Talk:Trump–Ukraine scandal/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

This subject is not yet ready for an article

IMO it is way too early for this article. The news reporting on this subject is preliminary and is best handled in much less detail in an existing article, as it already is at Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration#Ukraine. At the moment this is basically an attack page, with a non-neutral title that probably can’t be made neutral. I am tempted to nominate it for deletion, although I will listen to opinion here, and will give it a little time to see if the news becomes more definite instead of leaks here and there from unnamed sources. Also to see if the article can be made fair and objective, or if the subject matter is inherently POV. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I support changing "scandal" to "controversy" in the title. soibangla (talk) 03:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I will pause now to allow others to opine on your motion to delete. soibangla (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes move to "controversy". I will have to read the sources to determine if the news is definite on this or just a bunch of unsubstantiated leaks. I would set up a RFC for the move, but this may go to AfD and that would mean the RFC would be a waste of time. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I moved it to "controversy" WP:BOLDLY without even having seen this discussion. Notability of the subject is... hard to say? WP:TOOSOON? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ – Muboshgu (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Good job on the "move". I think covering the withholding of aid ($250 million?) to Ukraine (by Trump) as a method to coerce the current Ukrainian government into conducting a corruption investigation into Joe Biden or his son is speculation at this point. There is nothing definitive in reliable sources about this. It is pretty much based on leaks. So, I think such coverage should be removed from this article. Steve Quinn (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Drawing a conclusion from the events might be speculative, but the events themselves are not.

Congressional aides and administration officials who work on Ukraine issues had become concerned that the White House was slow-walking a military assistance package for Kiev, according to people involved in an effort to free up the assistance. Last week, the two issues merged when Mr. Schiff and two other Democratic House committee chairmen requested the transcript of Mr. Trump’s call with Mr. Zelensky from the State Department and the White House as part of an investigation into whether Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani were misappropriating the American foreign policy apparatus for political gain

soibangla (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, we can say several House committees are investigating whether or not aid was withheld because Trump was intent on influencing Ukraine to see things his way. But we can't say the aid was in fact actually withheld because of Trump's intent. on influencing Ukraine to see things his way.

I know what I think is true, but I'm not a reliable source. Well, maybe I am - let me ask other editors about this :>D Steve Quinn (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

The article states Trump did not mention the aid during his July 25 call with Zelensky, and Ukraine did not know it was being withheld until August soibangla (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can determine, it seems that Giuliani has met with a high ranking Ukranian administration official in Madrid to pressure the Ukrainian government. He also attempted to see the incoming Ukrainian president before he officially took office [1]. And it seems Trump also wants an investigation into the company where Biden's son worked, and an investigation into whether the previous Ukrainian government interfered with the 2016 election.

I think Trump is trying to see if there was explicit or implicit support for Hillary on that one - but that is not clear to me. During a phone call, Trump himself seems to have "pressured [President] Zelensky over the Biden investigation eight separate times" during a phone call between the two [2].

I think at this point, if we keep this article it would be a short one. There is coverage in reliable sources. On a CNN video, Biden actually used the word "intimidate" as in Trump trying to intimidate Ukraine, a foreign power that is asking for help. Steve Quinn (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN seems to have covered this much better than I have. Please see the last paragraph of this section in another article --Steve Quinn (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning that paragraph. IMO Giuliani virtually confirmed that there was a connection between withholding the money and requesting the investigation, when he said "The reality is that the President of the United States, whoever he is, has every right to tell the president of another country you better straighten out the corruption in your country if you want me to give you a lot of money. If you're so damn corrupt that you can't investigate allegations -- our money is going to get squandered." That doesn't mean we can state the connection as fact, but it also argues against removing it. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

OK. I have to agree there is enough on this talk page to argue against removing it. Also, there is no elaboration of this in the body of the article, only a sentence in the lede. Someone could use what has been discussed here to elaborate in the body of the article. One more thing, I don't know if its me (maybe tired at the moment), but it seems there is too much detail in the body of the article at this time. Too much of a blow by blow. Imho. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I have come to the same conclusion. Based on the current state of the article, the degree of coverage this is getting from several different angles, and the potential implications of what is described here, this is a valid subject for an article - and if it was AfD'ed it would almost certainly be kept. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's an update from NYT (Sunday Sep. 22): "Trump Acknowledges Discussing Biden in Call With Ukrainian Leader" [3]

"President Trump acknowledged on Sunday that he discussed former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. with Ukraine’s president..." "While Mr. Trump defended his July phone call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine as perfectly appropriate, he confirmed that Mr. Biden came up during the discussion and that he accused the former vice president of corruption tied to his son Hunter’s business activities in that former Soviet republic..." "Mr. Trump did not directly confirm news reports that he pressured Mr. Zelensky for an investigation."

At the moment, this seems kind of anticlimactic to me after all the coverage so far :>) However, this might be useful for this article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I think this article obviously has some WP:TOOSOON concerns as nothing concrete has actually happened yet, nor may it ever happen. That's not to say that the material shouldn't be included somewhere - but a standalone article? Nope. Presidency of Donald Trump would be far more appropriate. Unfortunately, this would be kept at AfD as even more ridiculous stand-alone Trump-related articles exist. *cough cough, Bowling Green massacre, cough cough.* May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 16:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, one concrete thing has actually happened: the legally established process for whistle blowing by people in the intelligence services has been defied by the White House and DOJ. Another concrete thing has happened: the military aid for Ukraine was held up in July, then released after this story went public. We'll see what else develops, but those are facts. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Reference style

I realize the status of this article is still in doubt/under discussion. I'd just like to say I find it very hard to read in its present state, because of the way all the references are clustered at the end of the paragraph, instead of being attached to the facts or items they are a source for. All but one of the paragraphs are long, containing many sentences and many details, with no in-context references. and anywhere from two to seven references at the end. I have always believed that a reference should be as close as possible to the information it is about, so that the reader can easily check the source for verification. How do others feel about this? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I totally agree with you, here,MelanieN.--Wuerzele (talk) 08:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I am aware of this and am working on it. But the dilemma here is common, in that various pieces of content within a given sentence are derived from multiple sources, but those same sources are used for other sentences as well, so it means those same sources would need to be cited in multiple places, creating redundancy that others might take issue with. If everything were in neat, discrete nuggets, inline refs would be easy, but in this particular case it isn't. But maybe someone else can resolve this better than I can. Please note that my second edit was to distribute the refs a bit. soibangla (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for working on it. I am not one of those people who think that every sentence or every fact needs to be individually sourced. And certainly there are times when the same content is covered by multiple sources. But we shouldn't overcite by listing (IMO) more than three sources for the identical info. More commonly there are a couple of sentences based on source A, followed by a couple based on source B, etc. The simplest thing is to cite the information as you go along, as you build the paragraph. And of course a sentence that contains a direct quote needs to have a reference, cited at that sentence, for the source of the quote - even if it means that source gets cited more than once. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Assessment

I added a "WikiProject Politics" template. Then I assessed each of the three project templates according to each project's "importance" and "quality" scale. Please feel free to discuss if there is disagreement. On the "quality" scale it seems this article has reached level "C" for each project according to the criteria. Also, I think these could be raised to level "B" because this article appears to have surpassed the problems noted in level "C". Imho. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this, Steve Quinn. I agree with your ratings, except I wonder if this incident really deserves a "top importance" classification. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I chose "Top" mostly based on the second part of the "importance" explanation: [4] "...Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field." I am trying to see this from the perspective of the international arena, although achieving this perspective is difficult (of course) because I reside in only one country (the USA).

Also, I am guessing about what is the international impact, at least in Europe, including Eastern Europe. I mean, what is the impact on the international arena of a gargantuan nation (the USA) pressuring or coercing a much smaller nation (Ukraine) that is in alignment with western ideals? I think Eastern Europe should be concerned, and I am guessing they are.

Especially since Ukraine is in a vulnerable position fending off Russian aggression and needs our help. This could happen with other Western Democracies as well...and so on. So, the point is - this situation with Ukraine would seem to have international importance.

The "High importance" rating seems to only apply to "... has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent." (underlines mine). But, these should probably only be seen as guidelines and not etched in stone. The other parts of the ratings are difficult for me to assess and maybe it's too soon to say.

These are: "High importance" - "Subject is extremely notable..." and "Top importance" - "Subject is extremely important to politics, even crucial, to its specific field...". So, after having said all that :>D, what do you or anyone else think is the appropriate "importance" rating? I am certainly open to changing these ratings per suggestion or consensus (or someone else can do it). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I changed the importance ratings to "low", rather than "top". I'm considering this from project wide perspectives - and vital articles and the like are usually rated "top". If anyone prefers another importance rating feel free to do so. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Reactions section

Let's reach some understanding (pre-emptively, because it is not currently a problem) about what to include and not to include in the Reactions section. IMO we should only include comments there that advance the story; all of our current entries in that section do exactly that. Trump, Pelosi, Schiff, and the Ukrainians are all in the article and are important to hear from. (In fact I was in the process of adding Pelosi's comment when I was edit-conflicted by soibangla adding it.) I think we need to resist the temptation, that always comes up in this kind of article, to include every comment from every congressperson or commentator. That tends to result in clutter and a loss of the main point. So IMO even comments like Romney's, which got some press, should not be in the article at this time. Only comments from major players regarding this case, or those which actually advance the reporting. Are others in agreement with this? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• I think this is good that you bring this up now so we know what we are doing. I agree that to include "every" comment, written or recorded, about this topic would dilute the focus of the section and maybe even the article. I would not have realized this. As you say it would ultimately result in clutter. Only the major players' comments or comments that actually advance the story should be included. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• I considered to move the 3 House committees investigation, which is actually one of teh earliest reactions, before this issue went mainstream. I wanted to move it out of the military aid section into the reaction section, but left it there, because I saw the reaction section was as is usually the case in these articles, swelling up and going to swallow this info. --Wuerzele (talk) 08:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
• Is it worth writing in a separate section about Europe's reaction? Actually, Trump and Zelensky have criticized European leaders and this is of great importance for international politics. In recent edits, I have mentioned the reaction of Germany in the Ukrainian context. However, this may not be enough to cover the full picture. Wellring (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Potential separate article for hunter Biden affair

A separate article for the hunter Biden affair in Ukraine may be needed as more details on it will likely come out because of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.180.13 (talk) 18:34, September 23, 2019 (UTC)

Disagree. The issues are totally intermingled. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

This is the article for the "Hunter Biden affair in Ukraine". – Muboshgu (talk) 03:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

That title sounds like a mystery novel or spy novel :>D I like it. I propose we change this article's name to that - it has nice ring to it :>D - Let's see if we can get consensus for that. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

No. OK, maybe you were joking :>D, but it's not accurate. Trump/Giuliani have been pressing for at least three investigations: into Hunter Biden's role at the energy company, into Joe Biden's threat to withhold loan guarantees if a certain prosecutor wasn't fired, and into whether the Democrats were behind the investigation into Paul Manafort's work in Ukraine. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I suspect the IP was doing a subtler, nicer version of this edit. Trumpers may have their new Benghazi, and we need to be on high alert. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

That's what I'm afraid of, too. I can hear the chants at his rallies: "Lock him up, lock him up!" We've seen this movie before. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

There's just gotta be something in HRC's deleted emails about all this! soibangla (talk) 18:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN - yes I was joking. Sorry that wasn't clear. A title like that would never be accepted on Wikipedia. And in this case "Hunter Biden affair in Ukraine" is not even close to the correct title.

Muboshgu, I think you nailed it. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's an update from the NYT - updated for September 24th [5] "Trump Said to Have Frozen Aid to Ukraine Before Call With Its Leader" - President Trump personally ordered his staff to freeze more than $391 million in aid to Ukraine in the days before he pressed the new Ukrainian president to investigate the Democrats’ leading presidential candidate, two senior administration officials said Monday.

So it seems to be down to days rather than a week. And Trump kept vacillating Monday, including saying the phone call transcript should be released, and then contradicting himself. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Unbiased?

Since Wikipedia is unbiased, can someone point me at the separate page about the Biden-Ukraine controversy? CsikosLo (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

CsikosLo, this is the page about the Biden-Ukraine controversy. There s no evidence that either Biden did anything improper. The controversy is Trump and Giuliani leaning on a foreign government to fabricate an investigation. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu, the funny thing is there’s no evidence of Trump doing anything wrong either. But you won’t see that written anywhere on the article! I want to add that there’s clear video of Biden acknowledging quid pro quo - fire the prosecutor or you don’t get $1bil from the US. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

No evidence? Well, unless you count the fact that both Giuliani and Trump have confirmed that the military aid money was withheld as a way of forcing the Ukrainians to carry out the investigations they wanted. In fact, the exact same thing they are accusing Biden of. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, the money was released to the Ukrainians. It’s in the article. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it was... a few days after Congress began to make a stink about it. For that matter, the loan guarantees that Biden spoke about were never withdrawn. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

If you're looking for a quid pro quo, you don't even have to consider the money (although that helps). You should also consider that Zelensky is a comedian who got elected president, a political neophyte who needs to establish credibility on the world stage, and a good way to do that is a photo of him shaking hands with the POTUS in the Oval Office. Ukraine was seeking such a meeting, and Trump knows how important this is to Zelensky: "you want a meeting with The Boss? then play ball." soibangla (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

It was the overwhelming consensus of Western governments and NGOs like IMF and World Bank that Shokin had to go if Ukraine wanted any international financial assistance. Biden got it done, and Shokin was actually hindering the investigation into Zlochevsky/Burisma, not pushing it. This is thoroughly documented in the article. soibangla (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. What happened in the investigation after Shokin was removed? Mr Ernie (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Zlochevsky was cleared. Nevertheless, Biden was not acting alone, the whole Western world wanted Shokin gone. soibangla (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, after Shokin was fired, the next prosecutor took a much MORE aggressive posture toward that oligarch and others. The effect of Biden's threat was to revive the investigation, not to block it. After a year of investigation, the new prosecutor cleared Zlochevsky. Read the article for details and sources. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, that quid pro quo you cute would've put Hunter Biden at greater risk, not less. And it wasn't Biden, it was Biden speaking for the international community. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I've recently removed insinutations of the Trump/Giuliani/Pompeo conspiracy theorizing at various other articles, including Hunter Biden, Burisma Holdings, and Chuck Grassley. There may be some good faith confusion among editors who have not fully abosorbed all the available information, or there may be some POV pushing as the story develops. Remember how long it took to keep the conspiracy theories and irrelevant "information" out of the Murder of Seth Rich article a few years back. Let's all keep an eye on related or associated articles. SPECIFICO talk 15:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I've been doing the same, removing opinion and improperly sourced material from related articles. I have also created a bunch of redirects to bring readers here. In all modesty I think this page has the best, most encyclopedic and neutral coverage of this incident. They say journalism is the "first rough draft of history"; that's pretty much what we are doing here and I think so far we are doing a good job of it. Kudos to all who are working on it. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

If one were to read numerous reliable sources, including those provided in this article, rather than reflexively accept the narrative Trump, Giuliani et al. are pushing, including that Biden should face the electric chair, you will find that there is actually no evidence of a Biden-Ukraine controversy. None. soibangla (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I had to shake my head over that "a Republican would get the electric chair" comment. Trump, a Republican, has pretty much confirmed that he did exactly the same thing: withheld foreign aid to get the Ukrainians to do what he wanted. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

And he’s being threatened up and down with impeachment, and worse. What did they say about Biden when he did it? Mr Ernie (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Did what? Those who were paying attention and understood the circumstances knew there was nothing untoward about what Biden did. The whole Western world was behind it. I repeat, as you seem unwilling to accept this: The whole Western world was behind it. soibangla (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

...whereas Trump did it for his own political advantage. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

If Biden didn’t do anything wrong he should welcome an investigation to clear him. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, yeah, like the Benghazi investigation? A completely unnecessary circus? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Mr Ernie. It's very important to keep Original Research and personal POV off this talk page. Please be careful to discuss sourcing and content rather than your own analysis. We've seen how these articles can get off track, and I'd hope that, with at least 3 years experience editing Trump-related content, we can all make the most productive use of our collective efforts here. SPECIFICO talk 19:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your optimism. I’d prefer for the facts to come out before we get too far into this. I’m also not a fan of the selective “he claimed, without evidence” game that we are seeing more and more. Anyways, I think Trump said he would release the transcript. Maybe that brings out the correct details. The welcoming an investigation line is a quote from Sen. Gillibrand referencing Justice Kavanaugh. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not my opinion, optimistic or otherwise. It's impossible to think that you've read the RS descriptions of this, starting over 5 years ago. When you say you'd prefer to "wait for the facts to come out" when several editors have pointed you to documentation that the Trump group's insinuations and direct accusations have been investigated and debunked, that is impossible to understand and has been rejected by just about every other editor on this page. SPECIFICO talk 20:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, Trump walked back the possibility of releasing the transcript yesterday, saying it wouldn't set a good precedent. It is unfortunate that the whistleblower has been prevented from talking to Congress. The investigation that can come from this is called impeachment hearings. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu, the whistleblower wants to talk to Congress. His/her attorney has been discussing with Congress how he/she can do that. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

[6] and others are reporting this in the last hour. This is why we need to wait for articles like this. We have no idea what any facts are. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, that suggests a turnaround from what I read yesterday. This topic is evolving quickly, and I think we're all using just caution in our edits. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Very true. And we need to keep in mind that we really have very little idea about whether the whistleblower complaint is actually about that phone call, or what else it might cover to make the IG so alarmed about it. Even if the transcript is all sweetness and light, the committees still want to see that report. Did you see where the Senate (yes, that Senate) UNANIMOUSLY demanded that it be given to the intelligence committee immediately? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Seems worth mentioning here:

A major part of the Trump narrative is that in 2016 then-Vice President Biden pressed for the resignation of Shokhin in order to protect his son. That is not the way people in Ukraine remember things. Lutsenko's reputation for corruption was infamous, and Biden supported the efforts of Ukraine's reformers to be rid of him.

According to Nalyvaichenko, Lutsenko needs to be investigated further, not least because he has been in communication with Trump's agents "for vindictive purposes." [7]

XOR'easter (talk) 00:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

"The DNI is a cabinet-level position."

What is the point of this sentence in the "whistleblower" section? It seems to stand in isolation in the middle of the paragraph, with no reference and no context to explain why it is there. I removed it once, but someone restored it. Please let's either add something (with source, please) to explain why it is relevant, or else remove it. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I originally put it in before it was known that Maguire withheld the ICIG report on direction from WH/DOJ, to show that his only "higher authority" as a cabinet officer would be the president. Now that the WH/DOJ directive is established, I suppose that can come out now, although it shows the historical progression of events and what was known at various points. soibangla (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

We could add something like "as a cabinet officer, Maguire's only higher authority was the White House," but not as OR; we would need a source pointing it out.-- MelanieN (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I think I'll just remove it. It is made clear later in the paragraph that the orders came from the White House. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hunter Biden’s expertise

Is there anything out there describing what Biden’s responsibilities were while he was on the board? I’m having trouble finding what his expertise or role actually was. It may be good to have some of his work described in the article. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Stop inserting Hunter Biden into this discussion. This article is about Trump's actions as head of state to further his personal goals. It is a BLP violation to insinuate Hunter Biden with these inquiries about so-called "information" or "questions" about whether he did this or that. SPECIFICO talk 20:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Just added: Biden, an attorney with Boies Schiller Flexner, was hired to help Burisma with "transparency, corporate governance and responsibility, international expansion," and his firm was also retained by Burisma soibangla (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Impeachment

This is it. they're going to have impeachment proceedings over this. Maybe we should change the title to reflect that.Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

We may need to, very soon. There is already an article Efforts to impeach Donald Trump. Maybe that's the article that needs to be retitled. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I added an "Impeachment proceedings" section in the article. I welcome copy editing help. I'm not sure we need an article title change for this. It is about the Trump–Ukraine controversy, which consists of all the text in the article, including impeachment proceedings. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks. I agree that a title change would be in the future, not now. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Year in article title

Would anybody object to changing the title from 2019 Trump–Ukraine controversy to Trump–Ukraine controversy? The year seems superflous. Neutrality^talk 22:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I would favor that. No DAB is needed. In fact I thought that was already a redirect, but apparently it isn't. (Trump-Ukraine is.) -- MelanieN (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I've boldly moved it, since I don't anticipate objections. Neutrality^talk 22:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Good. Is there some bot-like way to fix the double redirects? Or does that happen automatically? -- MelanieN (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the bots come and do it for us. See Wikipedia:Double redirects#Double redirects and bots. Neutrality^talk 22:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

TGFB. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep the year in the title. I think it gives the article a focus in the year that it happened. Also, I am not sure the page move to hyphen with no spaces between "Trump" and "Ukraine" was a good idea. In fact, I think that it wasn't a good idea. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I wish the editor who did the page move would have consulted on the talk page with other editors before doing (or not doing) the move. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, we can continue to discuss it. As I said, I prefer it without the year. It's unnecessary disambiguation; there is no other Trump-Ukraine controversy. But as for the hyphen, it was always there; there was never a space. The article was originally titled 2019 Trump-Ukraine Scandal, then moved to 2019 Trump-Ukraine controversy, and just now the year was dropped. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

True, there is no other Trump-Ukraine controversy. As an aside, the article is getting hit with a bunch of edits. At least one of these is inaccurate [8]. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I have warned the editor concerned. Neutrality^talk 00:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Quinn (talk • contribs) 00:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Just the other day I was saying that I hoped people looking for information about this story would find this article. Well, they have found it, with a vengeance. Page views jumped from a few hundred to four thousand. And a lot of the visitors are adding information, not always in the most encyclopedic way. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The lead section

As often happens at this kind of article, people who want to add new details are putting them in the lead section, rather than in the text where they generally belong. We should continue to move such things to the text - or if they are important enough for the lead, to be sure they are in the text also. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Also, as you may have noticed an editor restored text that you moved to an appropriate section, then I moved it and this person restored it again. Then you moved it again. I also note that you notified the editor about not restoring this text to the lede on their talk page. Hopefully, this will not continue. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't get your hopes up. This kind of thing will continue. It always does on a subject this hot. That's one of the things we page-watchers are here for. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Yep. I don't see this cooling off any time soon. XOR'easter (talk) 01:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Right. I've been here a while, and I've ridden a few of these bucking-bronco stories. They can be exhausting and frustrating, but also satisfying because you get the feeling: what I am doing here really MATTERS. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

"Bucking-bronco stories" - certainly an apt description (as I wave my cowboy hat over my head while holding the Bronco's reigns - yelling ya-hoo!) (or wa-hoo!). And it does really matter - presenting accurate information about important events or situations - and doing it in the face of all the rough and tumble. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

At least I can end my day reverting anti-Semitic vandalism. XOR'easter (talk) 02:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. What is it with people? -- MelanieN (talk) 05:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Two sources with a lot of additional info

• Kenneth P. Vogel, Behind the Whistle-Blower Case, a Long-Held Trump Grudge Toward Ukraine, New York Times (September 20, 2019).
• Greg Miller, Josh Dawsey, Paul Sonne & Ellen Nakashima, Giuliani pursued shadow Ukraine agenda as key foreign policy officials were sidelined, Washington Post (September 24, 2019).

Right now I don't have the time to summarize and add to the article, but perhaps some generous editor will? Neutrality^talk 16:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Accuracy

I just did an edit mostly related to syntax because the first sentence of the paragraph was confusing: [9]

A whistleblower complaint from someone within the intelligence community is believed to be related to this situation, and was initially withheld from Congress at the direction of the White House and the Department of Justice...

Specifically, the first sentence was being conflated between "whistleblower complaint" and "someone in the intelligence community". Then, one of these "is believed to be related to this situation"and "was initially withheld from Congress." It just doesn't make sense. So, from the knowledge I that I have, I took my best guess as to the intended meaning and edited it (see above diff).

I also added back "By law, such a complaint is supposed be forwarded to the appropriate congressional committees" which was in this paragraph, one edit prior to this one [10] - and which is now reworded.

Could someone check my recent edit for accuracy. That would be the first diff in this section - thanks. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The sentence The intelligence community is believed to be related to this situation. seems awkward to me. I think it makes more sense to say that the whistleblower complaint is believed to be related to this situation than to say that the intelligence community is. XOR'easter (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

XOR'easter thanks. Yeah, I didn't know which was which. Also, my first thought was to simply remove that sentence - I still think it is the best option. It doesn't really add anything to the paragraph. I think maybe it is stating the obvious. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it's been removed, and I think the paragraph reads fine without it. XOR'easter (talk) 01:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree - the paragraph seems fine without it. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 03:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

DOJ’s decision: Trump did not violated campaign finance law

I suggest to add a paragraph to the introduction about the significant DOJ’s decision. How about the draft paragraph below? How about adding this draft for the article introduction/lead? With reputable source.

According to the United State Department of Justice (DOJ), Trump did not violate campaign finance law with request to probe potential corruption

Sources

Francewhoa (talk) 02:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

---

The Epoch Times is not a reliable source, and in this matter, the independence and trustworthiness of the DOJ is itself a matter of concern to many people, so while what they say is likely worth documenting, we should work to provide better context. XOR'easter (talk) 02:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, "DOJ officials reviewed the complaint ... and determined that no further action was warranted" is literally one of the White House talking points we were discussing in the section just above. XOR'easter (talk) 02:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

---

Hi @XOR'easter: Thanks for your reply and Wikipedia contributions :) I disagree. The DOJ is a significant view. I suggest to include it. As well as including other views already included into the article. As for the source, are you interested to suggest another source? How about the Time Magazine as a source? With their today's article at https://time.com/5685980/justice-department-trump-ukraine-campaign-finance/

https://archive.fo/RqcZC

With infinite Wikipedia love ♥. Francewhoa (talk) 03:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

---

There's no support for your edit. Please move on. SPECIFICO talk 03:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

---

@XOR'easter: About your claim that The Epoch Times is not a reliable source. Are you interested to expand on your claim? I disagree. Because:

• According to Wikipedia, the Epoch Times has a published Wikipedia article. So they did pass the Wikipedia notable test.
• According to “Media Bias Fact Check”, the Epoch Times scored the same as CNN and many other mainstream news sources. Which is a “Mixed” rating. The only better rating is “High”. And the ones who obtain such score usually do so by running very few opinion pieces. Source at https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-epoch-times/ or https://archive.fo/j6d1L
• Epoch Times has received numerous awards for their reporting, including from the New York Press Association, the Society of Professional Journalists, and the Society for News Design.
• Epoch Time are both independent and an 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Thus they are likely harder to corrupt with money compare to for profit medias. Source at https://www.theepochtimes.com/about-us or https://archive.fo/KE4oO

I understand that some readers may disagree with the Ephoc Time’s view. But according to Wikipedia's agreement, this is not a valid argument to exclude Epoch Time's view. To meet Wikipedia’s neutral point of view efforts, my vote goes for including the Ephoc Times. In other words, if you include and read only one view, you can only get one side of the news. I suggest to include all main views. Then let the readers decide for themselves which view(s) they are interested in.

With infinite Wikipedia love ♥. Francewhoa (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Being wiki-notable does not imply reliability. Indeed, our article on the Epoch Times indicates quite clearly why they should not be regarded as a reliable source. That "Media Bias Fact Check" page deems them unreliable about the Trump administration, that is, on the specific topic of this article. (And an award for graphic design means, for present purposes, nothing.) The point stands. XOR'easter (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

---

Content on the DOJ is dealt with in the body of the article. I do not think it belongs in the lead section at this time. Neutrality^talk 03:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

What Neutrality said. Shoving this into the lead gives it undue weight. If this angle of the story develops more — a lot more — we can reconsider. XOR'easter (talk) 03:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Here, here! That means I agree it should not be put in the lead per UNDUE and the upper echelons of the Justice Department have demonstrated a conflict of interest in this matter. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

That media bias site is a bit dodgey in its own right, but at least it rates Epoch Times "far right", so there's that. Francewhoa, you are making lots of errors about our sourcing and content policies. Please read WP:RS and WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. SPECIFICO talk 04:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

---

Hello @SPECIFICO, Neutrality, XOR'easter, and Steve Quinn:) I found this 3rd reputable source below. From CBC News. Which also reported that according to the DOJ, Trump did not violate campaign finance law with request to probe potential corruption. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-asked-ukrainian-president-to-investigate-biden-call-shows-1.5296506

One of the benefit with this source's article is that they cover lots of views. Any volunteer interested to find additional reputable sources about the DOJ's decision that Trump did not violate campaign finance law with request to probe potential corruption?

With infinite Wikipedia love ♥ Francewhoa (talk) 04:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

---

References

That source has less information than the Washington Post story we had to begin with (currently reference 43). We already know what the DOJ position was. XOR'easter (talk) 04:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• I totally agree with XOR'easter: That Associated Press cite (which was re-published by CBC) is almost entirely duplicative of content already mentioned in the article. Nevertheless, I have incorporated one sentence of new content from the AP article, although I have put it in chronological order. Separately, Francewhoa, can you please be mindful of edit conflicts? See Help:Edit conflict. On about three occasions, when making your edits you have overwritten some copy-editing fixes (like a fix from "the Ukraine" to "Ukraine"). Can you please stop doing that? And, when adding new content, could you please check to make sure that the same material isn't already in the article? Neutrality^talk 05:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Talking-points email incident

Muboshgu removed a bit I added about White House talking points inadvertently getting sent to House Democrats, on the grounds that it's a minor bit of this story. Fair enough, and I won't disagree. Even leaving that weird little moment out of the article, though, it might be worth reading over those talking points (described in the Guardian and WaPo references in the linked material), to see if any of them start showing up from new editors here. Cheers, XOR'easter (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I was going to open up this section for discussion as well. I don't agree with Muboshgu's rationale for removing this content and I think it should stay in. It shows the public how things work, and how the Administration intends to make themselves look good in spite of ethically (lawfully?) questionable actions. News reports tell the tale of how worried NSA officials were about Trump making that phone call just after the Mueller report testimony before Congress (the day after). I believe they tried to dissuade him - because sure enough he did what they thought he might do. I don't agree this is a minor bit of the story. It shows ongoing manipulation. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, it shows how much support Trump has from Republican Congressmen as they repeat the talking points to journalists and the public. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, OK, those are good reasons to include it. I guess I'm inclining in favor now (after having walked away, done other stuff and returned). Obviously, we wouldn't have to use the text I threw together; I'm sure we could improve upon it if we decided to include the topic. Does anyone else have an opinion? XOR'easter (talk) 01:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Muboshgu that it's trivial and should come out. Amusing, maybe — but trivial. soibangla (talk) 02:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I just did a news search and found that the story has been picked up by Slate, CNBC, CNN, Vice, the International Business Times, CBS and others [11][12][13][14][15][16], on top of the two I found to begin with. If it's amusing trivia, a lot of people are amused. XOR'easter (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

One more, with some additional details [17]. I'll admit, my original thought was something like, "gosh dang it, we need to find amusement where we can", but after news-searching, I think there's a bit better case for inclusion than that. XOR'easter (talk) 04:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. On a cable channel I saw a video clip of Lindsey Graham on Fox news. He was using the first talking point pretty much verbatim. And as pointed out, a certain editor is also pushing one of the talking points in another thread (below this one). This is educational (and a little humorous). And with this much main stream coverage, I still think it deserves coverage in the body of this article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Having now slept on the question, I'm still inclining in favor of including it (maybe rewritten from what I put together first). Opinion seems pretty evenly divided; further comments, anyone? XOR'easter (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it falls under WP:NOTNEWS. I realize I didn't explicitly invoke that policy sooner. Not every bit of the story that gets news coverage needs to be included. The talking points themselves are predictable, and it's just a minor amusement that they emailed them to the other party. It doesn't affect the story much and wouldn't pass the WP:10YT. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Merge request 26 September 2019

Note: Merge request taken from Talk:Trump-Ukraine whistleblower complaint and moved here, where there will be more eyes. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The information in this article is currently located at Trump–Ukraine controversy and this topic does not have enough content to continue expansion of this page. The whistleblower complaint was only one small aspect—not much more than what is already stated can be added to this article. I therefore propose this be merged (that is, redirected; the content of this page is already listed on the Trump-Ukraine article) into the Trump–Ukraine controversy.  Nixinova  T  C  03:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support the "controversy" is about the behavior that led to the whistleblower complaint, so I see no benefit of having two separate articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support - This material best serves readers by being in one article. The title of this article is consistent with current media coverage, and thus WP:TITLE.- MrX 🖋 17:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support One article is better than two here. XOR'easter (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support The whistleblower complaint article is very short and doesn't deserve its own article. 209.96.107.207 (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and made Trump-Ukraine whistleblower complaint a redirect to this article. No sense in prolonging the discussion and cluttering the lead with a merge-discussion notice — and as a reader, I'd expect a link with the text "Trump-Ukraine whistleblower complaint" to point to a copy of the complaint itself. Can we put one of those on the Commons? XOR'easter (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with posting it at Commons - I think the reading public should have access to this. Steve Quinn (talk) 20:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

It is now available here, and a thumbnail is included in the article (as one is for the memorandum). XOR'easter (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Possible need for protection

@Neutrality and Muboshgu: This article is already very close to my standards for needing semi-protection. I suggest all three of us keep an eye on the situation, and whichever of us first identifies the need, go ahead and apply the protection; no need to consult or go through an RfC process. Agreed? -- MelanieN (talk) 05:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, I'm always watching. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Good, thanks. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I think whatever applies to this article should apply to the Hunter Biden page as well. An IP-hopping anon is apparently on a mission to "increase content fidelity". XOR'easter (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

​​ I think they just crossed the 3RR line after being warned. I don't want to revert further for fear of breaking the letter of the rules myself, but they definitely seem to be out to water down the content. And since they're hopping from one address to another, blocking would likely do little good. XOR'easter (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I just protected Hunter Biden for a month. We'll see if longer is needed. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu, MelanieN: I think protection may be needed over at Joseph Maguire too. Neutrality^talk 20:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Neutrality. Looks like it has been full-protected. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

BTW I hate to miss out on the fast-moving and possibly historic nature of this week and this article, but I am going to be traveling for a few days. I'll try to check in, but won't be able to do much. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The current lead leaves out the main point.

The lead currently says just this about the whistleblower complaint: "A whistleblower complaint filed by a CIA officer asserted that after Trump spoke on the phone with Zelensky, senior White House officials worked to "lock down" the complete official transcript of the call on a highly restricted computer system.[5]" It then goes on about what became of the complaint. It does not mention the main things the whistleblower said; it does not even hint at what had freaked out the White House officials about the call. I don't have it in front of me, but I believe his/her main point was that Trump repeatedly pressed Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, or whatever it actually says. I think the whistleblower also commented about Trump using the power of the presidency to solicit foreign interference in a U.S. election. IMO we need to get those points in, in whatever form is supported by the complaint and the sources, and THEN talk about how the White House officials worked to hide the transcript. MelanieN alt (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I've edited the lead accordingly. For convenience, the Wikimedia Commons copy of the whistleblower complaint is here (4 MB PDF). XOR'easter (talk) 03:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2019

In the "Withholding Ukrainian Aid" section, please remove the line that says "Ukraine reportedly did not know until August that it was being withheld."

The offered link/citation/source for that says NOTHING in the article about them not knowing it was being withheld.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-pressed-ukrainian-leader-to-investigate-bidens-son-according-to-people-familiar-with-the-matter/2019/09/20/7fa39b20-dbdc-11e9-bfb1-849887369476_story.html AndyMatts (talk) 12:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC) AndyMatts (talk) 12:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Good catch. I've made that change. Neutrality^talk 13:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

How the White House and DOJ first found out

Some new facts from the following article (I'm new here, can't edit): Julian E. Barnes, Michael S. Schmidt, Adam Goldman & Katie Benner, White House Knew of Whistle-Blower’s Allegations Soon After Trump’s Call With Ukraine Leader, New York Times (September 26, 2019).

• Although the whistle-blower was assigned to work at the white house (possibly the National Security Council) at some point, he has since returned to the CIA (it's unclear exactly when, but likely before 2019).
• Sometime in the week after the call, after concerned white house officials told him that they had been directed by white house lawyers to transfer the call transcript to the National Security Council's network for highly classified information, the whistleblower anonymously passed these concerns onto the CIA's general counsel, Courtney Simmons Elwood. According to the NYT's anonymous sources, the whistleblower disclosed only the general nature of the concern at this point, i.e., that serious questions existed about a phone call between Trump and a foreign leader.
• As part of a preliminary inquiry, Elwood spoke with White House Deputy Counsel and Legal Advisor to the National Security Council, John Eisenberg, who already knew that white house officials were concerned about the July 25th phone call. Together, they decided that there was a "reasonable basis" to the concerns, and on August 14, they spoke with the Assistant Attorney General for the DOJ's National Security Division, John Demers.
• Thus, although acting Director of National Intelligence, Joseph Maguire, has been criticized for disclosing the complaint to the White House and the Department of Justice, the CIA had already done so before Maguire even assumed office on August 16, and before Maguire received the complaint from Atkinson on August 26. (Note: this is not explicitly pointed out in the NYT article -- it's my own analysis of the significance of these new facts).
• Meanwhile, the whistleblower became concerned when he found out, indirectly, that Elwood had been consulting with the white house. Therefore, on August 12, the whistleblower formalized his complaint to the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, Michael Atkinson.
• On August 15, Demers went to the white house to access and read the transcript of the call. Shortly afterward, he informed his boss, Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen. Assistant Attorney General for the DOJ's Criminal Division, Brian Benczkowski and Attorney General Barr were subsequently briefed, as well.

Makefactsnotwar (talk) 03:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this. Also, I will say one thing at the moment, your personal analysis would not be allowed, sorry. I'm reading through the article right now. The article says the officer did share his info and concerns with the top CIA lawyer, who went to DOJ and White House officials. At "around the same time the officer separately filed the whistle-blower complaint". So, I'm still reading. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, your description is accurate. The CIA officer was concerned that the CIA officer had revealed the complaint to the White House and so on. He then filed a whistle-blower complaint. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

It's unbelievable - the whistleblower could have been wide open for retaliation after contacting the CIA lawyer. I will say no more. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

PP needed here!

eom SPECIFICO talk 23:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Article appears to be doing alright. I don't believe PP is required at this time. Rmhermen (talk) 00:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Just extended-confirmed, not complete. E.G. [18]. SPECIFICO talk 00:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I think semi-protection would be prudent, since that would impede the SPA's we're seeing here and at related pages. Extended-confirmed would be a step beyond that and perhaps not necessary. I guess I'm just a bit antsy over the possibility that the editors who have been diligently maintaining the page at a reasonable level won't be as available in the near future — not in the office over the weekend, or whatever. XOR'easter (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I mean, we're already getting an IP willing to edit war, and there's an arbitrarily large supply of those in waiting. It's either play WP:1RR whack-a-mole, or at least semi-protect. XOR'easter (talk) 03:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this seems to merit semiprotection. But note that the 1RR rule doesn't apply to the IP addresses, per the "Remedy instructions and exemptions" instructions at the top of this page ("Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR"). Neutrality^talk 03:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Whenever we get into the exceptions to the special cases, I always worry that there's some line that I'll inadvertently cross and make people upset just by trying to keep a lid on things. But in the current case, I'm at least entertained by being reminded that "Who funds The Federalist?" is a meme on journalist Twitter [19][20]. XOR'easter (talk) 03:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I placed a 24 hour semi here. I'm fresh out of the grinder, so if someone comes along to suggest a different remedy, I'm happy to learn/hear it/be overturned. :^) --Izno (talk) 03:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! XOR'easter (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

​It looks like a day of semi-protection was beneficial, so thanks again for applying it. I guess we'll see how rough the next day is. I wouldn't be surprised if we will end up going back to semi-protection on a longer basis, but maybe we'll get lucky and at least have a breather. XOR'easter (talk) 04:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Like other sensitive American Politics articles, this one needs ongoing semi-protection to save editors the time and trouble of dealing with single purpose accounts and IP POV edits. SPECIFICO talk 12:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Retitle to Biden-Trump-Ukraine Controversy

Clearly, the Biden's role in this matter is significant and there are many more details to add about the Biden's role in it than Trump's (which is limited to an innocuous phone call).

Therefore, the article should be retitled to "Biden-Trump-Ukraine Controversy," if not simply the "Biden-Ukraine Scandal" because that title much more accurately indicates what this matter is really about.

71.82.73.37 (talk) 06:52, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that is an accurate title. There is so much more here than mention of Biden. That proposed title would be WP:UNDUE. And it seems you are overstating Biden's importance and understating Trump's role. We call that a skewed perception that violates WP:NPOV if we were to construct the article like that. Steve Quinn (talk) 09:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I've never remotely been a Joe Biden fan and can't recall if I've ever heard of Hunter's name before this September, but I get the impression that this entire sideshow has had little substance other than of Trump attacking a possible election opponent who currently possessed the highest standing in Democratic polling, and that an examination of the sequence of events (Biden contacts and relationships with the former Ukranian administrations) make a clear case that the Biden relationship is nothing but repetitive political talking points meant to aggressively distract from the actual current palpable problems. Wikipedia should be a compilation of relevant and reliably sourced facts, and not an irrelevant assemblage of "spin," and conspiracy theories. Activist (talk) 06:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed move 30 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: Closing per snow closure of the simultaneously open move discussion a few sections below, and the moratorium imposed therein. No move to "Trump–Ukraine scandal", "Trump–Ukraine–Australia scandal" or "Ukrainium One" unless the world situation drastically changes. XOR'easter (talk) 21:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC) XOR'easter (talk) 21:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Trump–Ukraine controversy → Trump–Ukraine scandal: this has lead to impeachment proceedings being laid against the president, making this much more of just a "controversy". See also Clinton–Lewinsky scandal which has "scandal" in it's name.  Nixinova  T  C  03:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment I believe this article had "scandal" in the name originally and was moved to "controversy". XOR'easter (talk) 13:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. "Scandal" is not a neutral word, and most sources are saying "controversy". MelanieN alt (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Seems to fit pretty closely Wikipedia's description of Scandal. So it would be NPOV, unless there are other considerations against the move. SPECIFICO talk 14:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Fast and Furious was a scandal. We call Iran contra a scandal. And many more like that. Also, how does the word "controversy" apply? We don't call the OJ Simpson trial a controversy. We have allegations evidence and deflections. We do not even have denials. SPECIFICO talk 14:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment I'm fine with "controversy", but this article's scope now includes the Australian government, as well as the classifications and misfiling of other presidential records (including this story about a conversation with Russian officials). Should the scope be limited more strictly to Ukraine, or could the name be expanded to something closer to a country-neutral "Trump foreign electoral interference solicitation controversy" (I'm open to suggestions, because that sounds terribly unwieldy). As long as it's not Ukrainegate – anything is better than that.Ich (talk) 06:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Most of the commentary that we are getting this side of the Pacific suggests that the Ukraine side of things is far more serious because of the specificity of the request. There has, however, been the suggestion that Trump approached the British and the Italians, though I haven't seen anything in the media to substantiate that. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 13:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Bill Barr has personally (yes, in person) asked for help from Italy and the UK in his investigation of the origins of the Russia investigation. He took a quiet trip to Italy just this week on that quest.[21] He also was the one who asked Trump to ask Australia about it. (Australia will undoubtedly confirm, yet again, that they gave early information to our CIA about Russia having dirt on Clinton.) This is all part of a Justice Department investigation, ordered by Trump personally and publicly, and led by US Attorney John Durham, into the origins (or "oranges") of the Russia probe. This all has nothing to do with Ukraine but does get into the larger issue of politicization of the organs of government. If we can think of a way to fold it into this article that might be a useful expansion. But I don't know if we can come up with a brief, neutral title. Maybe sources will come up with something. Meanwhile, we might want to add something to John Durham (lawyer). -- MelanieN (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN Good point. Other option is to fold non-Ukraine matters into the impeachment proceedings article but there's a good amount of overlap with both sources and content I'd just as soon avoid. Maybe "Trump electoral interference controversies (2017-present)" would be a good title for an umbrella article and we limit the scope of this strictly to Ukraine as a sub-article and specifically exclude the 2016 election. However, I don't want to guess at what happens next (news has been moving fast) so I'd be happy to leave it alone for now and revisit the article title in a week.-Ich (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

We have a second Move Request below. This is the only one that is noticed on the article page. This one has not been closed. The second one is not mentioned on the article page and it is snow failing. What should we do about this? (I'm going to put the same question at the second Move Request also.) -- MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 2 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.

Requested move 2 October 2019

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Speedy close per WP:SNOW; due to the notoriety of this topic, I am further imposing a moratorium on new move requests. Absent exceptional new developments yielding a consensus that a new move discussion is warranted, no further move requests should be made on this topic for another six months. bd2412 T 21:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Trump–Ukraine controversy → Trump–Biden–Ukraine scandal – This description appears to be more accurate and thorough. Additionally, it is also of a more neutral point of view, and does not place the blame particularly on Biden or Trump. Furthermore "scandal" is more accurate, considering the involvement of a whistleblower.

In addition, numerous reputable sources use the proposed title, for example:

• https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/3029942/explained-what-trump-biden-ukraine-scandal-about
• https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/sports/a-whos-who-guide-to-the-trump-biden-ukraine-scandal/vi-AAHJDnR
• https://journaltimes.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/the-story-behind-biden-s-son-ukraine-and-trump-s/article_ddd8af58-05a7-5ed8-8e2e-8280fa068997.html 75.139.254.124 (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

• Absolutely not - reliable sources say there is no evidence of any wrongdoing by the Bidens. See below. Also, Hunter Biden was never under investigation by Ukraine. starship.paint (talk) 08:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources

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

https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-gas-company-burisma-holdings-joe-bidens-son-hunter-explained-2019-9 75.139.254.124 (talk) 08:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you 75, that source states Though some ethics watchdogs have criticized Hunter’s decision to work for Burisma in light of who his father is, there’s no evidence of wrongdoing on his part or the former vice president’s. And there’s nothing concrete to support the suggestion Biden pressured Ukraine to take actions to the benefit of his son. Thank you for proving my point. starship.paint (talk) 08:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Yoshiko M. Herrera, a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin at Madison and an an expert on Russia and Eurasia, told The Washington Post: "I think there is a conflict of interest even if it doesn't break any laws. It's a big deal. It's the vice president, who is the point person of the Obama administration's policy on Ukraine, and his son is suddenly hired to be a director on the board of Ukraine's largest private gas producer." 75.139.254.124 (talk) 08:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

So, on Trump's side, you have allegations of asking for foreign interference in a presidential election, covering up politically sensitive material in classified systems, withholding aid for personal gain, and having a private citizen conduct foreign policy. On Biden's side, you have a conflict of interest. Nowhere near equal. starship.paint (talk) 09:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Nobody's alleged he asked for foreign presidential election interference, just foreign intel on one of many potential challengers. If Biden did nothing wrong, revealing this can't hurt him, so could never possibly help any of his rivals win any election. If he did something wrong, Washington should know about it. The media wants it both ways. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Please don't present your personal views or Original Research in article talk discussions. As RS have widely discussed, one of the tactics Trump and his supporters deploy is to make allegations that promote public discussion and doubt, so that even the refutation of conspiracy theories imparts harm, regardless of what is ultimately discovered, proven, or adjudicated. SPECIFICO talk 14:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

These aren't personal views. But I was wrong about nobody alleging he wanted foreign interference. The "whistleblower" explicitly did. Sorry. Do RS say the harm in refuting a supposed vague deed would put a candidate at a disadvantage in a popularity contest against Trump? If not, he gains nothing. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, you just responded with more Original Research personal opinion. Also, it's not helpful to call an election a "popularity contest" -- you may think that's amusing, but regardless of whether it is amusing, it's imprecise and inappropriate on a discussion thread with people whose backgrounds, knowledge, and senses of humor are diverse and unknown. If there's a clear straightforward way to say something here, that's always a better choice. SPECIFICO talk 14:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

That was three facts, an apology, a question and the only logical conclusion if the answer is no. When a population decides a winner by choice, it is what it is. Dead serious. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: - never overestimate the voters. On Sept 22, Trump confirmed he discussed Biden with Zelensky. A poll was conducted from Sept 23 to Sept 28. [22] Poll result - almost 30% of Republicans think Trump probably did NOT discuss Biden with Zelensky. starship.paint (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I laughed, until I noticed the confirmation went public on the 26th. They're never as dumb as they look in quirky poll news. A shame, really (in my opinion). InedibleHulk (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: - written confirmation on Sept 26. Verbal confirmation on Sept 22, Trump: The conversation I had was ... largely the fact that we don't want our people like Vice President Biden and his son creating the corruption already in the Ukraine starship.paint (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but Trump says a lot of things. Sometimes they're confirmed, sometimes less so. I'm glad studies suggest most Americans don't take his word as gospel. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

• Disagree on both "Biden" and "Scandal", as per Starship.paint. Also, this subject already came up above in Talk:Trump–Ukraine controversy#Retitle to Biden-Trump-Ukraine Controversy.Ich (talk) 08:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: there is no evidence that the Bidens did anything wrong, so moving the article would be inappropriate because it implies that they did. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is changing the scope of the article (i.e., a conflation of two--supposed or not--scandals/controversies) and does not give a "more accurate and thorough" title, as the focus of the article is a controversy involving U.S. President Donald Trump and top administration officials encouraging foreign interference in 2020 American elections for Trump's own "personal political interests [...]" as described in the lead. --Cold Season (talk) 09:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Article is principally about the controversy around the Trump - Ukraine phone-call and subsequent whistle blowing. Any issues relating to either Bidens conduct may be notable, but it isn't in and of itself significant to the controversy that has led to impeachment proceedings. If action is taken by either Ukraine or the US against Biden, and / or the significance of either Biden is shown to be linked then there is the scope for this article to be expanded, but in reality those issues would likely be tackled within their own BLP pages (with links to this master article for the appropriate parts). Koncorde (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose As mentioned above, this has already been proposed and rejected. Let's not spend more time on it. (It also comes across as quite POV. For example, Giuliani plays at least as big a role in the story so far as any of the Bidens, if not larger. Yet nobody wants to rename this page the "Trump-Giuliani-Ukraine scandal". Hmmm, I wonder why that might be....) XOR'easter (talk) 14:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
• Hell to the no - Bidens are not parties to Trump's controversy wherein he sought election interference from the Ukraine. Cherry-picked headlines do not make the argument for this proposal.- MrX 🖋 14:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
• Nah. soibangla (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. This false equivalency is contrary to the reliable sources. Neutrality^talk 18:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
• Definitely not. The Bidens have not done anything scandalous; this is all on Trump.  Nixinova  T  C  19:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
• No to Biden, No to scandal. Adding Biden is not supported by the article content, and "scandal" is not neutral and is not what Reliable Sources are calling it. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: We have an earlier Move Request above, "Proposed move 30 September 2019". The earlier request is the only one that is noticed on the article page. It has not been closed. This second one is not mentioned on the article page, and it is snow failing. What should we do about this? (I raised the same question at the earlier Move Request also.) -- MelanieN (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTBURO or WP:IAR, it should be uncontroversial for anyone to snow close both discussions. - MrX 🖋 21:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I concur with MrX. Snow close both. If the involvement of another country — Australia, Italy, etc. — becomes dramatically more significant next week, we can revisit the title question then. XOR'easter (talk) 21:30, 2 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ambiguity

From the section Ukraine and the Bidens

Biden traveled to (Ukraine's capital) Kiev on April 21, 2014, and urged the Ukrainian government "to reduce its dependence on Russia for supplies of natural gas"

It's not clear whether this is Joe or Hunter. 2604:2000:1403:2D9:914E:E91D:6670:72BF (talk) 06:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

It was Joe Biden.  Done -- BullRangifer (talk) 11:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Remove word scandal

The first sentence states "The Trump–Ukraine controversy is an ongoing political scandal in the United States" which is entirely incorrect and completely bias. The term scandal implies a wrongdoing of which no evidence as been put forth--media reports by today's news feeds are not evidence or fact. In general, most reports today are commentary which cannot be construed as evidence--even the whistleblower's accounts have not been entered as fact since there are credibility issues with his statement. If anything the controversy is about the manufacturing of "evidence" and not around the Trump-Ukraine phone call.

This is the evidence:

1. Trump called the president of Ukraine 2. Trump spoke about Joe Biden and his son 3. The president of Ukraine denies any "pressure" or request to investigate Hunter Biden. 4. Hunter Biden was appointed as a Board member of a company for which he lacked credible experience. 5. Hunter Biden's appointment happened during Joe Biden's Vice Presidency which casts a shady appearance over the appointment.

These facts are hardly scandalous (other than perhaps Hunter Biden's appointment), and there isn't any controversy here--these are facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crs0zero (talk • contribs) 17:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Your characterizations of the evidence are superficial and sound derived from WH talking points. Please read the article and its extensive reliable sources thoroughly. soibangla (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, even if one believes all White House talking points and that there was no wrongdoing, that doesn't mean it isn't a scandal or a controversy, which are based on accusations and public dissent. ^Falling_Gravity 18:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Section on Ukrainian Interference with the 2016 Election needed.

Conspiracy theory

This article is blatantly anti-Trump POV and a violation of supposed Wikipedia policies. A section on Ukrainian Interference with the 2016 Election is needed because it explains actually why Trump asked Zelensky for an investigation of Biden and mentioned Crowdstrike during their telephone conversation. The absence and denigration of this and other legitimate pro-Trump information in the article is a continued NPOV violation of what is supposed to be fundamental Wikipedia principles by the group of anti-Trump agenda-driven editors writing this ridiculously biased article. 71.82.73.37 (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC) — 71.82.73.37 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Added info on the March interview with Lutsenko where Lutsenko says he was looking into interference with the 2016 campaign. Still doesn't explain why "Trump asked Zelensky for an investigation of Biden and mentioned Crowdstrike" Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'm done now.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)