Talk:Mick Mulvaney

Undoing recent major changes

There does not appear to be consensus for these recent major changes to the article. Let's discuss these changes piece-by-piece. I am undoing the most recent edit, as it was the third revert by the same IP address. Me and User:Jim1138 both disagreed with this editor's changes. Let's see if we can all agree on next steps here. Marquardtika (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

can you explain specifically what the issue is? which item do you feel is not correct? —Preceding undated comment added 03:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC) 50.195.72.217 (talk)

I responded to you on your talk page, but copying my response here: For instance, adding "He has criticized funding of Planned Parenthood, claiming that the organization traffics pieces of dead children" to the lede. This is clearly cherry-picked and violative of WP:SAY and WP:LEAD, making it non-neutral. By making the changes piecemeal, I mean adding one bit of content at a time (and ideally gaining consensus for it first on the talk page, since this is a BLP of a high-profile figure, rather than adding lots of content and sourcing all in one edit, as you have been doing). Marquardtika (talk) 03:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Describing someone as a "budget hawk" and quoting that an organization "traffics pieces of dead children" is far from neutral and should not be included on the page. The content 50.195.72.217 is trying to add can easily be restored if trimmed down and neutralized. Meatsgains (talk) 03:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

50.195.72.217 (talk)OK fine, but realize that I was taking the info directly from the article. But I wont add it back. What about the addition below? 50.195.72.217 (talk) Ok, what about the following? How about I add it and you can edit it if you think I wrote something incorrectly? Most of it is direct quotes:

Criticism of Planned Parenthood

In 2015, Mulvaney voted against a resolution that would fund the government, in part because it included funding for Planned Parenthood. Mulvaney stated “This is not about women’s health; it’s about trafficking in pieces of dead children.”

Criticism of gun control

Mulvaney has fought against gun control initiatives.

Criticism of federal regulations

Mulvaney supported the Regulatory Improvement Act of 2015, which would “[create] a commission tasked with eliminating and revising outdated and redundant federal regulations.”

Endorsement of Ron Paul

Per MOS:BODY, we shouldn't have so many short sub-sections. It is unnecessary and inhibits readability. The titling of sub-sections can also be more general, such as "Political views." Here's what I would do with the content you provided above. I would nest it in the "Tenure" section, since it covers votes he's made since being a member of Congress. Marquardtika (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't sure whether to respond here or below but I support your changes and adding the Tenure section you provided below to Mulvaney's page. This is much more neutral and encyclopedic. Meatsgains (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks--looks like the IP has implemented the changes. Marquardtika (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Tenure

Mulvaney has been associated with the Tea Party. In 2015, he voted against a resolution that would fund the government, in part because it included funding for Planned Parenthood.

Mulvaney has opposed gun control initiatives.

He supported the Regulatory Improvement Act of 2015, which would “[create] a commission tasked with eliminating and revising outdated and redundant federal regulations.” Marquardtika (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

According to CNN, "economists debate the best way to calculate statistics. But there is no evidence that the Bureau of Labor Statistics fudges its unemployment data." It'sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

PolitiFact noted that "the initial CBO analysis of the Affordable Care Act did forecast that more people would participate in health care exchanges than actually did, but the CBO has revised those estimates. Moreover, independent analyses, as well as experts agree that the CBO offers some of the best estimates given the information available at the time." It'sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

As Mulvaney was promoting AHCA in March 2017, he made several statements about the Affordable Care Act, which were found to be false by the Washington Post fact-checker. Mulvaney said that the Affordable Care Act was drafted with no committee hearings and that no ordinary American could read the bill before it was passed. The Washington Post noted that "the process that led to the Affordable Care Act was lengthy and complex, but involved numerous hearings and ample time for public comment and input. Any suggestion to the contrary is ridiculous." It'sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Some of your edits are disastrous. The individual in question is the director of the OMB, and he's making statements that are demonstrably false and without precedence. That the director of the OMB is outright lying about the CBO, falsely accusing the previous administration of manipulating the numbers upon which the economy depends, lying about the processes that lead to Obamacare (leading the WaPo fact-checker to repudiate Mulvaney's remarks in language that I haven't read from the fact-checker before) and making statements about programs like Meals on Wheels that contradict scientific research is highly notable. All these things have earned extensive coverage by reliable sources and major repudiation by those reliable sources. To simply frame his lies as "others disagree" and "some outlets report" is doing the readers a disservice. To remove sources that substantiate just how extreme these statements is also doing the readers a disservice, such as removing assessments by CNN and PolitiFact so that you can frame the "disagreement" as only coming from one source when it in fact comes every single reliable source out there. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, to remove Mulvaney's justifications for cuts to climate change programs is indefensible. Highly notable issue that has received extensive coverage by reliable sources. In case you didn't know, this individual is the director of the OMB and per his role, he has to prepare the President's budget proposal, evaluate the effectiveness of programs, set funding priorities and communicate with the public about all matters related to the budget. To remove those communications with the public (incl. justifications for cuts) and his blatant lies about government programs is without merit. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I think these edits generally improved the article. I had previously tagged it as an unbalanced section because it appeared to be becoming a daily news round-up of everything Mulvaney has said during his short tenure as OMB Director along with an accounting of everyone who disagreed with him. There are clearly wide degrees of opinion on, for example, whether the government should fund Meals on Wheels, so our article shouldn't make it seem as if there is only one appropriate opinion to have on the matter. The article had more of a "gotcha!" tone than an encyclopedic tone. Recentism was also an issue, as he's had the post for what, a month or two, and we were documenting the 24/7 news cycle. We should pick out larger themes over a longer term and summarize them neutrally. Marquardtika (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Taking office as OMB Director

I'm not reverting it, because it'll be accurate soon enough, but...as I write this on the afternoon of February 16, 2017, although he's been confirmed, Mulvaney has neither officially resigned from Congress nor been sworn in as OMB Director. The article has already been updated to reflect these events, but that's technically inaccurate until it actually happens. Please don't jump the gun. Thanks. JTRH (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mick Mulvaney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710230704/http://www.fastcasual.com/article/99623/Sen-Mick-Mulvaney-latest-Salsarita-s-franchisee to http://www.fastcasual.com/article/99623/Sen-Mick-Mulvaney-latest-Salsarita-s-franchisee
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.catholicvote.org/index.php?%2Fsite%2Fcandidates%2FMick_Mulvaney%2F&state=South%20Carolina

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Bitcoin Enthusiast

Lots of sources but not capable of determining the acceptable ones. Just google him and bitcoin. Sure seems that relevant to the article.

http://www.econotimes.com/Trump-picks-bitcoin-and-blockchain-enthusiast-Mick-Mulvaney-as-Budget-Director-461379

--Wikipietime (talk) 12:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

CFPB Leadership

Watchers of this page might be interested in this discussion. Thanks. —cnzx (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

USAToday just broke that Mulvaney is interim chair. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/28/judge-rules-mick-mulvaney-remain-interim-headin-leadership-fight-consumer-financial-protection-burea/902173001/ Frevangelion (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Seeking no funding going forward would seem to suggest sabotage. Wikipietime (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Typo

THERE IS A TYPO IN "FRO 14 months" should read as "FOR 14 MONTHS" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:9880:4248:2D:6040:11B5:1CAF:65F4 (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Surprising combination of numbers

The text says "The budget would remove $272 billion from welfare programs, including $272 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as food stamps." It is surprising that an amount of 272 billion includes an amount of 272 billion. Is this the way it should be? Joreberg (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Grammatical Recentism?

Wouldn't it be encyclopedic to report Mulvaney's selection and service as Chief of Staff in the dated past tense--avoiding the present "is serving" and present-oriented expressions like "currently"? Scanning the article, I notice also that the present perfect tense pervades: Mulvaney has done this or that throughout, with additional sourced information given in the same tense--implying that the events are recent and their effects ongoing. If this article is to be a permanent encyclopedia entry comprising historical content, these forms were better converted to past tense. (I'm not suggesting anything about the content--just the form.) Jackaroodave (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Mulvaney's meetings with lobbyists who donated to him

One editors keeps removing the following text[1]:

• An April 2018 Daily Beast analysis of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) visitor logs and campaign finance disclosures found that Mulvaney had as OMB Director met with at least eight registered lobbyists and six executives who donated to his congressional campaigns.

The editor does so with the stated rationale: "this section is his time in Congress, not his time at the OMB." The text in question is both about his time in Congres and his time at the OMB. Furthermore, the editor should simply move this to the correct section if the placement is such a problem rather than scrub it from the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Health care reform

Statements made by Mulvaney, the acting WH chief of staff, about the Trump administration's health care reform proposals which were covered by RS belong in the article. The content clearly meets WP:DUE and WP:RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no indication this is remotely important enough for its own section. The source itself indeed corroborates his statement (“It is accurate to say that all of them addressed the matter”), but is rated “mostly false” because it doesn’t go to the level of Obamacare. That’s an interpretive statement from PolitiFact, not an actual rebuttal of his statement. There may be a place for this in some article or here, but your addition gave undue weight and importance to a statement a source had relatively trivial issues with. Toa Nidhiki05 19:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

If the problem was giving the text a sub-header, you could have simply removed that sub-header. And no, Mulvaney's statement is false, because all the administration's health care plans would have effectively left some individuals with preexisting conditions without coverage. Other RS covered the falsehood in the same way[2][3] (demonstrating WP:DUE), as well as Mulvaney's other lies on the issue of health care.[4] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles aren't headlines, and you didn't seem to read beyond the headline. The article explicitly says he's right in the fact they all address it but that it's not as comprehensive as Obamacare. Regardless, this really isn't notable enough for anything. Toa Nidhiki05 23:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The PolitiFact article literally calls Mulvaney's claim "mostly false". The crux of the article is that while Trump administration plans addressed the issue, it's deceptive to state the plans "covered pre-existing conditions" when every single one left raised rates or covered fewer benefits for some individuals with preexisting conditions. This is not complicated. And again, this is something that has been covered by several RS, making it WP:DUE by every reasonable standard. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The supposed significance of this issue seems to be a case of recentism. It's questionable whether this information will be considered so worthy of inclusion over time. Are you equally eager to include Politifact as a source of information for articles on prior chiefs of staff? Rahm Emanuel?[5] Jack Lew?[6] —ADavidB 15:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to make your preferred changes to those articles. I have as a far as I can recall never ever removed text sourced to PolitiFact (or FactCheck.org or the WaPo fact-checker for that matter). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Keynesianism: WP:OR

At some point, some editor added that Mulvaney adheres to Keynesianism (just because Mulvaney has flip-flopped on the dangers of deficits). I removed it, as it was unsourced and seemed to be WP:OR. An editor restored this text, so I'm starting this talk page discussion to resolve this. Given that this is a BLP, it could be construed as a BLP vio to add that he's a Keynesian without any sourcing (in particular, given that Keynesianism does not necessarily have a good reputation in the wing of the GOP that Mulvaney could be considered part of). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:SYNTH to me, unless there are good sources for it. BLP or not, it would violate Verifiability policy if there are no sources; BLP does give us additional support to remove it, but it isn't necessary to appeal to BLP in order to remove it. Mathglot (talk) 05:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Mulvaney's claims about health care

The consensus is that this article should cover White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney's false claims about the White House's health care proposals. There is no consensus about whether to use Snooganssnoogans' wording or R2's wording, so there is no prejudice against discussing this further.

Cunard (talk) 01:17, 11 August 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.

---

Should this article cover White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney's false claims about the White House's health care proposals? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The text would go something along these lines:

• In March 2019, Mulvaney claimed, "every single (health care) plan that this White House has ever put forward since Donald Trump was elected covered pre-existing conditions." The Associated Press described the claim as "misleading" and PolitiFact rated this assertion "mostly false", noting that all the health care proposals supported by the White House would have weakened protections for individuals with preexisting conditions, and led to gaps in health insurance coverage and higher premium rates.

References

Survey

• Support - The White House Chief of Staff talking about the White House's health care proposals, with RS coverage and context about his claims, is important content. Multiple RS covered his remarks[7][8][9][10], so this easily meets WP:DUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Verifiable and noteworthy. This can be stated more succinctly as: In March 2019, Mulvaney misleadingly claimed, "every single (health care) plan that this White House has ever put forward since Donald Trump was elected covered pre-existing conditions." In fact, all the health care proposals supported by the White House would have weakened protections for individuals with preexisting conditions, and led to gaps in health insurance coverage and higher premium rates. R2 (bleep) 19:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support a succinct note about that, as per Snooganssnoogans. Galestar (talk) 07:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support - seems well sourced, balanced and due.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support - well-sourced, biographically significant, correct weight. I like R2's wording best. Neutrality^talk 02:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support - (via frs) I see no reason not to. Given the attention to health care, this definitely seems due. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment – Lots of things are verifiable, but that doesn't automatically mean they should be in the article. So, why this? Is it really WP:NOTEWORTHY? That would depend on WP:NPOV and WP:DUEWEIGHT, which govern article content. Seeking feedback at the discussion below, first, before committing. Mathglot (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Due weight question

Hi, Snooganssnoogans, I have a question for you, before I commit. Why this particular comment of Mulvaney's? This is a WP:DUEWEIGHT issue for me. Any politician or public figure in a high position, especially one whose job includes making public statements as part of his job, is going to make a lot of comments that the political opposition is going to try to seize on and if possible, attack. If I do a web search on "Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney" and look at 100 results, the first one having to do with Health care is at result #23 (this FactCheck article from April). That one is relevant; none of the others are. Which means, there are another 99 we could pick to put in the article (or maybe they already are there, and probably a lot of them are duplicates).

Or, looking at it differently, if we search for "Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney" in quotes plus "health care" in quotes, we get 27k results. (Only 5k results with "preexisting conditions" instead of "health care".) Replacing "health care" with one search term, like budget, Sanders, tariffs, racism, Mueller, Clinton, deficit, immigration, economy, Putin, Mexico, Guatemala, Iran, unemployment, Cuba, wall, defense, drugs, money-laundering, China, Merkel—they all have as many or more results than health care does.

Another angle on the due-weight issue is this: every President gets their share of fact-checking, with President Trump undoubtedly getting more attention than most, with constant attention in the press to the veracity of his statements. To what extent is this also true of Mulvaney? Is it to the point where adding Mulvaney's fact-checked statements about health care represent a significant portion of the attention the press plays to him more generally?

So, in sum: why this particular issue about the White House health care proposals? And if it is included, about how much space would you accord to it, and where in the article? (Summoned by bot) Mathglot (talk) 09:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Usually when something has been covered by multiple RS, it's considered WP:DUE (in my experience editing American politics). Where we get into trouble with that in American politics editing is when articles suffer from size constraints (e.g. Donald Trump, Barack Obama) and we have to be more picky. Besides the RS that can substantiate the importance of this item, this is DUE because Mulvaney made these comments on a prominent show and because health care is an important issue where the actions taken by the administration can have enormous implications for millions. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: Thanks for your response. I believe you are confusing Verifiability and due weight. Just because something is covered by reliable sources does not make it DUE; that's false. Something may be covered by multiple sources and therefore be unquestionably verifiable, and it may still not be appropriate for an article, if it is only a tiny proportion of the totality of sources about the topic. In that case, you have something that is simultaneously WP:VERIFIABLE and WP:UNDUE. This happens all the time, with high-profile figures who have lots of press coverage.

This was precisely my concern here, and why I opened this discussion in the first place: I am concerned Mulvaney's comments may be verifiable (by multiple RSes) but undue, and therefore may not be suitable for the article. As an example of what I mean: President Jimmy Carter's killer rabbit incident was reported endlessly in the press (probably hundreds of sources) but because he was president, there are so many other things that reliable sources reported, that this incident gets no play in the body of the Jimmy Carter article, because it is too minor compared to the large number of RS reports about everything else concerning him. (Something can be simultaneously UNDUE in one, broad-scope topic, and DUE in another, narrower-scope topic; exactly the case in this example.)

So to restate my question: I grant you that the Mulvaney's misstatements about health care are unquestionably verifiable by multiple reliable sources. But so are a million other things he said. Why do these particular health care comments rate a mention in the article? What evidence is there of their passing the bar of WP:DUEWEIGHT? Or is this just Mulvaney's killer rabbit? Mathglot (talk) 20:39, 29 July 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.

"Mulvaney is involved in the Trump–Ukraine controversy"

"Mulvaney is involved in the Trump–Ukraine controversy." A very neutral statement. Commendable actually, in its own way. Absurd though, in another light: a very bare statement, it's either important enough to have more specifics in his own bio, or it's not really important enough to even mention if not to say what it is. I suppose some allowance must be made for it being more of a "current event" than an encyclopedia historical event, or a type of See Also to this other fluid article. On the other hand, the "involved" statement could be taken a different way: it seems to imply some culpability or major involvement, though the linked article doesn't seem to say anything of the sort, not anything more than a neutral un-"involved" person would be while being employed as White House Chief of Staff or OMB Director, or working in the government generally. The citations are of mixed opinion so I suppose that is the prism of the difficulty. 2601:181:C381:6C80:8410:F7F2:9D2F:BCA1 (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the statement is commendably neutral--though I'm not sure how it's "absurd", being a statement of fact. The reason it's important enough to mention is because what Trump did (soliciting a foreign power to help him smear a political rival) is generally regarded as a criminal act (i.e. a violation of the Constitution), which means that Mulvaney--who, as the Director of the Office of Management & Budget, personally withheld the money Trump was holding over Ukraine's head--might be complicit in that crime. Mulvaney is also the first White House official to openly acknowledge that Trump's action was a quid pro quo, which contradicted weeks of Trump denials; so Mulvaney is now a standout figure in the scandal.

In conclusion, just a friendly reminder of Wikipedia's request that you append your signature to your posts, by typing four tildes at the end. Thank you and best wishes. Chillowack (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

add Mulvaney requested for a deposition?

• https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/05/trump-impeachment-probe-calls-mick-mulvaney-to-testify.html
• https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/05/impeachment-investigators-ask-mick-mulvaney-to-testify-000317
• https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/house-democrats-call-mulvaney-give-deposition-impeachment-probe/story?id=66767751
• https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/us/politics/impeachment-trump.html

as the inquiry leaders believe Mulvaney "may have been directly involved in an effort orchestrated" by Trump and Rudy Giuliani to withhold a "White House meeting and nearly $400 million in security assistance" in order to pressure Ukraine to pursue investigations that would benefit "Trump's personal political interests, and jeopardized our national security." X1\ (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

"In January 2019," (?) Mulvaney became Acting Chief of Staff"

I'm no native speaker. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/14/mick-mulvaney-acting-white-house-chief-of-staff?CMP=twt_gu He’s the acting chief of staff, which means he’s the chief of staff.] (14 dec 2018) Maybe he de facto started at the beginning of 2019 (14 Dec. 2018 was a Friday, Monday 17 until Friday 22 was the last week before Christmas). --Neun-x (talk) 08:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Killing of the Equifax Breach Probe

It would be nice if we had some information regarding his involvement in the Equifax Data Breach probe. "In November 2017, Mick Mulvaney, President Donald Trump's budget chief (appointed by Trump to replace Cordray) was reported by Reuters to have "pulled back" on the [2017 Equifax Data Breach] probe, along with shelving Cordray's plans for on-the-ground tests of how Equifax protects data. The CFPB also rebuffed bank regulators at the Federal Reserve Bank, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency who offered to assist with on-site exams of credit bureaus. Senator Elizabeth Warren, who released a report on the Equifax breach in February 2018, criticized Mulvaney's actions, stating: "We're unveiling this report while Mick Mulvaney is killing the consumer agency's probe into the Equifax breach. Mick Mulvaney shoots another middle finger at consumers.” https://www.warren.senate.gov/oversight/letters/senator-warren-raises-new-concerns-about-equifax-turning-away-customers-impacted-by-data-breach-and-seeking-settlement-awards 190.113.111.51 (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine Scandal

I'm restoring the article to the pre-dispute state and opening this discussion. There seems to be disagreement about the inclusion of information about the Ukraine scandal. Regardless of my personal political views, the information in question is backed by numerous reliable sources (as per WP:RSP) and even a video stating Mulvaney's exact words. The bias of the sources in question has been brought up. Yes, the Wikipedia community acknowledges press bias, but despite that, in discussions, the community consensus is that the sources are still factually reliable, despite their bias. The same fact can be presented in different ways in aiming to influence readers - that doesn't change the fact that what is reported is still a factual event and not a fabrication. Thus, I believe the section should not be removed. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll go with keeping the section too. Regardless of the potential bias, ten sources and a video stating this as fact is beyond proof that it happened. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 04:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to add on that even right-leaning sources covered the incident in question. The Wall Street Journal, a right-leaning source, wrote an article here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/mulvaney-says-holdup-of-ukraine-aid-was-related-to-trumps-demand-for-2016-election-probe-11571338443. As such, I feel the bias of the other sources has nothing to do with the verifiability of the information. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 04:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)