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok, Starship.paint, I see your point now. DB is generally an opinion source per RSN, and I think they're editorializing here. I'd be fine with your edit if it were attributed to DB. Or, if you don't want to attribute, I'd be fine with correcting my error with the old form also included checkboxes where the whistleblower could indicate whether their information was "direct" or from either "other employees" or other indirect sources. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree.- MrX 🖋 11:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Shinealittlelight and MrX - I have restored the old text, slightly changed with it now being attributed to TDB, here: [9]. starship.paint (talk) 11:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

One more thing, Starship.paint: "other sources other than" is so ugly. How about According to The Daily Beast, the article written by The Federalist neglected to mention that the old form did have checkboxes where the whistleblower could indicate whether their information was "direct" or from either "other employees" or other indirect sources. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: - done. starship.paint (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Add Steele Dossier

Might be worth adding mention of the Steele's Dossier, Ukraine is mentioned in dossier from Trump Russia-Dossier:

• That a major goal of the Russians in supporting Trump was "to upset the liberal international status quo, including on Ukraine-related sanctions, which was seriously disadvantaging the country". (Dossier, pp. 28–29)

• In late September, Steele was summoned to Rome where he gave a full briefing to four American FBI officials about the report. Among them, again, was Michael Gaeta, head of the FBI's Eurasian Organized Crime Squad Team, which specializes in investigating criminal groups from Georgia, Russia, and Ukraine. When Steele showed his findings to the agents their reaction was "shock and horror".

• That Viktor Yanukovych, the former pro-Russian President of Ukraine, had told Putin that he had been making supposedly untraceable kickback payments to Manafort while he was Trump's campaign manager. (Dossier, p. 20)

etc.

Skinnytony1 (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

This is very interesting to me. I'm wondering if we couldn't insert this content into this article somehow. Does anyone else have thoughts on this? Steve Quinn (talk) 03:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The Steele dossier is a can of worms. We're practically inviting more right-wing attacks. Not that it shouldn't be included, but that if we do include, we should be prepared. starship.paint (talk) 06:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I understand the reservation, but this might be very relevant. Trump intended to lift the sanctions, as revealed beforehand by the dossier (one of the many confirmed allegations in the dossier). So, to do this properly, we need sources that refer to the current scandal AND to the dossier. -- BullRangifer (talk) 10:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Ukrainegate for a new title?

Here's a trial balloon, not a real move discussion...yet. What do you think about changing the title to Ukrainegate? It's widely used now, even by the Russians when they laugh about Trump's situation now.

• Search: Ukrainegate, 7,880,000 hits.

"#Ukrainegate" is also a trending hashtag on Twitter. One caution. It isn't mentioned by very many RS yet, but keep an eye on this. It may well become a good descriptor. -- BullRangifer (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I would not support such a title. I don't see it being used consistently by sources that we commonly rely on for articles like this. I hope that reliable sources don't adopt this name because it trivializes the seriousness of the situation, and it's lazy journalism which will be embarrassing 100 years from now, assuming there is still a civilization then. - MrX 🖋 11:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. soibangla (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Search Ukraine Scandal [10] 32.6 million.
• Search Trump Ukraine Scandal [11] 11 million. SPECIFICO talk 13:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Ahh, I like that last one. It's much better than what we have now. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with MrX. I have not seen "Ukraingate" used by the sources we commonly rely on. Also, truthfully, I am usually not impressed by the number of google hits that a word or phrase has. I don't see it as meaning anything. So, I am opposed to such a title change. Also, I believe there has been previous discussion about changing the original title: Trump-Ukraine scandal to Trump-Ukraine controversy. The second title is less sensational and follows Wikipedia's tendency and preference toward neutral wording. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah but what's controversial about it? I think that first discussion was quite early on and there was some knee-jerk false equivalency sleeptalking. SPECIFICO talk 18:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Controversy.: [12]

(1) a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion.

(2) contention, strife, or argument.

Scandal.: [13]

1. a disgraceful or discreditable action, circumstance, etc.

2. an offense caused by a fault or misdeed.

3. damage to reputation; public disgrace.

4. defamatory talk; malicious gossip. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Based on the above dictionary definitions, "scandal" seems to be the most accurate. But it does fit the definition of controversy as well. And Wikipedia articles and titles are supposed be neutrally worded: WP:NPOV. "Scandal" seems to indicate editorial bias - what's OK for newspapers is not neccesarily OK for us. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, I'm thinking that "scandal" ventures into weasel word territory. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a little above a controversy. Usually politics at this sort of level are considered scandals, but they often use the term "affair" when the issue is dragged out (such as the Profumo affair and the Iran-Contra affair. Koncorde (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

But Profumo actually had an affair. SPECIFICO talk 19:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Whereas Iran-Contra just had a one night stand, amirite? But no, there is also the Thorpe affair, Westland affair, Cash-for-questions affair etc etc. Koncorde (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I would be comfortable with "scandal", similar to Watergate scandal. The current situation seems to meet the first three definitions listed above. Whether is should be Trump-Ukraine scandal, Trump Ukraine scandal, or Ukraine scandal, I'm not sure.- MrX 🖋 19:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

If consensus is heading toward "scandal" then I can agree with that. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Trump–Ukraine scandal is more apt at this point. No on "Ukrainegate" -- not yet. No on "Ukraine scandal" -- these search results are picking up all sorts of variations of [Trump Ukraine scandal]. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Anyone interested in Google Trends?

• Here is google trends for Trump Ukraine scandal over the past 30 days: in the USA [14] and worldwide [15].
• Here is google trends for Ukraine scandal over the same period: in the USA [16] and worldwide [17].
• This is Trump Ukraine controversy same period : the USA [18] and worldwide [19]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

There was a six-month moratorium on move requests declared 11 days ago. XOR'easter (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

"Absent exceptional new developments yielding a consensus..." There are exceptional new developments every day. This discussion can determine if there is a consensus for a formal move request.- MrX 🖋 21:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I think we should stay with "controversy". Definitely not Ukrainegate. MelanieN alt (talk) 11:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

At this stage, the most important thing is that users can find the article via internet search and WP search. Anything with Trump +Ukraine is more or less OK. With hindsight, we may think that "scandal" understates what happened, but we don't know yet. We could end up with "Crimes of Donald Trump" or "Deep State Plots v. POTUS Trump". SPECIFICO talk 13:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

...or QAnon-Ukraine - MrX 🖋 14:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Gates are over. Let's return to the classics. The best name for a scandal built on insane conspiracy theories is Crackpot Dome. [20] XOR'easter (talk) 16:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The Hindenburg Controversy SPECIFICO talk 17:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

POV Editing Gate SPECIFICO talk 17:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

It appears others outside Wikipedia are grappling with a naming dilema (humorous). Here they are on the famous reliable source, Twitter: ([21]) Ukraine-a-Lago, Moron-Contra, Corruption for dummies, Lago-Contra, Imbecilic Interludes, Moron-Lago and, as noted before,Crackpot-Dome. Also there is one tweet that says: "I read that people in Ukraine are referring to this mess as "Monica Zelensky" [22] ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I heard "Monica Zelensky" as their nickname for Zelensky himself. (Stepping back from the jokes for a bit, it would be nice if our article could say more about the domestic consequences within Ukraine itself.) XOR'easter (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

We could at least rename the article to Donald Trump–Ukraine controversy. I think that name is more formal and encyclopedic than the current name. Ukrainegate would make us look like an informal and casually sloppy magazine. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 18:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'd say keep it as is. There's really no need to change the title at all. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 19:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
• Let's leave it alone for now. The China/Italy/UK stuff doesn't have a proper home yet and maybe longer term it'll be a "Impetus/lead-up to the impeachment of Donald Trump" or "Trump 2020 election interference controversies" (country-agnostic) or we strictly limit the article to Ukraine. But in my opinion anything is better than "Ukrainegate".-Ich (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Title: Usage of the sources

I agree with MrX and others that "Trump–Ukraine scandal" or simply "Ukraine scandal" is the most appropriate title because that is generally how the reliable sources describe it, especially in the last 10 days or so when developments have been very fast and furious. Sources describing it as such include:

• The Times of London (Sept. 25) ("What is the scandal about?")
• The Guardian (Sept. 27) ("Trump, the whistleblower and the comic: key players in the Ukraine scandal")
• Reuters (Oct. 6) ("Second whistleblower in Trump-Ukraine scandal comes forward")
• New York Times (Oct. 8) ("a memo written by the whistle-blower at the center of the Ukraine scandal")
• Washington Post (Oct. 8): "the inquiry into the Ukraine scandal"
• New York Times (Oct. 10) ("the fallout of the Ukraine scandal")
• Associated Press (Oct. 12) ("the Ukraine scandal at the heart of the impeachment investigation")
• New York Times (Oct. 15) ("the Ukraine scandal")
• Reuters (Oct. 16) ("Supporting actors in Trump's Ukraine scandal")
• Wall Street Journal (Oct. 16): "associates of Rudy Giuliani, President Trump’s personal attorney, appear to be deeply involved in the Ukraine scandal.")

A formal RM, laying out all these sources' usage, would be appropriate. Neutrality^talk 22:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I have no objection to "scandal" over "controversy"; I'm not sure if it would represent a drastic improvement, but perhaps a small one. XOR'easter (talk) 00:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I too lean toward "scandal". That's what we're seeing, even with several debunked conspiracy theories. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 17 October 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: WP:SNOW close as moved. This was already moved to Trump–Ukraine scandal by User:Chelston-temp-1, which was out of process as it hadn't run its full course yet. Given the unanimous support so far, I'll endorse this close rather than moving it back, but it anyone objects let me know.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Trump–Ukraine controversy → Trump-Ukraine scandal – Rough consensus has been reached to re-examine the article title. See previous discussion and sources cited in the section immediately above. - MrX 🖋 21:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• Scandal Support move. "Scandal" is good, and it's better than "controversy" -- there's nothing controversial about the matter. So we've got good plus better, and time will tell whether it's best, or whether we improve the title even more in the future. SPECIFICO talk 21:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
• Trump–Ukraine scandal (en dash). PC78 (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support with en-dash. This is the language consistently used by the great preponderance of the high-quality, reliable sources:

• The Times of London (Sept. 25) ("What is the scandal about?")
• The Guardian (Sept. 27) ("Trump, the whistleblower and the comic: key players in the Ukraine scandal")
• Reuters (Oct. 6) ("Second whistleblower in Trump-Ukraine scandal comes forward")
• NBC News (Oct. 6) ("Second whistleblower comes forward in Trump-Ukraine scandal")
• New Yorker (Oct. 14) ("Donald Trump's Ukraine Scandal")
• New York Times (Oct. 8) ("a memo written by the whistle-blower at the center of the Ukraine scandal")
• Washington Post (Oct. 8) ("the inquiry into the Ukraine scandal")
• New York Times (Oct. 10) ("the fallout of the Ukraine scandal")
• Associated Press (Oct. 12) ("the Ukraine scandal at the heart of the impeachment investigation")
• New York Times (Oct. 15) ("the Ukraine scandal")
• Reuters (Oct. 16) ("Supporting actors in Trump's Ukraine scandal")
• Wall Street Journal (Oct. 16) ("associates of Rudy Giuliani, President Trump’s personal attorney, appear to be deeply involved in the Ukraine scandal")
• Reuters (Oct. 17) ("the pivotal role of Giuliani in the Ukraine scandal")
• CNN (Oct. 17) ("the deepening Trump-Ukraine scandal")

Neutrality^talk 22:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support per the sources cited by Neutrality and per my previous comments about consistency with Watergate scandal and conformity with three of the four definitions of scandal according to dictionary.com[23]. The proposed title meets alo meets all five WP:CRITERIA. - MrX 🖋 23:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support: Early on I preferred "controversy" to "scandal," but now it's a full-blown scandal, for sure. soibangla (talk) 23:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support I think the above !votes make good points, and I guess it's a little silly to hold off titling the article with "scandal" when the first sentence calls it, well, "an ongoing political scandal." XOR'easter (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support with en-dash, per sources provided. Makes sense at this point. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Definitely a "scandal". -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support per sources. Volunteer Marek 03:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support as in prior section, this has gone way past a controversial statement or something that is a little brouhaha, and the reliable sources are reflecting that this is probably in all posterity going to be considered a scandal a la Watergate. Koncorde (talk) 03:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support. It is a scandal, so let's call it that. Mksword (talk) 07:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support to mirror above-mentioned sources. And I'm glad the press has avoided "Ukrainegate".-Ich (talk) 10:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Trump transcript" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Trump transcript. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Ich (talk) 11:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Mulvaney press conference comments

I believe that Mulvaney's comments need to be put in context, otherwise it's misleading. The article needs to show what the DNC server comment related to. Wikipedia should present what was referenced prior to the "But that’s it. And that’s why we held up the money" comment and let the reader draw their own conclusions. This is clearly in line with WP:NPOV. The onus is on those that want to only quote selective pieces to show why that's appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garp21 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

His comments are already in context. What you seem to want to do is give the alternative facts version of the story that was promoted after he was caught accidentally confessing for Trump. I don't see that that's likely to happen.- MrX 🖋 00:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I strongly disagree! I'm not adding "alternative facts", I only wish to add needed context for the statement from the original press conference by adding the needed additional quotes from the original press conference so the reader can understand what was actually said and draw their own conclusion. Why do some seem to be worried about that? This clearly seems to be an effort to censor what doesn't fit the talking point. Wikipedia shouldn't be doing that.Garp21 (talk) 00:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I removed the weird scare quotes on the "the" in that bit on Mulvaney's press conference. But what context is lacking? Mulvaney said there was a quid pro quo of foreign aid for looking into the DNC server. That was the context. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

You want to use a primary source to overrule secondary sources:

• WSJ: Mulvaney Says Holdup of Ukraine Aid Was Tied to Trump’s Demand for DNC Server
• NYT: Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, threw the Trump administration’s defense against impeachment into disarray on Thursday when he said that the White House withheld nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine to further President Trump’s political interests
• CNN: White House acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney made a stunning admission Thursday by confirming that President Donald Trump froze nearly $400 million in US security aid to Ukraine in part to pressure that country into investigating Democrats.
• WAPO: Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney said at a news conference Thursday that President Trump withheld nearly $400 million in military aid in part to pressure Ukraine to pursue an investigation that could benefit him politically

And that's why this article is about a scandal. That he may have had other rationales is irrelevant. It was this rationale that makes it a scandal, and this rationale is why he's facing impeachment, and countless reliable sources support that. soibangla (talk) 01:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

"That he may have had other rationales is irrelevant" I strongly disagree with this! I can only conclude that this line of reasoning only re-enforces my prior position that what doesn't fit a certain narrative is labeled "irrelevant" or "alternative facts". Wikipedia should be better than this.Garp21 (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Trump sure doesn't seem interested in promoting those rationales: "I heard they got somebody who wrote the fake dossier was out of Ukraine." soibangla (talk) 02:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Garp21, I still have no idea what it is that you think is missing. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

- The onus is on those that want to only quote selective pieces to show why that's appropriate - because that's what the reliable sources do, Garp21 - even the most neutral ones. Find more 3 more neutral sources than AP, Reuters and AFP? starship.paint (talk) 02:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Focus of reliable source coverage on Mulvaney is linking aid to investigating DNC

Associated Press: The White House acknowledged that President Donald Trump’s decision to hold up military aid to Ukraine was linked to his demand that Kyiv investigate the Democratic National Committee and the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, a shifting new explanation about events at the heart of the impeachment inquiry. The admission from acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney on Thursday undercut the president’s position that there was no quid pro quo during Trump’s phone call with the Ukraine president that sparked the House investigation. - Reuters: President Donald Trump’s withholding of $391 million in military aid to Ukraine was linked to his request that the Ukrainians look into a claim - debunked as a conspiracy theory - about the 2016 U.S. election, a senior presidential aide said on Thursday, the first time the White House acknowledged such a connection ... Mick Mulvaney, acting White House chief of staff, acknowledged in a briefing with reporters that the U.S. aid - already approved by Congress - was held up partly over Trump’s concerns about a Democratic National Committee (DNC) computer server alleged to be in Ukraine. “I have news for everybody: Get over it. There is going to be political influence in foreign policy,” Mulvaney said. - Agence France Presse: A top White House official admitted Thursday that President Donald Trump had tied military aid for Ukraine to Kiev undertaking an investigation that would help Trump politically, adding ammunition to Democrats' impeachment probe. Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney's stunning admission supports a key allegation in the House impeachment effort, that the president illicitly sought foreign political help as he seeks re-election next year.

"Ukrainian leader felt Trump pressure before taking office"

I don't have time at the moment to find the right place to slot this into the article, but maybe someone else can: Butler, Desmond; Biesecker, Michael (October 23, 2019). "Ukrainian leader felt Trump pressure before taking office". Associated Press. Retrieved October 23, 2019.

Volodymyr Zelenskiy gathered a small group of advisers on May 7 in Kyiv for a meeting that was supposed to be about his nation's energy needs. Instead, the group spent most of the three-hour discussion talking about how to navigate the insistence from Trump and his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, for a probe and how to avoid becoming entangled in the American elections, according to three people familiar with the details of the meeting.

XOR'easter (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Also: Barnes, Julian E.; Goldman, Adam; Fandos, Nicholas (October 23, 2019). "White House Aides Feared That Trump Had Another Ukraine Back Channel". The New York Times. Retrieved October 23, 2019. XOR'easter (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I added the AP story under the ref name "pressure" in the section on Rudy Giuliani to support that the efforts were ongoing since may but this merits further discussion beyond being just a ref.-Ich (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I created a section on Kash Patel some hours ago, using the above source and a Politico source. Steve Quinn (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Kashyap Patel, add?

• https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/23/us/politics/kash-patel-ukraine.html
• https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/23/nunes-protege-ukraine-trump-055837

X1\ (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Seems important. XOR'easter (talk) 03:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Definitely important. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I added it to the article a little more than 12 hours ago; or so it seems. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

This is the diff for the new section [24]. I also continued to copy edit and so on after this edit. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

List of surrogates in first paragraph

Right now, we have his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, Attorney General Bill Barr, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Mick Mulvaney. Should we include Sondland? Pence? What criteria are we using to identify the "most noteworthy" surrogates?-Ich (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Sondland maybe. But I'm not sure there has been as much fuss about Pence when compared to the others, so I say leave him out for now. Probably, include Volker - his actions at his post seem somewhat at variance with his testimony. Imho.---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For a very crude measure, "Giuliani" appears 144 times, "Sondland" 30, "Perry" 28, "Barr" 21, "Mulvaney" 14, and "Pence" 12. XOR'easter (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

At one point we said "surrogates, notably his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani" without naming the supporting cast. I would be OK with going back to that. Giuliani is clearly the ringleader; he is the one getting orders from Trump, and he is directing or coordinating the actions of everybody else. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, for the sake of brevity, we should go back to mentioning just Giuliani, and not listing a chunk of the supporting cast in the lede. If someone else begins to predominate (say, if the impeachment investigation turns round to What did the Vice President know and when did he know it?), then we can add them. XOR'easter (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Trump told Zelensky to coordinate with Giuliani and Barr. We also know Barr is working the Deep State conspiracy theories in Italy and through the US Attorney from Connecticut. SPECIFICO talk 02:01, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Barr would definitely be the one I'd list if I had to pick one in addition to Giuliani. XOR'easter (talk) 02:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Good point; I'm convinced. I'll be bold; if there's any objections, just revert and we can discuss further.-Ich (talk) 14:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Survey and discussion

There is a survey and discussion about lead paragraph proposals taking place in one of the above sections - here --- Steve Quinn (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Pelosi's statement

I'm not sure Pelosi's characterization ("The Shakedown", "The Pressure Campaign", and "The Cover-Up") belongs in the lede [25]. It is also in the body of the article and I also think this might not belong there either [26]. These are colloquilisms and obviously have negative connotations. This statement serves the media, its audience, and voters. But we are an encyclopedia and neutral wording is preferred. So, in the context of what are supposed to be neutrally worded articles, this seems to contradict NPOV, per wp:wikivoice:

Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed.

Based on the above, I recommend removing this from the article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

It is probably worth recording how Pelosi is presenting the impeachment investigation, but I am far from convinced that it belongs in the lede. XOR'easter (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Once the articles of impeachment are brought to the floor, the components will be much clearer. Also, the Daily Beast is not the best source for these types of things.- MrX 🖋 21:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. This use of the Daily Beast is perfectly appropriate. We could also add WaPo for this content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Beast is not "perfectly" anything. They are known to have high opinion content and they have made sometimes alarming reporting errors. without a doubt, it is a source to be used with caution. For a subject like this which is being covered by virtually every major news organization, there is little justification for using sources like the Daily Beast.- MrX 🖋 11:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Body, yes. Lead, no. soibangla (talk) 03:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Steve Quinn, you should know better. There seems to be a misunderstanding of NPOV. It is OUR (editors') wording ("editorial bias") which must be neutral, but not what the sources say. NPOV specifically allows the use of biased sources and biased wording from those sources. In this case, it's an extremely notable and official speaker.gov document from Pelosi that should not be ignored, and it's properly attributed. Those three wordings are the logical framework on which this whole article about the scandal should be built. We can have other sections, but we need three major sections with those (or synonymous, but not neutered) headings under which most of the content will find its logical home.

Keep in mind that Wikipedia and NPOV allow the creation of articles that are dedicated to documenting one POV, and this one certainly does that. WE (editors) must not use language which implies that WE are taking sides, but we must include all the biased language used by sources, and if they are opinions or especially controversial (among RS), then we simply attribute them. Problem solved.

For more on this topic, read my essay: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to go over this in more detail. But first, I want to say, please don't start a reply to me saying I should Know better. And after briefly going over this, it seems you missed my point. And it is doubtful this article will be divided into three main sections based on rhetoric from any U.S. Congress person. There are two other editors who responded who appear to understand what I was saying. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

There is also the fact that is may be UNDUE, and not really noteworthy when taken in context of all the events and testimony surrounding and involved with this topic, which this article chronicles. As I said, this is really rhetoric - politician speak. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, it seems that you feel strongly about this issue. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

This receives only passing mention in the WAPO source and the Daily Beast article. In WAPO it is mentioned as part of a much larger strategy, and on whole the article covers actions taken by the Democrats and Republicans. This really not that significant of an issue - although I see it stands out for you. But there is coverage about a variety of stuff, even in that one article.---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Just because I defend an edit doesn't mean I can't be moved by reasonable arguments that some form of improvement/change is in order. Please propose a better solution than complete removal. I am known to be quite amenable to good arguments. I tend to follow WP:PRESERVE (a binding policy, not an optional guideline) quite closely, IOW we should rarely delete properly sourced content completely. We are here to build, not break down. We should improve, modify, move, paraphrase, etc., but not completely remove it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm inclined to let other editors chime in first. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer I think a good compromise would be to leave it in its present form, and leave it where it is in the body, but remove it from the lead (per UNDUE) If someone else has issues with it, then they can bring it to the talk page to discuss. It is attributed, and that is an acceptable form per NPOV. How does this sound? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it needs to be removed from the lead. It makes the introduction to the article look farcical. Doesn't Nancy vet these thing with her staff?- MrX 🖋 11:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Steve Quinn, I agree with the concerns you've raised. The content, if kept at all, should be integrated into Responses/Congress (10.1) where some other Pelosi responses are noted. It's not notable for the lead, nor should it be in the Summary section. It hasn't been covered by most RS, and wasn't a statement she made. It appears to be from a something called "Truth Exposed" which is of the campaign ad rhetoric level of release. --Garp21 (talk) 04:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Garp21 This is fine with me. My only concern is removing it from the lead. It does make sense to integrate it into the Responses/ Congress (10.1). In fact, I agree this is a really good idea. I'm noticing there is consensus here for removing it from the lead, but I think it is best to wait for BullRangifer to respond again. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Steve Quinn, I'm okay with removing it from the lead, although it summarizes the evidence up to this point, thus making it the ideal summary, which is why I also included it in the lead. Its great due weight also justified doing so, but I'm willing to compromise.

Garp21, you may want to look at the official source again. It's an official "speaker.gov" summary document from the Speaker of the House. This is a summary of the legal evidence which will be used in the impeachment proceedings. We weight evidence very highly here. It carries about as high a weight as anything in the article, possibly more weight than any other content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, I had already viewed the pdf file you linked, that's where I saw the title I referenced, "Truth Exposed". It was disseminated to the media on Oct 21, but wasn't an actual press release. In the five days since it's appearance it hasn't received coverage as news by NYT, WSJ, WaPo ect. I hold to the opinion that it should move to 10.1, if it's retained at all. --Garp21 (talk) 07:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, I agree with Garp 21 on this. Also, the PDF is actually a primary source without significant secondary coverage in the media, so this would not be proof of significant weight for Wikipedia's purposes. Additionally, integrating Pelosi's comment into the Responses/Congress (10.1) section seems to be the logical place to put this in the article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, I did another review of the sources. Sorry to say there really is no significant coverage of this document. It is one part of the multifaceted impeachment inquiry. And in a general way, we have covered all of the PDF's documented issues in this Wikipedia article. We have less detail, relying on the sources to specify more detailed coverage - because this is an encyclopedia. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Beast seems to have the only real analysis. Although they did a good job, I'm pretty sure more RS is needed. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Definitely not for the lead. IMO it does not belong in the body of text either. It has not received much coverage. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to go back to what I originally stated. It doesn't belong in the text or the body. It probably needs to be removed. As Mr.X wrote earlier,"Doesn't Nancy vet these thing with her staff?" I think it's meant to appeal to a mass audience, perhaps a very low bar. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Sondland Told House Panels Trump’s Ukraine Pressure Was Quid Pro Quo

Sondland Told House Panels Trump’s Ukraine Pressure Was Quid Pro Quo

BullRangifer (talk) 06:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Still an allegation until the case is tried. (WSJ is behind a paywall so I can’t see the article). This is still a partisan-based inquiry - no charges have been made, no crime has been identified and all we’re getting is a bunch of lip service about what some people believe is quid pro quo from a partisan POV. This inquiry is less advanced than the Durham - Barr investigation which is now a criminal investigation, so the same reasons to not include any of that information, or to include it with in-text attribution, applies here. It is all breaking news at this point and the information being released is under the control of Democrats. What are the Repubs saying about all of these allegations? Why are not we seeing both sides? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 05:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

It's impossible to have "both sides" at this point because one "side" is brazenly obstructing justice by blocking congressional depositions. That won't last much longer though. It's worth pointing out that Sondland's testimony that Trump committed quid pro quo (which is obvious from the transcript anyway), was reported by his own lawyer:

"A lawyer for U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland told The Wall Street Journal that Sondland told impeachment committee members that President Trump's dealings with Ukraine amounted to a quid pro quo.

Sondland's lawyer Robert Luskin told the news outlet that Sondland revealed to House committees that he thought a meeting between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky would take place only if the country agreed to investigate corruption allegations about his political rivals."
— [27]

- MrX 🖋 11:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

"Investigation"

A second issue (separate discussion please): Personally I prefer saying that the pressure was to “investigate” rather than to “provide damaging narratives,” which IMO is interpretation/synthesis rather than what the Reliable Sources are actually saying. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with "investigate" which is not what conspiracy theories are about. They are about insinuation and spreading false narratives. In this case that's what RS tell us Trump and Giuliani and Barr are doing. The only ones who call it "investigation" with a straight face are Trump's allies and co-conspirators. SPECIFICO talk 20:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The cited sources do not say “to provide damaging narratives”; they say “to investigate”. I see you also inserted “to pressure Ukraine and other foreign governments to cooperate in supporting conspiracy theories concerning American politics.” I don’t find that wording in any of the five sources; they talk about investigations or “corruption”. Please provide the sources from which you get that the countries were being pressured to “provide damaging narratives” and “support conspiracy theories”. Otherwise we are going to have to change to the more neutral wording used by the sources. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, I moved the investigation stuff down here, under one topic. Steve Quinn (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

In any case, I have to agree that we need to go with what the sources say and use "investigate", rather than "provide damaging narratives". Saying "to pressure Ukraine and other foreign governments to cooperate in supporting conspiracy theories concerning American politics" is one-sided and POV. It's best to stick with "investigate" which is neutral wording and that is prefered. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

"Investigation" is really what's happening on the Bill Barr end, along with the Connecticut Attorney General (can't recall his name) who is helping him. If I remember correctly the Attny General actually started by reviewing documents either at the White House or DOJ and looking at the original investigators conduct. I'll see if I can find that article - or those articles - I just read about this. I know they traveled to Italy, and England, but I'm not sure about Ukraine just yet. At least part of their investigation is focused on the Ukraine, in an attempt to discredit the Mueller Report and the ancillary arrests. But I'm not clear on the facts just yet. Steve Quinn (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

On second thought - looking at "provide damaging narratives" again - I'm thinking this adequately sums up what the sources are saying. This is not being hidden by the media, Giuliani, or Trump himself. I think the aggregate of all the media coverage (including our sources) is Ukraine is or was being pressured to "provide damaging information." However, referencing conspiracy theories in this (Wikipedia) article is somewhat over the top, regarding NPOV. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

They have been widely discussed and debunked as conspiracy theories -- in the case of Crowdstrike that's quite old. Yes we see "investigation" over and over, but always attributed to Trump or his team. That's part of the messaging on conspiracy theories -- familiarity and repetition are very effective. But overwhelmingly, RS discussions note that these are false narratives and they are being solicited to promote Trump's messaging. SPECIFICO talk 21:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Just a quick note before I have to run and go do other things: I concur with Steve Quinn's second thought more than the first. I don't think "investigate" is the neutral choice of term. It essentially presumes that Trump and company are after something legitimate. NPOV means not loading our language against the position of those who disagree. (Taylor's prepared testimony keeps putting the word in quotation marks....) XOR'easter (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm surprised this is not obvious to editors who have been following RS discussion of the matter. If Trump & friends were after facts relating to US persons, US elections, US government officials, et al, RS repeatedly remind us that he would be using the US law enforcement and intelligence agencies at his command, not an aging pick-up team of increasingly nervous recruits. SPECIFICO talk 22:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

How about something like “to launch investigations which would be helpful to Trump’s re-election campaign.” Simpler and clearer than “providing damaging narratives” (in a search, I can’t find that usage anywhere except Wikipedia mirrors). The political angle is pointed out by virtually every source. And this wording doesn’t presume that the investigations have a legitimate purpose. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I think you're missing the central point here. Sources remind us that first, the US FBI and CIA do not call on the Ukraine for fact-finding, anywhere in the world. "which would be helpful to Trump’s re-election campaign" might be ok but not necessarily better. I'm not sure we need to emulate mass-circulation style and language here when there's a more concise wording available. But it's the "launch investigations" part that's resoundingly false according to RS reporting, discussion and common sense -- including a growing body of testimony and statements by current and former government employees. SPECIFICO talk 22:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The second sentence currently in the article says “It revolves around efforts by U.S. President Donald Trump to coerce Ukraine and other foreign countries into providing damaging narratives about 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidate Joe Biden and about Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.” The problems are that 1) “providing damaging narratives” is a phrase not used by any source except us, and 2) it really doesn’t convey any clear meaning to the reader, and 3) “investigation” is the code word, if you will, that was repeatedly used by Trump and his minions in making the requests. How about “It revolves around efforts by U.S. President Donald Trump to coerce Ukraine and other foreign countries into launching “investigations” which would be damaging to 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidate Joe Biden and support right-wing theories about Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.”-- MelanieN (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Melanie - USA Today reported: “ There is no evidence Hunter Biden did anything wrong, said Yuri Lutsenko, the prosecutor general who succeeded Shokin. However, Lutsenko, who's also faced criticism for his actions as prosecutor, supported Trump's claim before changing his story. He resigned as prosecutor in August.”

And there’s the following from NBC: “ A review of corruption at Burisma Holdings interests Ukrainians far beyond its implications for Trump, the Bidens and the 2020 presidential election, said Katya Ryzhenko, head of the legal office at Transparency International Ukraine.”

I’m sure there are more RS out there that present a more NPOV, or at the very least, both views considering the level of partisanship involved in these allegations. The investigation Trump initiated is within his duties as a US President - he is investigating corruption/election interference in US elections by foreign countries - and it just so happens Ukraine is one the three 3 most corrupt countries in the world. There are plenty of red flags waving around this issue that tell us to be cautious and adhere to RECENTISM and NPOV. The POV issues that are being proposed for inclusion in this article, particularly in the lead will require a formal RfC for consensus before being included or It will be challenged by BRDs if presented with a strong partisan POV - I haven’t seen any proposed language that includes Trump’s POV despite the case still being in the inquiry stage and with ongoing investigations In Ukraine. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Facts do not have a partisan bias. Trump has not presented a single coherent explanation for his "POV" (he's presented several inchorent stories, or mutually exclusive ones, or those that are directly contradicted by material witness and released transcripts as documented in RS), and has instructed non-compliance from his staff wherever possible. Even if it is taken that "Ukraine" is corrupt, the targeting of Biden is recognised in all reliable sources as undue, and the methods used to achieve his goal are specific enough to be potentially impeachable offences. Threatening BRD on something that is already at the discussion stage for consensus is moot. Koncorde (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Size matters

The article size is now at about 95 kB (15011 words) of readable prose. I suggest we start trimming some excessive detail and possible spin some material off into new articles, if merited. The 'Reactions' section should be cut substantially, as well as the 'Conspiracy theories' section, which already has a dedicated article. Are there any objections or suggestions before I go in there with a weed wacker? - MrX 🖋 12:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The conspiracy theories section can be reduced since there is an article for that subject. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I definitely wouldn't want to lose that section altogether, but we can probably afford to winnow it down. For example, the details of the first whistleblower's actions have receded into the background now, and we might not need to spend so many words debunking nonsense about them. XOR'easter (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Steven Fruman, add?

Federal prosecutors in New York subpoenaed Igor Fruman's brother, Steven Fruman.

• https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/25/politics/fruman-parnas-giuliani-investigation/index.html

X1\ (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a brief mention, if at all. It has not received much news coverage yet. - MrX 🖋 21:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Looks as if later events have outrun this. Their roles may become clearer as their trials approach. SPECIFICO talk 21:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit Request: House passes resolution formally authorizing and articulating guidelines for the next phase of its impeachment inquiry

Current last sentence in lead:

The House of Representatives has scheduled the first vote in the impeachment inquiry for October 31, 2019.[17]

Per WaPo:

A divided House approved a resolution Thursday formally authorizing and articulating guidelines for the next phase of its impeachment inquiry, a move that signaled Democrats are on course to bring charges against President Trump later this year. [28]

Requested/suggested rewrite of last sentence in lead:

The House of Representatives approved guidelines for the next phase of the impeachment inquiry on October 31, 2019[[29].

--В²C ☎ 16:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done -

Hello, and thank you for lending your time to help improve Wikipedia! If you are interested in editing more often, I suggest you create an account to gain additional privileges. Happy editing! - MrX 🖋 17:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I have an account, LOL. I only made this edit request because the comments in the article source text said to discuss all edits to the lead on the talk page. --В²C ☎ 18:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I know. I was being facetious with the templates. - MrX 🖋 19:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)