Jump to content

Talk:Impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Reconciliation needed, naming

This should be reconciled or merged with the already existing Efforts to impeach Donald Trump- and we may want to consider renaming this (or whatever article results) to Impeachment process against Donald Trump, a la Impeachment process against Richard Nixon. 331dot (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Definitely not merged. We need this article. I agree with your title, however.Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Strongly oppose merging. Trump actually has impeachment proceedings going ahead against him. This is more than just the word impeachment being chucked around which is what that other article is for. I do agree with the name being changed, though; that discussion is below.  Nixinova  T  C  03:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi protect page request

I think it would be wise to semi protect or extended confirm protect this page due to the hot influx and news and updates about this subject. If the main Trump page is extended confirm protected, why shouldn't this page. Trump is a very searched and googled person. Any one else agree?--Proudpakistani11 (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

You can create a request that this page be protected over at WP:RFPP.  Nixinova  T  C  03:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Lawfare article

[1] This is informative. I saw the impeachment inquiry announced on TV today and it looked like do-nothing theatrics, but the Lawfare article and a few similar things said it might help the House committees pry a few more documents loose from the executive branch. Everyone seems to agree there is no chance of actually removing the president. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 06:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

!I vote delete the article!--Jack Upland (talk) 10:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Amash as Independent or Republican?

The article currently states "An increasing number of House Democrats and one independent, Representative Justin Amash (Michigan),[note 1] were requesting such an inquiry.[27]" User:SelfieCity changed the descriptor of Amash from Republican -> Independent with the explanation "the note within the article, Justin Amash, and https://amash.house.gov/ all describe him as currently being an independent — therefore, we shouldn't say he's a Republican"

I don't know what the general practice is for politicians who change parties, but Amash was definitely a Republican at the time he first supported impeachment [and was reported on as such.] So I looked for examples of how other party-switching politicians were described in Wikipedia.

In Civil Rights Act of 1957, Strom Thurmond (Democrat until 1964, Republican afterwards) is described as "Then-Democratic Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina." In Civil Rights Act of 1964, Thurmond is simply "Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC)" (he switched parties several months after the events in the article.)

In American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Arlen Specter was described as such: "only three Republicans voted in favor (Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Specter).[21] Specter switched to the Democratic Party later in the year"

I don't want an edit war and am not the most familiar with Wikipedia procedures - based on these other examples, I don't think there's any precedent for inaccurately describing Amash as an Independent when he began supporting impeachment. Could we change the text to e.g. "and one Republican, Representative Justin Amash (Michigan) were requesting such an inquiry. Amash left the Republican Party and declared himself an independent later in the year" [moving the note descriptor to the main body to avoid confusion]?

Reyne2 (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Reyne2, I have revert the change and placed a hidden note to hopefully prevent future changes. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Reyne2 Amash is an Independent, though formerly Republican. He has offically left the party, and should not be listed as affiliated with it. Mgasparin (talk) 06:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Should it just say "then-Republican" and have the note removed?  Nixinova  T  C  08:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I have removed the note. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I like Nixinova's idea. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 20:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism

REVERTED
Vandalism was removed, nothing more to see here --DannyS712 (talk) 02:14, 28 September 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.


Hi,

There's vandalism here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Impeachment_inquiry_against_Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=918250875&oldid=918250571

I would undo it myself, but I've already reverted vandalism in the last 24 hours on this article. Can someone take care of it?

Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@David O. Johnson: I undid it. An admin wouldn't consider reverting obvious vandalism (like massive blanking without explanation, as this was) as a violation of the 1RR restriction on this article. 1RR is intended to ward off edit warring due to content disputes in contentious articles. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate it. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Anachronist is correct - obvious vandalism is exempt from 3RR and 1RR. Acroterion (talk) 00:39, 28 September 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.

Protection

Semi-protected article 1 month due to POV and unsourced additions from IP and unconfirmed editors. Any admin should feel free to modify this protection as necessary without any need to consult me first. –Darkwind (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Recentism tag on congressional approval section

I have been making a few changes and will now move on. However, the section on congressional support is worded in wp:recentism manner. If someone could have a play with it to make it more encyclopedic, that would be fantastic.Mozzie (talk) 05:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Color for polling

For one reason or another the coloring I have been adding for the polling is being removed. Is there a difference between these polls and the ones at Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum? Per MOS:COLOR, colors assist accessibility when it comes to the color blind. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: The reasons have been given in the edit summaries and the "Polling" section above. Pointing to another article and asking "why it is fine there?" is usually not helpful - there are all sorts of wrong and questionable things all over Wikipedia. Briefly looking at that article, I would say the same thing: coloring the numbers suggests a particular conclusion about the significance of the difference that is not stated by the sources. Regarding MOS:COLOR, you seem to suggest that adding color would help accessibility, but the manual says something entirely different: if you rely on color to convey some meaning, then don't forget that some people are color-blind, so you should better make the point understandable without colors. Retimuko (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Last sentence in the first paragraph in the lead

This is the last sentence:

In the case of Ukraine, according to the statements of former Ukrainian presidential advisor Serhiy Leshchenko and an anonymous lawmaker, this involved a threat to withdraw foreign aid and cease communication with the nation if they did not discuss a future investigation of Trump's political opponent Joe Biden and his son Hunter.[4][5][6]

It was created by ZiplineWhy as part of a larger edit here. But I don't see "a threat to withdraw foreign aid and cease communication" in the two citations and the tweet that ZiplineWhy provides. Leshchenko said "As I remember, it was a clear fact that Trump wants to meet only if Biden case will be included". And then he backtracks on that.

I don't think this sentence deserves half of the space in the lead's first paragraph. In the first case, its sources are questionable. Second, even if true, it merely details one individual's memory of why officials in the Ukraine were upset. The start of the second paragraph in the lead, about Pelosi initiating the inquiry in the wake of a whistleblower report, is much more important. The sentence further down in the second paragraph about Leshchenko ("stated that it was made a "clear fact" to the Ukrainian government") is much better at following the same source (ABC News), although it could use trimming.

I would recommend that this sentence be deleted or, at least, transferred to the body of the article. Maybe in a new subsection under Responses called, perhaps, "Ukrainian officials"? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey! Both parts of the sentence are true, but were said by different people. But I can see how it might be misinterpreted. It should be improved now as I split their independent statements into two different sections. ZiplineWhy (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Twitter citations

Twitter links (citations #102, #103, and #108) do not go directly to cited tweets and generate a 404 on Twitter. Halyonix (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I've fixed those and removed some irrelevant ones.  Nixinova  T  C  02:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Date details

Apparently I haven't done enough edits to fill this in myself with the current restrictions. So here is the info in case someone else wants to... In the second paragraph there is "Trump placed a hold on military aid to Ukraine at the same time.[further explanation needed]" which asks "Does anyone know the exact date that Trump held up the aid?". Per a Wall Street Journal article the decision was communicated on July 18th. Thus my suggested edit would be to move the sentence mentioned here and place it after the following sentence which talks about the call and then change it "Trump placed a hold on military aid to Ukraine a week before the call." and reference the Sept 24th WSJ article. Truistic (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Done. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Name of lawyer

I added the name of the whistleblower's lawyer, Mark Zaid, which is in the source and is not secret. FWIW, I went to law school with Zaid and know him personally. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Polling

Based on the polling data we have, the most accurate one is the poll done by "Politico/Morning Consult". It should be noted somewhere in the polling section that the sample size and the margin of error matter. Ideally you want to have a MoE between 2.5 and 3.0% with a sample size of 1,500 - 2,500 people for a 95% confidence level. [2], [3] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest not to add colors to the table. These colors suggest some interpretation that is not stated by the sources. For instance, the NPR poll has 49% vs 46% with margin of error of 4.6%. Can we conclude that the first number is really higher than the second? The difference is smaller than the margin of error. So the conclusion must be that the numbers are about the same. Now let us look at the HuffPost poll: 47% vs 39% +-3.2%. That means between 43.8% and 50.2% support, and between 35.8% and 42.2% oppose. These intervals do not overlap, so we might conclude that the support is higher, but this is getting close to original research. Retimuko (talk) 02:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I think some poll data makes the article more interesting, and somewhat more informative. I don't think we should include every poll though. We should probably establish a guideline, like only including polls with a low margin of error as suggested by Knowledgekid87.- MrX 🖋 11:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
This article in NYTimes has some interesting opinion on polling so far: A caution: These polls were conducted in a rapidly developing news environment, sometimes over only a single day of interviews. This poses challenges for pollsters, who have fewer opportunities to call back hard-to-reach respondents. It could also mean that the surveys were conducted at a moment when Democrats or Republicans were particularly eager to participate in polling. Many pollsters refuse to conduct one-day surveys altogether. And these particular pollsters have tended to show more support for impeachment than others over the Trump presidency; they may continue to do so today.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
We also have to be careful not to confuse "support for impeachment" with "support for an impeachment inquiry". Many commentators and even headline writers are carelessly describing support for the inquiry as support for impeachment, but we should not do the same; our tables and polling results should reflect the actual wording of the question being asked. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hearings started in Sept or July?

This article states that formal impeachment inquiry started in Sept, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Donald_Trump#Start_of_formal_impeachment_proceedings states that "In July 2019, The House leadership agreed to quietly start formal impeachment proceedings without a formal vote on the matter. This was first revealed to the public in a court filing dated July 26.", followed by a lot more sourcing than in this article. So unless there is some technical difference between an "inquiry" and "proceedings", with proceedings being a step before inquiry, this article would seem to be wrong at the moment. IANAL so I don't feel comfortable actually editing the article, but from a layman's perspective, the media certainly seems to use the two words interchangeably. So I hope someone who is knowledgeable on the technical details of legislative procedure etc. will read this, and hopefully cite the actual legal documents that make this distinction :-) Djbclark (talk) 23:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

What you have to understand is that there are very few written laws and procedures for the impeachment "process". The constitution is very light on detail. They are making it up as they go and following the few precedents available. You will find no concrete definitions of what "inquiry" or "proceedings" or "process" actually mean at all. The whole thing is not clearly defined. All we know now is that we are now in an "inquiry". What does that mean? god only knows. Without a time machine, I cannot tell you. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that's kinda what I thought but I wasn't 100% sure. Unless I see objections here soon, I now have confidence to attempt an edit to the article to reflect this state of affairs. Djbclark (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Djbclark: - if you read the entirety of that section (Efforts to impeach Donald Trump#Start of formal impeachment proceedings), and then read the last source [4], you will realize that it took them until September 12, 2019, to have a resolution defining the rules of the panel's impeachment investigation - so things moved really slowly, and there wasn't any inquiry started. starship.paint (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Impeachment

There has been no vote on Impeachment Inquiry and won’t be until December. Stop using the term. Without that vote subpoena power is missing and so is any attempt at any inquiry. Joe Biden did brag at a foreign affairs meeting that..”if the prosecutor isn’t fired in the next six hours you’re not getting that billion dollars “ Phildonohue (talk) 00:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Cite?- MrX 🖋 00:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
An inquiry doesn't need voted upon. The Speaker has directed the House Committees to investigate if an Impeachment Resolution is merited. Also House Rule XI (m)(1) states that House committees have this power at any time the committee consider it necessary provided it is within the purview of the committee.

For the purpose of carrying out any of its functions and duties under this rule and rule X (including any matters

referred to it under clause 2 of rule XII), a committee or subcommittee is authorized (subject to subparagraph (3)(A))—

(A) to sit and act at such times and places within the United States, whether the House is in session, has recessed, or has adjourned, and to hold such hearings as it considers necessary; and

(B) to require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents as it considers necessary.[1]

Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 01:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "House Manual 116" (PDF). House Committee on Rules. 2019. Retrieved 3 October 2019.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
RE: Bidens, no evidence of wrongdoing. starship.paint (talk)
  • 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

Info box

This photo with DT flashing a big grin seems inappropriate to the topic, and unintentionally funny. (For a photo of how he looked discussing impeachment on Oct. 2, 2019, see this AP story.) – Sca (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sca: - that's not the infobox, that's the Donald Trump template with his official photo. Cheers. starship.paint (talk) 13:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay, but it still looks inappropriate here. – Sca (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
That's his official government photo, which is free to use, which is why it is in the template. If you think the template should have a different photo, please propose one on its talk page. 331dot (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
WGAR? Sca (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

"Public Opinion" Section Issues

I worry about the wording of the Public Opinion section. The section intro reads Polling has indicated that, on average, a plurality of Americans lean towards supporting impeachment. However, many of the polls listed do not speak to that. Politico/Morning Consult, CNN/SSRS, NPR/PBS/Marist, Reuters/Ipsos, and Quinnipiac are all within the margin of error and therefore statistically the same. Those outside of the margin of error (Monmouth, HuffPost/YouGov, Hill/HarrisX, CBS/YouGov, and USA Today/Ipsos) show, except for Monmouth, average 2-5% lean towards supporting impeachment above margin of error. Half of our current dataset demonstrates statistical neutrality and no plurality one way or another. This is why originally I wrote Polling during late September 2019 has indicated, on average, that a plurality of Americans leans slightly toward supporting impeachment. before the line was reworded by Nixinova.

I also want to question why the first poll in the paragraph is not current support or opposition, but hypothetical support based on the what-if regarding the Trump-Ukraine controversy. I know it's relevant because the Controversy is a significant reason for the Impeachment Inquiry, however it seems to reek of WP:CRYSTAL. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 23:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

By this time, someone, I didn't check who, changed the first sentence to Polling has indicated that Americans are generally split on their support of the impeachment inquiry. I am confused as to why some polls are in text when the rest are in the table. starship.paint (talk) 06:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: It was Nixinova who changed it likely after being pinged here. Regardless, I'm with you why some are listed in paragraph and some in table. Perhaps paragraph is for qualitative while table is for quantiative evaluation? Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 06:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps that is how it should be. Unfortunately, this issue is beyond my interest and time. Anyone else can weigh in? starship.paint (talk) 07:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
"Generally split" is a fair interpretation. News outlets sometimes vary differently in their own interpretation of the surveys. —Partytemple (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 24 September 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: Moved. Reasoning: Immediate and obvious support of a move; fast and greater than 2:1 consensus for Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump. Taking all supports without elaboration on title as a support for "Impeachment inquiry", there are 10 votes for that. There are 4 votes for "Impeachment process". There's 1 that is ambivalent between the two. There are three opposes, but two of those can be struck for faulty reasoning (namely, "no President has ever been impeached" and "But he will be impeached"). Note that because the proposed title existed as a redirect, this is subject to a technical move.(non-admin closure) Kingsif (talk) 03:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


Impeachment of Donald Trump → Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump – An overwhelming majority of sources use the word inquiry. This article should also use that term. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

It should be Impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump, or Impeachment process of Donald Trump, to conform to other articles. Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

  • I support this as better than the current title but I feel consistency with the article about the Nixon impeachment is helpful. There is also another article to consider as I note above. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I support change to the title "Impeachment process...". We ought to have continuity. Inspector Semenych (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Support "impeachment inquiry", moving to "impeachment preceedings" once it's actually fully underway; this current title is not accurate since Trump hasn't actually been impeached.  Nixinova  T  C  03:29, 25 September 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.

Late comments

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2019

Please change the title ("Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump") to read "Impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump" or "Impeachment inquiry against U.S. President Donald Trump," or some variation thereof which includes his title/office because: (1) it eliminates any ambiguity about inquiries into Mr. Trump personally versus Mr. Trump in his role as president; and (2) provides a more formal, complete picture. 2603:3018:59:0:246B:107A:F470:7653 (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: There is no ambiguity; an impeachment inquiry cannot be conducted on a private citizen. WMSR (talk) 22:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Article names don't use people's titles.  Nixinova  T  C  00:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

"President Trump...pressed the Ukrainian government to investigate Hunter Biden"

That's an outright false statement. The New York Times article in the citation lied about it too. The whistleblower report is their basis for this claim, and no one has access to that. The transcript released today doesn't show any threats or coercion to make them investigate someone on Trump's behalf.
Amaroq64 (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Do you have sources for your claim The New York Times article in the citation lied about it too? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I'd agree that "pressed" may not be the most accurate word, based on what the transcript shows. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 23:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
We can say "asked". That much has been admitted by Trump. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I concur. I attempted to correct for the falsehood, but this is not possible, evidently. Wikipedia has locked the page against "vandalism". Sensiblereaction (talk) 11:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately for Wikipedia, there is so much false and distorted news from all major news agencies that almost all current political topics/entries are going to be highly speculative and skewed to liberal favor. Journalists are getting away from fact bad reporting and have become opinion commentators. Stanleyshere (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Stanleyshere Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias; this is why sources are required and provided, so readers can see them and decide for themselves. If you wish to challenge the reliability or accuracy of a source, you may do so at the reliable sources noticeboard, but just saying it's "too liberal" will not work. You would need to demonstrate that a particular outlet no longer has a reputation of editorial control and fact checking. 331dot (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Just wanted to comment how the claims of bias haven't been retracted since Trump literally admitted to the accusations. As a non-American, I am intrigued at the mental gymnastics Trump worshippers need to do to continue swallowing what the rest of the world sees as propaganda.
Even though the previous comment from 331dot is in definite good faith, I think you are wasting your time. In my experience, you should literally ignore all Trump supporter comments, as they disagree with reality - from silly things like the weather and crowd sizes at rallies, to serious things like apparent human trafficking rings or global warming. It doesn't mean you don't give them time to express their views, they can go for their lives. But it is time wasted assuming they will play by any rules other than what their reality TV star tells them. Vision Insider (talk) 02:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I tried to link to Jeffress' Wikipedia page in the Twitter comment, but I caused a wikilink conflict that I don't know how to resolve. Is there any solution that would keep the blue link to Jeffress but also not cause the conflict? Thanks for any help. Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: - everything is fine. If someone else confirms this, this can be archived. starship.paint (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: look at the reflist - Control F on the page and look at the second Jeffress on the page Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
You're right, there is an error. It's beyond me. Sorry. starship.paint (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Looks like it's not possible with the {{tweet}} template. The name is actually part of the text, which for Twitter is the title of the web page for that tweet. We tend to avoid adding links inside direct quotes, and certainly can't put internal links inside external links. If you really want a link to Jeffress, I think we'd need to use a different quotation template, and probably repeat the name of the pastor being quoted. -- Beland (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Uptick of interest at Talk:Hunter Biden

Just in case anyone is watching here but not there. Cheers, XOR'easter (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Quoted Tweet

"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)

Impeachment enquiry against Donald Trump

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)

Different polling questions

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)

Plagiarism

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)

References

  1. ^ https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2019-10-08/read-white-house-letter-declares-impeachment-inquiry-unconstitutional

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2019

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)

Biden Claims

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)

Requested move 5 October 2019

NO CONSENSUS
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 Trump → Donald Trump impeachment inquiry – Removes controversial usage of "against" while conveying all necessary information. WMSR (talk) 14:53, 5 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)
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. 69.137.100.213 (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 (talk • contribs) 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.

Polls

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 polls..at 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. 107.217.84.95 (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Coloring of polling data again

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 proposal

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)

Opinions

Yeah but if we don't color statistical ties then the tables will look biased with all of the green present. Editors are almost guaranteed to complain. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • D - the coloring is presenting conclusions not in source so is OR, and it gives an UNDUE emphasis. The sources present uncolored data, this should be following that. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • E. I've never heard of color coding based on twice the MoE. A poll is only outside the MoE if the difference between the sides is greater than the given MoE, not twice it. Most articles on American elections that I follow do this. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Results are given as an esitmate +- error (with some confidence, usually 95%). The meaning is that if we were to repeat these measurements, then 95 times out of 100 the measured value will be in the given interval. When we start comparing two measurements, it gets trickier. We can think of them as intervals: X1_low to X1_high and X2_low to X2_high. If the intervals overlap (and this happens if the difference between the original numbers is less than doubled error), then we cannot say that one is greater than the other with confidence. But this is not quite the right way either. In math statistics there are different approaches to establishing statistical significance of differences involving testing a hypothesis that there is no difference, and measurements are different due to noise (chance). And all this is far from trivial, and sources would probably disagree in methods. And they almost never explicitly state such details. That is why in my opinion this coloring is original research. Retimuko (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Another document upload

Letter from Donald Trump to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

This may be useful in illustrating an article (perhaps not this one, but we have so many...). XOR'easter (talk) 05:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

XOR'easter, it should go in 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Good suggestion. Thanks! XOR'easter (talk) 05:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Do the accounts of testimony need to be attributed?

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 - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/14/us/politics/bolton-giuliani-fiona-hill-testimony.html - 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)
The choice seems to be to either explain the discrepancy in the article with the attribution, or leave this sentence out. I think it's detail of little value and should simply be omitted. Bolton's comment is not really important to the understanding of the subject of the article.- MrX 🖋 20:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
There is no discrepancy. There was some early reporting that was later corrected and is now accepted by the vast majority of sources. The information is cited by large number of reliable sources: [13] I have added this AP source which states it with no caveats and attributes it directly to Fiona Hill, which our article already does as well. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally avoid making such quotes, and attribute if doing - with a third-hand disputed verbiage, I would suggest avoid using it, but if it's for some reason going to be determinative then attribute it and/or caveat something like 'according to the NYT sources, so and so said "blah blah"'. Try to restrain things from the more flamboyant -- and be alert that poor sourcing is grounds for removal. The WP:BLP or WP:A directs 'Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced immediately if it's about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page.' Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Format Testimony table

Could you please make the Testimony table sortable? It would be helpful, just at this point. In the future, it will be even more helpful in that regard. Probably better to do it while the list is still relatively short. Thoughts? — Maile (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: thanks for adding that. I edited the format a bit, as not every column in this one needs to be sorted. Somewhere down the line, any day now, we'll be glad this table is sortable. — Maile (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Public Opinion summary/lead

Coffeeandcrumbs tagged the line I added with a possible NOR issue under WP:SYNTH. This line is no more synth than the previous, which are both not the type of synthesis described in the policy. The line summarizes the specific public opinion polling listed by the sources. This isn't an A+B=C situation. This is sources report A, A, A, A, A, A, A, B situation written basically as "data is mostly A". Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 18:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The line says more than that. It implies that there is a trend which is novel analysis based on a series of primary sources. Say, for example, I list 15 of Judi Dench's theatre credits and 2 of her films using primary sources. Then I conclude that "Dench is a mostly a threatre actress". What is my error? How do we know we are not making the same type of error here. Selection bias is too strong a possibility. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
This is not nearly as complex a topic as a person's life. Nearly all reputable sources of impeachment-related polling are continually being added. This is a very specific set of public opinion polling questions about an ongoing current event and that data produced by them. It's not a novel analysis. If the polls in November drop, it'll read matter-of-factly just that in relation to previous months. I understand your concerns. However if you compare our current selection of reliably-sourced polls to those widely available, and find our dataset wanting, feel free to add and expand the set. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 07:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Page now move protected

This article and its related talk page are now temporarily move-restricted to Administrators only for one month, pending outcome of the above discussion about moving the page.— Maile (talk) 10:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Maile66, I know most editors here think it would be best to rename this page "Impeach of Donald Trump" if the House votes to bring articles of impeachment. However, I'm starting to think that if that situation comes up, we should start a new article from the redirect Impeachment of Donald Trump and leave this article as is. We can use the lead section for this article as a background section for the new article. My reason for this is that this article is already getting pretty large in size and I would like to avoid the situation at Brexit where the main article became unmanageable as it grew. We can even maybe start a topic template for "Impeachment of Donald Trump". By my count, we already have half a dozen articles on the subject and will likely have more. This is in the crystal ball territory but I thought I would bring it up now. If Trump is going to be impeached, it is going to happen between Halloween and Thanksgiving. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
There is also Efforts to impeach Donald Trump. At some point this will need to be sorted out, maybe once the House impeaches. Senator McConnell thinks the House will do it by Thanksgiving, but Speaker Pelosi says there is no specific timetable. 331dot (talk) 06:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I think the article.layout atm is fine, though maybe an article of "Impeachment trial of Donald Trump" or something may be useful in the future.  Nixinova  T  C  07:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: @331dot: @Nixinova: My applying temporary move protection, was because an editor prematurely moved the article without the previous Requested move protection discussion above coming to a consensus for such. And it does not seem to be heading that way. Personally, I think the naming of this article is awkward. It was started/named by an editor who was immediately blocked as a sock puppet. The only thing close to use as naming models are at Category:Impeachment in the United States. As much as is going into this article, it only concerns the preliminary investigation. Investigations are conducted "into" a situation, aren't they? Charges are brought "against", and that would be a different article.
Looking at the impeachment process for how it works: (1) The House of Representatives acts as a District Attorney and investigates, presenting its findings to (2) The United States Senate, which acts as Judge and Jury over the evidence and votes whether or not to remove from office. How does Wikipedia name all the related articles? Should this article be renamed? Probably, but somebody would have to come up for a consensus on the renaming. — Maile (talk) 11:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 13 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: Consensus not to move — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump → Impeachment 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)

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)
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)
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.

John Kasich and other media-paid former office holders

I moved John Kasich to the Media section. He is a paid commentator on CNN and no longer an office holder. When he was a Republican governor, he was against the impeachment. After being on the CNN payroll, he supports impeachment. I changed the "Politician" section to "Current elected officials". Maybe somebody else has a better idea. But once a former elected official goes on paid staff of any media outlet, they are paid to support that particular media's leanings. At least in the US, the major news outlets serve as mere talk shows to promote that particular cable channel's political leanings. — Maile (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Please offer any evidence you have that Kasich is not giving his good faith honest views on impeachment, which can change as with anyone, and is just doing CNN's bidding. I think there was no problem with the way it was before; the forum in which he gives his views is immaterial, and is available for readers to decide for themselves if it is accurate or not. If you want to have CNN and its staff considered to be unreliable, WP:RSN is available for that discussion. 331dot (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
All I've done is state (and sourced) in the article what his position currently is as a CNN commentator, and what it was while he was still a Republican governor. I am not interpreting the switch. NPOV, right? And I do think we should put current office holders in a different section than former office holders. Those who are subject to the pressure of re-election have different considerations than those who have left the profession. — Maile (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps you are not a regular viewer of CNN. Kasich has been an almost daily commentator on CNN since January. Since January until now and even through the Mueller Report, he has repeatedly and emphatically stated that he believes that Trump should not be impeached. There was even major arguments on air with several CNN personalities like Don Lemon. Does this information agree with our current paragraph about him? I would think not. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Imagine thinking “CNN is paying John Kasich to change his mind about impeachment“ rather than “John Kasich changed his mind based on new information presented to him in the form of the acting White House Chief of Staff’s statement.” You all just can’t be this daft. Trillfendi (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I can understand a current/former officeholders split, but I don't think there is yet enough mentions in that section to warrant such a split yet. 331dot (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
@331dot: I'm not necessarily wedded to the change I made. But I'm also not sure if there is anything that addresses this situation. If you are going to categorize/section people in any manner, do you use the one they were previously known for, or do you use their current position? I have no answer for that, but it's something for thought.— Maile (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: I have long been a regular (or semi-regular) viewer of more than one of the major news broadcast networks. I'm aware of what you mention. Sometimes, I won't watch any of them for a long time, just to get my sanity back. Too much stuff happening out there, not even counting this issue. I'm not saying he did - or he didn't - for any reason. It's not my opinion that counts, but what we can source. No POV has been intended here, but merely how to handle this instance, and any that come up in the future. — Maile (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure when or by whom it was added but my only issue was with the phrase "During his tenure as a Republican governor". I have no opinion on where his opinion belongs on this article. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Hunh ... we have gone back and forth over this so much, I thought I added that. Turns out it was already there when I made my edit. I think I just moved it to the new section and added that he's now with CNN. Doesn't matter, I guess. But I'm glad you made another change. Hope this resolves this issue. I'm not sure I have previously been part of anything at Wikipedia where WP:RS has been more important. — Maile (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

In all honesty, to me this comes across as an NPOV violation intended to suggest ex-politicians who now work in political media simply espouse the opinions of employers. These categories are not intended to categorize people who are currently x, but to categorize people who are known for being x. People who are familiar with Kasich surely know him as a governor and former presidential candidate, not an occasional CNN contributor. Obama now produces documentaries for Netflix, but if he made a statement included on this article no one would suggest he be in a section titled "film producers," he would be included under "politicians." Also, I'm definitely for changing "current elected officials" back to "politicians," but if necessary making subsections for current versus former. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 21:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. However, Joe Scarborough once served in the United States Congress, but he's referred to as a cable news host. Al Sharpton, while a politician in the fact he once ran for President, is generally referred to as "The Rev. Al Sharpton" Technically correct about former Presidents and former Vice Presidents, I think they are not generically referred to as such, but as "Former President ..." and "Former Vice President ..." in classes of their own. Maybe it's a toss-up on how we categorize them in this article. I really don't know. — Maile (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, and I agree with what you're saying. As I explained, it's about what someone is notable for. Scarborough gets much more attention as a media personality than for his brief political career. I am saying that that is not the case for Kasich. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 00:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Thumbs up icon OK, got it. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 00:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Main page?

There's already been a lot of discussion on this talk page about whether or not the article title should be changed. Since the article is page move protected, and the title is the way it is, why does the main page say "Trump impeachment inquiry"? Clovermoss (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe because it’s more general and saves space than the official page name. Trillfendi (talk) 07:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Way too much detail in lead

The last two paragraphs of the lead are full of minute detail that belongs in the text, not the lead. The lead is supposed to be a summary. Anyone mind if I give the lead a haircut (while making sure the material actually is in the text)? -- MelanieN (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The lead is definitely too long, especially for something that just started a month ago and has new details everyday. Trillfendi (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Personally, I trust your editorial judgement. Go ahead. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
MelanieN, I second (third?) the above statements. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I'll try to get to it tomorrow. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
The whole last paragraph of the lead should be (re)moved.  Nixinova  T  C  20:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Care to specify why? Those additions have been the result of extensive discussion on the talk page. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
That last paragraph has since been updated and the information there is now fine.  Nixinova  T  C  21:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Positions: Should we wikilink?

Just opening up a conversation for now, but should we wikilink the positions listed under "Subpoenas for documents" and "Subpoenas for testimony"? It might be a good idea, but I don't exactly object if we don't. (For now, the only thing wikilinked is European Union, as part of Gordon Sondland's position, which seems awfully strange to me.)

Anyway, thoughts? — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 00:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure, if you want to.  Nixinova  T  C  20:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Photo changed?

Was this discussed?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

No, but the edit summary of that change provided a logical rationale for it. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
My opinion was his smile was too big, as if to say, "You just try and get rid of me." He looks better now.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
He looks like a politician and a game show host. 2600:1702:2340:9470:F174:BCC6:1432:47E4 (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

RBWilson1000 (talk) 07:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

You should have seen the "official" portrait that we were forced to use at the Trump article for the first few months of his presidency. [14] I had visions of Trump glowering at us from every Post Office wall for four years! That one was eventually withdrawn by the White House because there were copyright issues with the photographer, and the present smiling one, Donald Trump official portrait.jpg, was put out instead. Thank goodness! -- MelanieN (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

That in my opinion would be good for this article but there's no Wikipedia policy to support my view.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Inquiry or process?

Should the page be renamed to "Impeachment process…" when this passes? Or should it stay at "inquiry"?  Nixinova  T  C  20:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Probably not, unless the press starts calling it that. I think we will have to wait until after Thursday to see how things shake out. - MrX 🖋 21:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
I think it should remain as "impeachment inquiry". If an actual impeachment begins, then we should start a new article.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't think anything should be split. Looking at Impeachment of Bill Clinton it all fits on that one page.  Nixinova  T  C  02:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
@Nixinova: - that's because Impeachment of Bill Clinton#Independent counsel investigation is two paragraphs long. Whereas this article is the investigation... how can we trim it to two paragraphs long? starship.paint (talk) 02:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm not saying anything should be trimmed. All of the information currently is listed in the "Inquiry" section. The House impeachment and Senate trial can just be the other h2 headings.  Nixinova  T  C  02:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
If the Clinton impeachment occurred while Wikipedia was in its prime like it is now, it would be much longer and more detailed. We should start a new article if articles of impeachment are handed down. Impeachment of Bill Clinton is not a good precedent for us to emulate. This article on the inquiry would be cannibalized if we renamed it. This article's lead section should be used as a background section for the new article on the actual impeachment trial if it occurs, which is looking likely. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
So you're saying we should have Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump as well as new articles Impeachment of Donald Trump and Impeachment trial of Donald Trump? And I agree your point against changing this articles scope; that may not be beneficial to the article in the long run.  Nixinova  T  C  05:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
On second thought, I deleted my previous reply because it was clearly wrong.
Three different articles is an option. So is two articles with this being renamed when articles of impeachment are passed and a new article at Impeachment trial of Donald Trump focused on the senate side. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Current Events Tag

Should this article have a current events tag? Especially given that things change on a daily basis? --192.107.156.196 (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

That would probably be a good idea.  Nixinova  T  C  20:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Wait for the vote on Thursday, as far as I'm concerned. Trillfendi (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Tainted evidence?

As I was reading my morning Fox News, I came across this interesting development. A super PAC called Tea Party Patriots Action has filed an ethics complaint about the impeachment inquiry.[15][16]. They are insisting that all the evidence gathered so far is tainted and must be discarded. No, I did not read this on The Onion.

Tea Party Patriots Action is associated with Tea Party Patriots. Also related, Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund and Jenny Beth Martin. - MrX 🖋 11:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC), 12:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Timeline section

Would it be appropriate to create timeline section just as in Brexit article? It could really summarize the article.--Abutalub (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The timeline section is the reason the Brexit article has become so horrible. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Misattribution

Hello. In the 3rd paragraph of the lead, I noticed this:

  • "Ambassador Taylor testified on October 22, 2019, that he had gradually become aware of the existence of a quid-pro-quo extortion campaign in Ukraine intended to ensure Trump's reelection."

First of all, sorry to say, the phrase appears to misattribute Taylor saying, "that he had gradually become aware of the existence of a quid-pro-quo extortion." This is not correct. None of three in-line citations attribute him saying "aware of...extortion" or "...quid-pro-quo extortion." In reference 26 it says, "sketched out in remarkable detail a quid pro quo pressure campaign on Ukraine" [17].

Reference 27 says, "that the president withheld military aid from Ukraine in a quid pro quo effort to pressure that country’s leader to incriminate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and smear other Democrats" [18]. In Reference 28, the opening paragraph, it does use "extort" in connection with Taylor's testimony [19], but that is the media organization's voice. And consider the fact this is The Intercept. Their wording will tend to be evocative at times, when other more mainstream media would not be the same.

Also, I think it is best to move away from heavily loaded words, such as "extortion". These could probably be substituted with impartial wording - such as "obtain", "attain", "receive" and so on. There seems to be good policy based reasoning for this. But first, because this is an encyclopedia, we are not print or broadcast media needing to attract attention for the bottom line. Interestingly, this is in agreement with policy.

WP:IMPARTIAL is on a policy page and there it says Wikipedia aims for an impartial tone. It is a short read. I feel I have written too much already, so I won't quote what it says here. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

It might be worth looking at peacock words also. These seem similar to what I am talking about, but perhaps not exactly on point. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The sentence has been modified since you started typing this comment. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
@Steve Quinn: - I already revamped the content about Taylor [20] as you were typing your message. The offending sentence no longer exists. starship.paint (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Coffee and Crumbs; and Jefferson Starship.paint. Thanks for your replies, and thanks for the good edits. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2019

At the end of this section, the following sentence should be added. (I'm unsure about the wisdom of editing this highly visible article with my own account, hence this edit request.)

Bakaj, in a Washington Post op-ed, argued that the identity of his client is no longer pertinent after further events corroborated his client's account of the matter.[1]

References

  1. ^ Mark S. Zaid; Andrew P. Bakaj. "We represent the whistleblower. Their identity is no longer relevant". Washington Post. Archived from the original on October 30, 2019. Retrieved 5 November 2019.

49.36.13.237 (talk) 03:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: thanks! 49.36.13.237 (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Margin of Error

Knowledgekid87, your reinstatement of a edit I contested via reversion requires consensus on this talk page (or other conflict resolution means) to be reinstated. Regarding Margin of Error, utilizing a required 2x MoE standard is not substantiated in the field of statistics for this type of measurement. A standard MoE is already a 95% percentile confidence interval. According to Pew Research Center, specifies polling 2x MoE standards for comparing difference between support of two candidates or issues comparatively, not support for a single candidate or issue.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by gwenhope (talk • contribs) 18:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Understanding the margin of error in election polls". Pew Research Center. Retrieved 2019-10-25.

Further Revelations Should Include DOJ Investigation Into 2016 Ukrainian Election Interference

Somewhere in this section should include the fact that John Durham is investigating 2016 election interference https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/25/john-durham-probing-ukraine-as-part-of-trump-russi/ What is not clear at this point is whether his investigation in related to the CroudStrike server and/or 2016 Ukrainian election interference previously reported by Politico https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446 and the NYT https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/12/world/europe/ukraine-paul-manafort.html RBWilson1000 (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Durham's investigation is already included in the Further revelations section. What exactly more are you proposing we add? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no direct mention that Durham is investigating Ukraine's "potential 2016 election interference" though it is in the WashingtonTimes article. Given that Ukraine is the focus of this impeachment and nation level detail is provided when describing Barr's actions (Italy, UK, Australia). It seems appropriate to add this in relation to Durham for equivalent context. RBWilson1000 (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Politico Story from 2017 about Ukrainian Election Interference in 2016 Needs to be added but page locked down.

In the Trump–Ukraine scandal segment of ths article, though there is mention of allegations related to Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election there isn't anything about a Politico story written on the subject early in 2017. That should be added (see link).

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire - Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

This is the article about the impeachment inquiry; you want Talk:Trump-Ukraine scandal. You are free to make a formal edit request(click for instructions) there. 331dot (talk) 07:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

This sentence, 'Trump had been repeatedly told by aides that Ukraine did not interfere in the 2016 election, but refused to accept these assurances', in the second paragraph of this section in this Wikipedia article is misleading. It isn't in the main Wikipedia Trump-Ukraine scandal page.

It is clear Ukraine meddled in 2016 per the Politico story and a story in the New York Times (see link) from which it quotes a Ukrainian court ruled “resulted in meddling in the electoral process of the United States in 2016 and damaged the national interests of Ukraine.” https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/12/world/europe/ukraine-paul-manafort.html RBWilson1000 (talk) 01:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)— RBWilson1000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC). There is no such account as RBWilson1000. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Striking, my error. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Melanie. I’ve since corrected and signed. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Symmachus Auxiliarus - did this point get into this article or that one ? (Then again, I also don't see much contemporary at all in here -- say something to clarify about Hunter Biden sweetheart deal (true) as said at the time vs what was supposedly requested to be investigated ... The article here has only 2019 stuff and confusingly phrases it as an investigation into Hunter, when I thought it was to investigate both Bidens and over the conspiracy theory VP Biden got an investigator fired to protect him & Burisma.) RSVP, Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

No. The sentence 'Trump had been repeatedly told by aides that Ukraine did not interfere in the 2016 election' implying Ukraine did not interfere in the 2016 election is still in there. It is clear, from multiple sources and the fact that John Durham is currently investigating Ukrainian 2016 election interference that this is a misleading sentence. According to the Politico story, "The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort’s resignation". If it remains it should at least be qualified to not infer there wasn't any Ukrainian 2016 election interference. RBWilson1000 (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Scope

Should this article be the one page about this event (similar to pages like Impeachment of Bill Clinton) or should there be different pages for different aspects of the impeachment? If this page were to be just about the inquiry and other aspects would be split, then we would have: Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, which is just the investigations; Impeachment of Donald Trump, the impeachment vote in the house, which, if passed, leads to the Impeachment trial of Donald Trump, the Senate trial and removal-from-office vote. This was shortly discussed above at #Inquiry or process? but we should establish a consensus what the scope of this article is (just inquiry or the whole impeachment event) before the impeachment vote (possibly occurring this month).  Nixinova  T  C  02:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, why are you reopening a question a few days after you first raised it? There is clearly no consensus for the one page solution. Secondly, there are several pages associated with the impeachment of Bill Clinton: Clinton–Lewinsky scandal and the Starr Report. Thirdly, we already have Efforts to impeach Donald Trump, so it unlikely we will ever contain this to one page. Fourthly, there seems to be enough material about the inquiry to have a page about it. Fifthly, we do not need to establish a consensus beforehand, and it is probably impossible to do so.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not reopening anything and one person being opposed to it is not "clearly no consensus". Those Clinton articles are also not directly related to the impeachment vote/inquiry itself and are merely background. The efforts to impeach page has no impact to this one since that page doesn't deal with actual impeachment. And I just thought it would be useful to have something to refer to in 2–3 weeks when the vote is held whether people agreed to having the page split or not. Also, as the page currently stands there is just one massive "inquiry" section implying the other votes should be h2 sections. If it is the case that this page is just about the inquiry, then shouldn't some Inquiry-section subheadings be split into different top-level sections?  Nixinova  T  C  21:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

1st Paragraph proposed changes

There are several problems with the first line. 1) It calls Speaker Nancy Pelosi by her title, but not President Donald Trump. 2) It is misleading in that it says it was "initiated" on Sept 24th. It will lead people to believe that is when the inquiries started, when they did not. 3) It calls the inquiry an "impeachment inquiry" which is disputed by Trump and republicans (feel free to ask for sources if you aren't already aware of this)

"An impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, President of the United States, was initiated on September 24, 2019, by U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi."

This proposed change avoids any controversy, fixes the misleading portion, and is more accurate. Pelosi's announcement is undisputed.

"On September 24, 2019, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced she was directing six committees undergoing investigations against President Donald Trump to proceed under the umbrella of an official impeachment inquiry."

This is a citation backing up the proposed change.

“Today, I am announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry,” she said at a Tuesday afternoon press conference, after hours of meetings with Democratic leaders, committee chairs, and the rest of the House Democratic Caucus. “I am directing our six committees to proceed with their investigations under that umbrella of impeachment inquiry.”

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/09/impeachment-inquiry-pelosi-trump-whistleblower-ukraine.html

I don't anticipate this would be a problem. It's an accurate paraphrase of what Speaker Pelosi actually said.

There appear to be some problems with the second line. 1) I looked over the whistleblower complaint, and I don't see where he alleged such a thing. Maybe I missed it, and if someone can point that out, then I would appreciate it. The whistleblower compalaint actually says he is "reporting an 'urgent concern'". That is factually different from an allegation. 2) Also, I don't see anything about other nations in the complaint. Again, maybe I missed it, but it appears that was tacked on in a way that implies it was part of the complaint, which it appears to not be. 3) There is a mention of an investigation into Joe Biden and his son, but it failed to mention an investigation into election interference in the 2016 election, which the report also noted. 4) putting "abusing the power of the presidency to advance Trump's personal and political interests" is an opinion that appears to come from Wikipedia itself since it came after the dash. It does not appear to be an opinion in the report either (please not it if you find it), but it could be a concern.

"It began after a whistleblower alleged that President Trump and other top government officials had pressured the leaders of foreign nations, most notably Ukraine, to investigate former U.S. vice president and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter—abusing the power of the presidency to advance Trump's personal and political interests."

Here is a suggested change:

"It began after a whistleblower report surfaced expressing concerns that President Trump used the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 election. The report stated that the author was not a direct witness to most of the events, but found accounts from U.S. officials credible and that according to those accounts, President Trump pressured the President of the Ukraine to investigate or continue to investigate former U.S. vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter, and to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election."

I think this more accurately reflects the whistleblower report. I took out the part about "other top government officials" because I didn't think it matched with the part about the "power of his office", which comes right from the report. I couldn't think of a way to keep it in and keep that in without making it much longer. I don't anticipate any issues with this change since it is so similar to what it says in the actual report, except for removing the "other top government officials" part. Maybe someone else can work that in, but I'm not sure if that is worthwhile since this isn't an article about "other top government officials".

Here is a nice copy of the report. https://www.scribd.com/document/427562713/Declassified-Whisteblower-Complaint#download&from_embed Here is another. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-the-full-redacted-trump-whistleblower-complaint

2601:243:1180:9660:A194:BE4C:9F1:DA71 (talk) 12:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your notes. Agree the article isn't perfect. The president's full title is included, it's just obscured by the bold lettering of the article title. Also, it's a factual abuse of power if the allegations before the dash are true (which the relevance of the part of the sentence after the dash is dependent on). UpdateNerd (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Impeachment_inquiry_into_Donald_Trump/Archive_1&oldid=1199897087"