Open main menu

Talk:Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump


Most of the text under "Trump and the White House", in the "Responses" section of this article, seems to be strongly biased against President Donald J. Trump, and should be rewritten with a more neutral point of view (or at least tagged as needing such a rewrite). I would like to particularly highlight the language used when referring to his responses, as an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

What specific text are you claiming is biased? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I usually stay out of Wikipedia edits and I don't want to directly edit this page, but under the section for RESPONSES, the first section titled "Trump and the White House", 2nd Paragraph, 3rd sentence: "One aspect of the campaign focused on attacking Joe Biden and his son for their alleged, but largely baseless involvement with Ukraine." I have italicized the part of the sentence that is opinion without any supporting evidence, considering Joe Biden actually bragged about what he did on Television. Because it is an opinion, I would suggest it be removed and the sentence left at: "One aspect of the campaign focused on attacking Joe Biden and his son for their alleged involvement with Ukraine." This statement is factually correct, more neutral, and allows for interpretation by the reader instead of trying to convince them of one side or the other. This is why I put it here under "Bias." Please discuss. - Subzerox (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I've added a failed verification tag to the sentence. The sentence is awkwardly worded, but the gist of it is verifiable in numerous sources. The Bidens have been involved with Ukraine, but the conspiracy theory about the nature of their involvement is baseless (based on what is currently publicly known).- MrX 🖋 19:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
The allegation of involvement isn't baseless, so we shouldn't say it is.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
The nature of the involvement is what's baseless. In fact, it's a conspiracy theory.[1]

"Trump urged Ukraine to investigate Biden over baseless allegations regarding the former vice president's role in seeing a prosecutor ousted and Hunter serving on the board of a Ukrainian gas company, Burisma Holdings. There's no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of either Biden.
— [2]

- MrX 🖋 20:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- By that logic, the accusations against President Trump would also be baseless, as there's no "evidence" of wrongdoing on the part of President Trump either, yet we're having a massive discussion about it and even threatening an impeachment. So, how about we leave out the opinions that haven't been proven either way and just let the statement that the accusation is what the Republicans and the White House are saying stand? - Subzerox (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
There's the fact that Trump has literally said he did it. I'd say that's pretty strong evidence.Vision Insider (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@Subzerox: - let me make this clear: reliable sources say there is no evidence of any wrongdoing by the Bidens. See below. Also, Hunter Biden was never under investigation by Ukraine, so how can his father have interfered to protect him? I’d like to see your sources on there being no evidence of wrongdoing by the president. I think a particular memorandum would count as evidence. starship.paint (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • BBC There is no evidence of any wrongdoing by the Bidens
  • AFP: there has been no evidence of illegal conduct or wrongdoing in Ukraine by the Bidens
  • Reuters: There has been no evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden.
  • Associated Press: there has been no evidence of wrongdoing by either the former vice president or his son
  • NBC News: But despite Trump's continued claims, there's no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of either Biden
- Even if you are so adamant on only accepting left-wing biased media as "reliable", it's still not a valid excuse for keeping an article section that's written in a tone that makes it sound like some kind of good vs. evil fairytale struggle. Sentences like "Trump and his surrogates engaged in a campaign to discredit impeachment." are simply unencyclopedic. Why call something a campaign to discredit when it could be a defense against false allegations? (talk) 05:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
87, we are not adamant about only accepting left-wing media as reliable. We are adamant that only reliable sources will be accepted. I see that Following the initiation of the impeachment inquiry, Trump and his surrogates engaged in a campaign to discredit impeachment. seems to be unsourced. I have added a failed verification tag. Could someone add a citation, or rephrase it, or remove it? starship.paint (talk) 11:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Even though there is a reference, the sentence "One aspect of the campaign focused on attacking Joe Biden and his son for their alleged, but baseless<reference> involvement with Ukraine" is poor. It is inaccurate. It is not "baseless" that they each had an "involvement", a connection of sorts, with Ukraine. What is baseless is the allegation that the connection involved misconduct of some kind. Can we find a better way to word this? How about "One aspect of the campaign focused on attacking Joe Biden and his son over alleged but unproven misconduct involving Ukraine." -- MelanieN (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

In fact I'm going to put that version of the sentence into the article. Can be discussed here if someone objects. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Bias in leadEdit

If you assume that 35% of Americans are "Trump's base" and that therefore (say) 20% of all voters believe in some form of a deep state and/or conspiracy theories against Trump then the lead lacks any attempt to portray that 20%. This seems to be a question of WP:WEIGHT.

WP:NPOV states "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Yes, the article's title is "Impeachment inquiry..." and so one might expect the vast majority of opinions (by realiable sources) to be based on that that inquiry. But just because most of the arguments against impeachment inquiry are (in my opinion) debunked conspiracy theories doesn't mean we should ignore them in the lead if, say, 10% of reliable sources (like Fox News?) believe in those theories.

To be fair, we should include a short paragraph about the responses from the White House and the Republicans, in addition to the "Two close associates of Trump..." at the start of the last paragraph in the lead. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Upon reconsideration, I now believe that all of the text inside the lead expresses facts, or possible facts, not opinions or responses to the facts. --RoyGoldsmith (talk)
Alternative facts ? (talk) 22:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Just because (in your e.g.) 20% of the population are completely delusional and grasping at straws doesn't mean they should be treated as fact in the article. Neutrality doesn't mean "have an equal amount of content from both sides of the extreme", it means "state facts and don't be partisan".  Nixinova T  C  07:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 5 October 2019Edit

There's no consensus among the commenters. This may change anyway once the process is further along, so this is likely a temporary result.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Impeachment inquiry against Donald TrumpDonald Trump impeachment inquiry – Removes controversial usage of "against" while conveying all necessary information. WMSR (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure how "against" is controversial since it is an investigation against Trump. Anyway, since the House seems likely to impeach him (that's not just my opinion, but Trump's too [3]) that will be renamed to "Impeachment of Donald Trump" at that time. 331dot (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: the proposed new name would make it seem like it's an inquiry initiated by Trump, not against him. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Shouldn’t it be... into? Trillfendi (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Or maybe "of"? -- Beland (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: noncontroversial usage; parallels Impeachment process against Richard Nixon. — HipLibrarianship talk 18:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I see no reason to change it. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral: Impeachment is opposition to the conduct of the person to be impeached, so an investigation with the intent to determine if impeachment is justified is something against the person. I don't expect anyone to see the inquiry as being in favor of Donald Trump. However, there is nothing POV about "Donald Trump impeachment inquiry" or "Impeachment inquiry of Donald Trump" so there is nothing wrong with changing the title, but there is nothing wrong with keeping it as it is either. Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I proposed this due to issues of grammar (using the preposition "against" with "inquiry" seems wrong), not POV. That said, I am perfectly content with any outcome. WMSR (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Do you know of any sources that specify which prepositions can be used with the word "inquiry", or sources that state rules regarding the use of prepositions that would imply that "against" with "inquiry" is not grammatical? Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 00:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
        Nine hundred ninety-nine, See my comment above. "Inquiry into" is most common and recommended by several dictionaries, with "of" and "after" as secondary alternatives. Qono (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The existing title seems to be our established format for this kind of article, see Impeachment process against Richard Nixon and Impeachment of Bill Clinton. If actual impeachment is voted, we should then change the title to Impeachment of Donald Trump. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Goes against our existing and established naming processes, as MelanieN so succinctly notes. Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 19:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Other than the argument that the original follows a clear established tradition, I will argue that the inquiry is clearly against Trump and no one else. Or in other words, who are we inquiring for impeachment if not Trump? The proposed change does not make this as clear as the original, and it's also not grammatically correct. It would have to be capitalized "Donald Trump Impeachment Inquiry" like a title. —Partytemple (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above arguments and many RS seem to have no objection to the inquiry against grammatical construction.[4][5][6][7]--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
    Note to closer: I am ok with moving to "into". Perhaps we should just do that to avoid another 7 day discussion. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per arguments above regarding precedents aforementioned. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 00:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral agee with the nominator. The word "against" sounds controversial since we can't say impeachment against Donald Trump. I agree with 331dot that the title will likely be changed to "Impeachment of Donald Trump" but notice that we can't say "Impeachment against Donald Trump". However, I support renaming to "Donald Trump impeachment inquiry" or "Impeachment inquiry of Donald Trump"(per Nine hundred ninety-nine) I wished if the nominator proposed these names.-SharabSalam (talk) 07:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support "Inquiry against" suggests hostility and does not support Wikipedia's policy of non-judgmental descriptive titles. "Inquiry against" is a construction not supported by major dictionaries; the OED, Merriam-Webster, and the Cambridge Dictionary all suggest "inquiry into". However, "Trump impeachment" is the construction used most often by the public and by reliable sources: CNN, USA Today, AP News, Washington Post, The Sunday Times, The Economist, Time, LA Times, Al-Jazeera, NBC News, CBS News, BuzzFeed News. So, given Wikipedia's policy on article titles using what is most common, "Donald Trump impeachment inquiry" is the right title. Qono (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
So is Impeachment process against Richard Nixon incorrectly named? Using "against" is not a judgement call, by its nature impeachment is not done to exonerate someone or otherwise make findings in the subject's interest, it is done to find things against their interest. 331dot (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
331dot, I think "Impeachment of Richard Nixon" would be a better title. That aside, an impeachment inquiry is different from an actual impeachment. You may be right that the impeachment itself might be "against" someone, but we're not there yet, we're still in the inquiry phase, and an inquiry is "into" someone or something, not "against". Qono (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Nixon was not impeached, so it would be incorrect to title it that way, but I digress. 331dot (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
331dot, I actually agree with you there, but my original argument stands. Common usage points to "Trump impeachment inquiry" and dictionary guidelines point to "inquiry into". Until this expands beyond an inquiry or turns into a formal impeachment, the common and neutral "Trump impeachment inquiry" is the proper title. Qono (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@331dot, it is a different English grammar structure, not comparable. A "process" can be "against", an "inquiry" can't. "Process into" would make no sense in English, and neither does "inquiry against" Walrasiad (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
That sounds more like a debate about semantics than grammar. Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@Qono: you have presented a good argument about supporting the change in title. Using "against" in the title does seem awkward after reviewing a number of your sources. I especially enjoyed your dictionary usage presentations. Thanks for doing this. I also like Nine hundred ninety-nine's argument showing how there is nothing wrong with "Impeachment inquiry into...". I have to admit, I also enjoyed their back and forth on this issue. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per MelanieN, Partytemple, and Coffeeandcrumbs. XOR'easter (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose 2600:1702:2340:9470:70FD:3C63:A0D:E69F (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. I definitely would like "against" removed, but would prefer inquiry into" or "inquiry of". Mainly for grammatical reasons, but also for NPOV. In principal, the inquiry may lead to nothing or even exonerate. Walrasiad (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. The current title is fine and matches the format used by other impeachment articles. This new title also sounds like Trump initiated it. I've also seen and heard "impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump" used often so the current title is fine.  Nixinova T  C  20:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per MelanieN Zingarese talk · contribs 02:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The new name sounds more appropriate as it is similar to "Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations" PlanetDeadwing (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Keeps the title neutral. If the impeachment is successful, the title should reflect the decision as mentioned above. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
CaffeinAddict The current title is not non-neutral. There is no other way to interpret an impeachment inquiry other than for it to be against someone, as impeachment inquiries are not conducted to exonerate someone or make other findings in the investigated party's interest. 331dot (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The current title is analogous to that for Richard Nixon, as others have pointed out. I would support removing "against" from both pages by changing them to "Impeachment Inquiry of Donald Trump" and "Impeachment Process of Richard Nixon", respectively. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support One can call for an impeachment inquiry without being opposed to the President. Dmarquard (talk) 03:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The current title is in line with the way reliable sources describe the inquiry. Retimuko (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. I would prefer "inquiry into" or "inquiry of". Garp21 (talk) 04:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. This is a grammatical no-brainer. According to basic English construction (as referenced above), one cannot "inquire against" anything. Instead, one may only "inquire into" or "inquire about," or some similar variation thereof. Moreover, an "inquiry" and a "process" are entirely different concepts. "Impeachment process against Richard Nixon" follows because one can initiate a process against something or someone (see, e.g., termination process against an employee). To use another example, there could (properly) be no "inquiry against" a vehicle's purchase price. (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC) Vandy3L
  • Weak Oppose Though I personally feel "inquiry against" is not idiomatic ("into," as above, seems the best), this title matches existing articles and is, surprisingly, a common usage in this case. EDIT: I also disagree with the proposed title change; "Donald Trump Impeachment Inquiry" does not make it clear that Trump is the subject of the inquiry (i.e. you could almost read it as "Donald Trump's Inquiry [into impeachment]"; it is important to ensure the reader knows he is the subject of the inquiry). If we decide to move, I advocate for "into" or "about." (17:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)) anthologetes (talkcontribs) 17:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per previous arguments mentioned. Theprussian (talk) 22:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The proposer claims that removing the word against would remove some type of purported bias against the President, but in reality in my opinion, to rename it like that is to employ weasel words, as it renders ambiguous who is in danger of impeachment (the President or anyone other?). Besides, the inquiry is already targeting the President to begin with, and even then, unless we can find titles of other articles that are similar to the proposed name, I doubt that we as editors should be picky about how to name our articles. From a right-winger, GaɱingFørFuɲ365 04:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Previous article titles related to US president impeachments are including Impeachment of Bill Clinton and Impeachment of Andrew Johnson. I believe we should keep with the consistency. Ksuc (talk) 11:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose the current title consistent with other articles on the impeachment of US presidents.Mozzie (talk) 00:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose the proposed move has less precision than the current title. Also, the move seems to indicate "impeachment" is happening, which it is not. However, I would prefer "Impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump" or "Impeachment inquiry of..." as shown by User:Quono's sources - but these are not being proposed. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - It is a matter of language. It is an inquiry "into" you cannot have an inquiry "against" rather you have an inquiry into to see if there should be charges against. Williamsdoritios (talk) 11:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Suggested title is too vauge and is a poor reflection of the content of the page. Would support the change of the word "against" with "of" or "into". Babegriev (talk) 05:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The current article title reflects the naming conventions of other impeachment inquiries, as already mentioned by other editors. If there is a reason to change this naming convention, an RFC might be better at establishing a consensus in order to do so. Clovermoss (talk) 14:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support obviously. There is no naming convention for impeachment inquiries. This won't budge, I know, but the opposes are asinine. Oh well. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
LaserLegs If you could express your valid opinion without insulting the opinions of others with whom you disagree, it would be helpful. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Biden ClaimsEdit

I came here to learn about the story totally ignorant of the details. One thing that struck me is that there's no mention of what the White House thought Hunter or Joe Biden did to warrant investigation. Without it, the article appears to imply Trump and Giuliani just wanted them investigated with no foundation whatsoever. Is that the case? If not, could the White House's suspicions be added? 2604:2000:1403:2D9:914E:E91D:6670:72BF (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Those allegations are covered under Trump–Ukraine controversy. This article specifically mentions offenses related to the impeachment inquiry and doesn't merit just copy-pasting every detail between articles. The Controversy, however, is linked in this article and discussed in the lead section in paragraph two. I would also suggest you evaluate the sources listed above in the Talk:Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump#Impeachment section by user Starship.paint which seems to indicate the "suspicions" were baseless, as well as the rest of the sources cited in this article and the Trump-Ukraine article which seem to indicate a purely political motive. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 00:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
One or two sentences with the rationale or supposed rationale isn't copy-pasting every single detail. It's conspicuous that there's no mention in this article and that users have to hunt through another article to find what seems to be a key detail. However, if there is too much redundancy, perhaps the articles should be merged. Otherwise, I suggest, if they are baseless, say so, but still mention it. 2604:2000:1403:2D9:914E:E91D:6670:72BF (talk) 06:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the fact that users have to "hunt through another article to find ... a key detail". Perhaps to make the allegations clearer, take a look at my proposal here to create a new article on this Talk:Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#Creating_a_new_page_for_"Russiagate_conspiracy_theory". Llightex (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


Polls are asking different questions depending on the poll; some ask opinions on the mere inquiry, some ask about supporting actual impeachment, and some ask for support for removal from office. Should we be differentiating between these questions in the display of the polling information? Currently we are conflating all the polls as "support for impeachment". I can see certain benefits to that as well(easier for readers). 331dot (talk) 10:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Are there sources for this? Different questions being asked can produce different results, in which case I think we should state this clearly in the article. —Partytemple (talk) 04:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Most political least in the US..are slanted through asking leading questions..because so and so said this how likely are you to vote against him..that kind of thing..they are pretty meaningless in the end..they are almost all specifically initiated by either the democratic or republican partys and are virtually all bias. (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Quoted TweetEdit

"Adam Schiff illegally made up a FAKE & terrible statement, pretended it to be mine as the most important part of my call to the Ukrainian President, and read it aloud to Congress and the American people. It bore NO relationship to what I said on the call. Arrest for Treason?"

I've removed this. I think this is problematic per WP:SELFPUB, particularly with regards to "2. it does not involve claims about third parties" - the entire message is a (possibly libelous) claim against a 3rd party, without quoting any response by that individual, which poses further neutrality issues.

Ultimately, I don't think this quote really adds to the section in question Jw2036 (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Different polling questionsEdit

The Washington Post poll I just added asked about support for an inquiry and support for removal, so I put both in different sections. I don't know if some of the earlier polls did that or otherwise asked different questions, but we may want to adjust that section if they did. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

They should be added to both sections if they have separate sections for "just impeachment" and "impeachment and removal" (eg, the fox one had 51-40 removal, 4~5 just impeachment, so for the first table I just added the two together)  Nixinova T  C  07:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Impeachment enquiry against Donald TrumpEdit

This title make it seem like a personal attack on Mr Trump. Consider changing to 'Impeacement enquiry on Donald Trump' BDTraining (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

BDTraining Please see the discussion about the title of this article above. 331dot (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Coloring of polling data againEdit

I see that coloring was reinstated again without discussion. I still believe that this practice is borderline original research - drawing conclusions not stated by the sources. I propose to remove the coloring. Retimuko (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Its not original research and is used on all of the other polling articles we have. The colors tie into the MoE which his how polls are conducted, most of the polls indicate a statistical tie. here are some examples:
Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum
Opinion polling on Scottish independence
Statewide opinion polling for the 2012 United States presidential election
Opinion polling for the 2019 Canadian federal election
- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I think the coloring is very informative. WP:BLUE applies. - MrX 🖋 17:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
@Knowledgekid87: if I understand you correctly you are:
1. asserting it is not original research without showing where the cited sources explicitly state whether the difference is statistically significant
2. pointing to several examples of similar practice, which is an argument of the type "other stuff exists"
3. trying to justify the method (quite vaguely, but that is another matter - what does this mean: "colors tie into the MoE which his how polls are conducted")
4. stating that "most of the polls indicate a statistical tie" - where? any examples?
I don't see how your argument shows that it is not original research. The concept of "statistical tie" is not particularly rigorous one as can be seen here: Margin_of_error#Comparing percentages
@MrX: could you clarify what do you mean by "very informative"? Perhaps, you mean it is useful, which is a very weak argument in Wikipedia. My point is that it can easily be misleading. It suggests something not stated by the sources, and it is based on a questionable method. Is there a broad consensus to use this MoE x2 coloring approach? Retimuko (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
No, I meant informative (imparting knowledge), but I guess useful applies as well. I can look polling table and instantly know which position has the most support for each line. Whether we should indicate whether results are statistical ties is debatable. Someone should at least be able to point to relevant poll that uses that approach. - MrX 🖋 20:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
If we go by a majority as with the other articles then most of the polling would be green and appear weighted. We should strive for a WP:NPOV and not have to explain the obvious. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Could you clarify what do you mean by "appear weighted" and what exactly is "obvious"? Are you also saying that some other, even worse, practice is common, and we are doing better in this article, and, therefore, it is fine? In my view, NPOV would be if we did not add emphasis that is not stated by the sources. Retimuko (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Its clearly stated in the sources which side has the lead, the coloring for polling is common practice which would need broad consensus on undoing. While I am fully aware of WP:OSE, we do have WP:PRECEDENT. What would you like seeing going forward, and is adding coloring an issue for polling in general where none is mentioned in a given poll? There is also WP:CALC to consider regarding the MoE. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87:: What's wrong with me removing the colours for ties? It doesn't change any factual information and just makes the section easier to read (the contrast on the "majority" colours at the moment is quite bad).  Nixinova T  C  00:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Usually during discussions the edits are left as status quo until consensus can be established on the talk page. You should check on the talk page before making major edits. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Color coding proposalEdit

A Color code the polling by MoE (x2) (Both colors are used for statistical ties. Darker colors are used when the difference is outside the MoE) - Current
B Color code the polling by percentage (Green or red by which percentage is higher)
C Color code the polling by majority (60% or more would be dark green, 50 - 59% light green <-> 50 - 59% would be light red, 60%+ dark red)
D No color coding
In my opinion, if we do no color coding then it will eventually read as a wall of text. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
E Color code polling by MoE (x1) (Single, neutral color for statistical ties. Darker colors used when difference is MoE (2x or greater).)
I think that will not only look better, but doesn't throw polling under the bus by requiring 2x MoE standard. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 21:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


  • Please choose from one of the proposals above
  • D No color coding. I believe that adding color or some other emphasis suggests that the difference is statistically significant, but the sources almost never state that explicitly. And if they did, they probably would have some other criteria for significance. The next best option would be A, but I would think that the explanation (about "MoE x2 for spread") is cryptic for most readers. Retimuko (talk) 04:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • D No color coding. Unless the color coding corresponds to that shown in a reliable source then it is WP:Synthesis. (talk) 05:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • A Is a nice legible way to read the polls and I don't think it's that confusing. Cameron Ehteshami (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • E is preferred. A is better than nothing. It also makes statistical sense, allows the data to drive coding instead of us putting our own arbitrary limits on it. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 21:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • A - This is my opinion just for the record. I wouldn't be totally opposed to E, but with more colors comes more explaining and complications. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • A but with no colours for ties.  Nixinova T  C  00:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • A. Per discussions above, this is standard for how we cover polls and is a universally-accepted way of making them easier to read; in this context, it's a summary, not synthesis. If we were using some weird, offbeat way of summarizing or coloring them, that might raise issues, but this is straightforward. --Aquillion (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • A per my previous comments, but I agree with Nixinova that we should not color statistical ties. - MrX 🖋 10:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


under "Timeline" and "October 8, 2019", sentence 1: "The White House sends a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders condemning the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump as "constitutionally invalid" and further escalating the standoff between the two branches of government."

the initial sentence from the source listed for this sentence (source here) reads very similarly: "THE WHITE HOUSE ON Tuesday sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders condemning Democrats' impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump as "constitutionally invalid" and further escalating the standoff between the two branches of government."[1]

this may need to be revised. Thesung1932 (talk) 06:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that definitely seems to have been exactly copied and pasted, as both this and the Trump Ukraine article included "Democrats' " which I removed to keep this nonpartisan.  Nixinova T  C  06:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Quite a few revisions have now been redacted per WP:RD1. If anyone needs a specific diff from those revisions please ping me or another admin. Primefac (talk) 12:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2019Edit

Donald Trump impeachment inquiry. Please see the relevant discussion. NorthHub (talk) 13:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

That discussion is underway and marked to invite comment, both here and on the article. 331dot (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 13 October 2019Edit

Impeachment inquiry against Donald TrumpImpeachment inquiry into Donald Trump – One makes an inquiry into something, not against something. The Cambridge Dictionary has a specific entry for "inquire into" and Merriam-Webster's entry says "to make investigation or inquiry — often used with into". Of the intransitive, The Oxford English Dictionary says "To make search or investigation; to search, seek; to make inquisition. Const. into, of, after." This is corroborated by Google Ngram Viewer, where "inquiry into" is much more common than "inquiry against". Besides being more grammatical and common, "inquiry into" is arguably more neutral than "inquiry against", which suggests enmity against the subject instead of a gathering of information about the subject. Qono (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose as stated during the Impeachment against Nixon. The impeachment inquiry is against said individual and not into the individual as that would be redundant. An inquiry already states that the person is being looked into. Impeachment process against Richard Nixon.Connor Sullivan (talk) 11:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
  • Oppose as impeachment by design is against someone, there is nothing positive that can come out of it. Impeachment always involves enmity against the subject in some form. In addition, I would suggest a broader request than just this page be started, as we have(and for awhile) Impeachment process against Richard Nixon. There is also COMMONNAME to consider. 331dot (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Furthermore, any rename will be short lived as the House is likely to impeach(as I noted, that's not just my opinion) at which point this will be "Impeachment of Donald Trump". 331dot (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for reasons 331dot said. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 17:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for consistency reason given by 331dot. (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above — IVORK Discuss 23:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above BigRed606 (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Google Search shows ~123 results for "against" and ~165 results for "into". That is not a major difference in prevalence of one title over the other. We are better served with being consistent with Nixon. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    • "...against Trump": ~147; "...into Trump": ~134
    • "...against President Trump": ~158; "...into President Trump": ~113 --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Table of Google Search results
COMMONNAME ... Donald Trump ... Trump ... President Trump ... President Donald Trump Total
... against ... ~123 ~128 ~160 ~136 ~547
... into ... ~158 ~128 ~109 ~157 ~552
--- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: WP:COMMONNAME controls. Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 00:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support because, grammatically, an inquiry cannot be "against" someone/something. WMSR (talk) 03:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support for of: A more refined Ngram query for "impeachment inquiry against/into/of" shows high spikes of "against" near the times of Nixon's/Clinton's impeachment and mixed usage of into/of at other times. This suggests "against" is used frequently at the time of the event, perhaps by biased sources to rouse up support or opposition, while sources writing after the fact choose to use more neutral terms. Since Wikipedia aims for neutrality it should follow suit and use into or of (of is more common). Also of is consistent with Clinton and Andrew Johnson --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
    Good ngram but bad interpretation. "of" was rejected because it is ambiguous. Your ngram actually supports the current title. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Do the accounts of testimony need to be attributed?Edit

Since the hearings are closed door, do we need to attribute the details to anonymous sources present during the testimony? The Press are not able to hear first hand what is going on, and are going through sources with no way to verify. However the article records the testimony directly in Wikipedia voice, which I'm not sure is appropriate (excluding Maguire's, which of course was public). As an example, there is a discrepancy per the NYT article - "“I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up,” Mr. Bolton, a Yale-trained lawyer, told Ms. Hill to tell White House lawyers, according to two people at the deposition. (Another person in the room initially said Mr. Bolton referred to Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Mulvaney, but two others said he cited Mr. Sondland.)" Are we supposed to believe the 2 or the 1? This closed door testimony is depriving the public the chance to see what's going on and get the facts first hand! We have the NYT and other sources quoting anonymous sources quoting testimony from Ms. Hill quoting something said to her by Mr. Bolton or Mr. Sondland quoting something said by Trump. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

As a principle, I think we should use the more recent sources when an apparent contradiction arises. It's fine to refer to attribute anonymous sources if that's what reliable source do. I'm not sure what you're referring to when you write "the NYT article" (there's 30 NYT articles cited in this article). Perhaps you could point out what passage in the article you're referring to, then we can look at the cited sources.- MrX 🖋 10:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
The issue I have is with the section regarding Fiona Hill's testimony. Our article states that Hill testified that she, Bolton, Volker, and Energy Secretary Rick Perry, were in attendance for that meeting on July 10, 2019, and that Bolton was furious after the meeting when he told her that he was "not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up". However the cited NYT article - - contains the contradiction I highlighted above. The NYT relies on anonymous sources who were "familiar" with the testimony, but I'm not sure if that means they witnessed first hand the testimony or were told about it by someone else, but says that 2 others cited Sondland and Mulvaney, but one cited Giuliani and Mulvaney. My position is that everything written in the testimony section that wasn't an open testimony needs to be attributed because there is no way to verify it. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump" page.