Talk:Trump–Ukraine scandal/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Trump–Ukraine scandal. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

US and Ukraine mutual assistance treaty

In an article titled "There Is No Basis to Impeach Trump Over Ukraine", Adrian Norman cited the existence of a "Treaty Between the United States of America and Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters". See List of treaties.

Norman then wrote, "It's against this backdrop that the now-infamous July phone call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky should be seen for what it was—a perfectly legal and ethical conversation seeking cooperation on an investigation into corruption under a juridical agreement that was forged 21 years prior". [1]

It looks to me like this treaty should be cited in the Wikipedia article titled "Trump–Ukraine scandal". Scott Gregory Beach (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

You would need to find better sources than an Adrian Norman opinion piece. I'm not aware that major news publications have reported that the treaty somehow excuses Trump's attempt to extort the Ukraine government. - Mr X 🖋 03:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with MrX — The Epoch Times is not a reliable source, an Adrian Norman opinion piece in the Epoch Times is not a reliable source, and fringy pundit Gregg Jarrett is not a reliable source. I've reverted this addition. Let's keep this article fairly focused on the actual testimony and on high-equality expert analysis/commentary, which exists in abundance. Neutrality^talk 05:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Will you refer to Robert B. Charles as a "fringe commentator"?

See "Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters"[2]

"Robert B. Charles served in the Reagan and Bush 41 White Houses, as Assistant Secretary of State under Colin Powell, and counsel to the US House National Security subcommittee for five years; a former litigator, he taught law at Harvard University’s Extension School, recently authored “Eagles and Evergreens” (2018), and consults in Washington DC".

Scott Gregory Beach (talk) 06:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 November 2019

This edit request to Trump–Ukraine scandal has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under the heading Whistleblower rules and hearsay in the section on Conspiracy Theories: "... Trump's claim was based on an article from The Federalist which incorrectly stated ..." the link for The Federalist leads to Wikipedia's article on The Federalist Papers. It should instead link to the article on The Federalist online magazine. This is easily confirmed by following the reference to the PolitiFact article which references The Federalist website. Homunx (talk) 01:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Done Thanks for pointing that out! – Muboshgu (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 November 2019

rehashing settled issue. Post by SPA off-topic here SPECIFICO talk 18:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It shows extreme bias to pretend that Biden is not bragging about something in the video https://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-joe-biden-forced-ukraine-to-fire-prosecutor-for-aid-money/C1C51BB8-3988-4070-869F-CAD3CA0E81D8.html

MasseyTom (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

MasseyTom, as has been stated on this talk page many, many times, Joe Biden was not bragging about helping his son. Joe Biden was bragging about getting a corrupt prosecutor, who was NOT prosecuting corruption, fired. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

That video, and the quid pro quo that Biden brags about, is the essence of the issue. If you can't cite the video with additional citations that explain how Biden was correct or incorrect, then you are hiding the facts. MasseyTom (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Suggested addition:

September 9: Three House committees announced an investigation into Giuliani's activities in Ukraine[3] soibangla (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft Timeline - comments invited

Understanding checked. WP:NOTFORUM. Politrukki (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

At the risk of violating WP:NOTFORUM, can I just check my uinderstanding of the timeline here?

Timeline

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Viktor Yanukovych was the massively corrupt President of Ukraine from 25 February 2010 to 22 February 2014. His "Party of Regions" was backed by Russia. Yanukovych, usually regarded as a Russian asset, hired Paul Manafort as a political consultant in 2004, and Manafort held this role until after Yanukovych's election. According to the FBI, Manafort continued to be paid by Ukrainian oligarchs between 2010 and 2014.
Viktor Pshonka was Prosecutor General of Ukraine November 3, 2010 – February 22, 2014.
Mykola Zlochevsky was energy minister of Ukraine July 2, 2010 – April 20, 2012; he owns or controls Burisma Holdings (an offshore holding company); it owns substantial natural gas rights in Ukraine.
Petro Poroshenko was President of Ukraine 7 June 2014 – 20 May 2019. He took measures to reduce oligarchy and corruption.
Viktor Shokin was the corrupt Prosecutor General of Ukraine 10 February 2015 – 29 March 2016 who was ousted after street protests.
From 2012, Shokin siezed control of, and slow-walked or shut down, investigations into a number of prominent Ukrainian oligarchs and companies, notably Zlochevsky and Burisma. The Obama administration considered running their own criminal investigation into potential money laundering by Burisma.
In April 2014, Burisma hired Devon Archer, a former aide to John Kerry, and Hunter Biden, as directors, most likely to curry favour with the US, then a Democratic (Obama) administration.
At the end of 2014 Zlochevsky fled Ukraine amid allegations of unlawful self enrichment and legalization of funds.
In December 2015 Joe Biden visited Ukraine in to convey the US policy decision that $1bn in loan guarantees would be withheld if Poroshenko did not fire Shokin.
Shokin was fired by the Ukrainian parliament in April 2016.
On 12 May 2016, Yuriy Lutsenko was appointed Prosecutor General of Ukraine. Lutsenko had been imprisoned while Yanukovich was President, but was pardoned by Yanukovich after evidence emerged of corruption in his prosecution by Pshonka.
On August 29, 2016 Marie Yovanovitch was appointed US Ambassador to Ukraine, replacing Geoffrey R. Pyatt.
At the end of 2016 a court in London unfroze Zlochevsky assets due to lack of evidence.
In 2017, Robert Livingston,a Republican lobbyist and former congressman, began lobbying the US State Department to remove Yovanovitch, whom he characterised as an "Obama holdover"
In December 2017 the Ukrainian investigation of Zlochevsky was closed without charges.
In February 2018 Zlochevsky returned to Ukraine
In April 2018, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman told Donald Trump that Yovanovitch was "unfriendly" to him (Trump is known to value loyalty more than perhaps anything else) and should be fired.
On April 18 2018, recordings emerged of Zlochevsky and Poroshenko which implied graft.
On 21 April 2019, Poroshenko was defeated by Volodymyr Zelensky in the Ukrainian elections. Zelensky was sworn in on 20 May 2019.
In May 2018, Parnas told Pete Sessions, a Republican congressman and chair of the House Rules Committee, that Yovanovitch should be fired. Sessions wrote a letter in his official capacity recommending this. Parnas and Fruman have been indicted for making substantial illegal contributions to both Sessions' campaign and Donald Trump's PAC.
On June 15, 2018 the closure of the investigation against Zlochevsky was annulled. He is currently in Monaco.
On July 19, 2019, Gordon Sondland, a hotelier who had donated $1m to Trump's inaugural, was installed as United States Ambassador to the European Union. This position is usually but not always held by a career diplomat.
Some time in 2018, Parnas and Fruman hired Rudy Giuliani.
In November / December 2018 Parnas and Fruman introduced Giuliani to Shokin and Lutsenko and proposed the creation of a narrative implicating the Bidens.
In November 2018, Lutsenko tried to resign but his resignation was refused on 9 November.
In January 2019 Giuliani met again with Lutsenko, again questioning Yovanovitch’s loyalty and pressing him for investigations
In February 2019, Yovanovitch was warned about Giuliani's activities.
In February 2019, impeachment proceedings were launched against Poroshenko.
On February 15 the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (H.J.Res. 31) was passed, incorporating the remaining appropriations bills and thus funding aid to Ukraine.
On February 28, the administration told Congress that the aid would be released.
In early March 2019, Yovanovitch's tour of duty in Ukraine was extended for an additional year.
In March 2019, conservative columnist John Solomon published an interview with Lutsenko in which he claimed that Yovanovitch was an obstacle to anti-corruption efforts.
By the end of March 2019 the smear campaign against Yovanovitch had been picked up by Sean Hannity and others.
In late March 2019 Giuliani gave Mike Pompeo a file on Yovanovitch claiming she was "close" to the Bidens and had tried to obstruct investigations. These false claims did not survive the Republican cross-examination of Yovanovitch in the impeachment hearings.
In late April 2019 Yovanovitch was recalled to the US.
On May 1, Giuliani's Biden narrative was picked up by the New York Times.
At some point presumably in late April or early May, aid to Ukraine was held by the White House.
On May 23 the White House again told Congress that aid would be released. No explanation was offered for the delay.
On June 18, William B. Taylor, Jr. was appointed acting US Ambassador to Ukraine.
In Mid-July, Mick Mulvaney (acting White House chief of staff and director of the Office of Management and Budget) told the State Department and Pentagon that Trump wanted the money withheld because he had "concerns" about its necessity. Those departments were instructed to inform members of Congress with questions about the delay that disbursement had been held up by "interagency process."
On July 10, Ukrainian officials visited the White House. In one of the meetings surrounding this, John Bolton became aware that aid was being withheld contingent on a public announcement of an investigation into the Bidens, and terminated the meeting.
On July 25 2019, Trump spoke with Zelensky by phone and asked for a "favour" - he mentioned Biden by name, referenced the Crowdstrike conspiracy theory, and did not use the word corruption.
On July 26, Kurt Volker and Sondland met with Zelensky in Kiiv. According to Whistleblower 2 they advised Zelensky what was required of him by Trump. On the same day, Pentagon officials began attempts to legally justify holding the aid.
On August 1, Giuliani met with an aide to Zelensky
On August 12, the first whistleblower complaint was filed.
On August 29, Ukraine raised concerns about aid.
On September 1 Sondland told Yermak that there would be no aid without investigations; Taylor raised concerns about Ukraine aid.
On September 9, Taylor raised concerns about aid again; Intelligence Commuity IG Michael Atkinson informed HPSCI chair Adam Schiff and ranking member Devin Nunes of an "urgent concern" - i.e. the WB1 complaint.
On September 11, the White House lifted the freeze on aid.

Please tell me if I've missed anything or got it wrong? Guy (help!) 18:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Hunter Biden resigned from Burisma to avoid any appearance of a COI. The optics were bad, in spite of a lack of any evidence of wrongdoing. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, as far as I can tell he left when his term as a director ended, and did not seek re-nomination to the board. Guy (help!) 20:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

That may well be the case. I have seen his unnecessary resignation, and its timing, as done for the above reasons, so how its written up depends on the sourcing. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Manafort and kickback payments from Yanukovych. The dossier alleges that Russia-friendly president Yanukovych, whom Manafort advised for over a decade, had told Putin that he had been making supposedly untraceable^[1] kickback payments to Manafort.^[1] After Yanukovych fled to Russia in 2014 under accusations of corruption, a secret "black ledger" was found in the former Party of Regions headquarters. It showed that Yanukovych and his ruling political party had set aside $12.7 million in illegal and undisclosed payments to Manafort for his work from 2007 to 2012.^[2] Manafort has denied receiving the payments.^[3]

BullRangifer (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, yeah, that's extra detail on item 1. I just don't know how relevant it is to the Ukraine shakedown, rather than the election interference. Thoughts? Guy (help!) 21:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Guy, they are related in that Trump is using this shakedown to exact revenge on Ukraine for providing a key piece of evidence (the "black ledger") of Manafort's corruption (also a vindication of an allegation in the Steele dossier) and to distract from the fact that Manafort's pro-Russian corruption and lobbying were all connected with his role as Trump's campaign manager to encourage pro-Russian views in the Trump campaign and Trump's thinking, which Trump readily acted on, since he was already pro-Putin and anti-American. Manafort has been working as a direct or indirect extension of Putin, from long before the elections until after the election of Trump. This describes the fundamental nature of the shakedown: "Trump has lit the damn house on fire, but the GOP just wants to go after whoever pulled the fire alarm." George Takei. It is an attempt to cover-up the Trump campaign's cooperation (note I don't write conspiracy or coordination) with the Russian interference in the elections. Mueller didn't prove conspiracy, but there's massive evidence that the Trump campaign was deeply involved in aiding and benefiting from the Russian interference. - -BullRangifer (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, it's been presented that way but, bluntly, since when did Trump care about anyone but himself? It may be why the Trump-adjacent people got involved, I can certainly see Lev, Igor and Rudy being chummy with Manafort, but unless you have a surname beginning with T and ending with rump I don't see how he would go to bat for you. Guy (help!) 23:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Guy is right. Trump did this entirely for himself. That's why he wanted TWO investigations. He wanted an investigation into Biden so that he could make it his major talking point during the election - planning to ride into office railing against "Crooked Joe" just as he did against "Crooked Hillary". He wanted someone official to take seriously the theory that Ukrainians faked the evidence of Russian interference in the election, because he has always felt the report of Russian interference diminishes his victory and he is very sensitive about that. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Minor correction: "Viktor Yanukovych was a massively corrupt President of Ukraine", not "the". There were plenty other massively corrupt presidents of Ukraine. What happened after Yanukovich is an interesting question. Apparently, they smashed the size of the shadow economy by quite a lot. But then again, the non-shadow economy also went down the drain. I wouldn't want to be making premature conclusions on this one. Heptor (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Heptor, Ha ha! True enough. Guy (help!) 23:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Also notable, while Poroshenko publicly took measures to reduce oligarchy and corruption, he also was caught taking measures to avoid taxation on the fortunes he made as one of Ukraine's oligarchs, while participating in curruption. The circus that is Ukraine! Heptor (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

It might also be worth bearing in mind that the Yanukovych government was in favour of closer ties with Russia while the population wanted to move to the EU. That's what triggered the Euromaidan protests. When Yanukovych fled Ukraine, Putin justified Russia's position by arguing that it was a coup dressed up as a revolution. That led to the war in Donbass, the shooting down of MH17 and the annexation of Crimea. Putin seems to have seen Euromaidan as an American plot to undermine one of his allies and, by extension, him. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

And anyone who’s in favor of friendly ties with Russia is not a true Ukrainian, right? Heptor (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources

^ ^a ^b Sumter, Kyler (November 16, 2017). "The five most interesting claims in the Donald Trump dossier". The Week. Retrieved December 24, 2017.
^ Kramer, Andrew E.; McIntire, Mike; Meier, Barry (August 14, 2016). "Secret Ledger in Ukraine Lists Cash for Donald Trump's Campaign Chief". The New York Times. Retrieved October 1, 2019.
^ Rhodan, Maya (August 15, 2016). "Donald Trump's Campaign Chief Slams Report on Ukraine Payments". Time. Retrieved October 1, 2019.

extended-protected edit Request

This edit request to Trump–Ukraine scandal has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add {{current}} to the page 2600:8803:7800:2E20:A563:36E0:93F:630D (talk) 05:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

add as-of-yet unreleased $35 million in military aid to Ukraine as part of the aid package at the center of Trump impeachment proceedings ?

X1\ (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

"As Sondland testified, a misleading Ukraine story spread among conservatives on social media"

Collins, Ben; Zadrozny, Brandy (November 20, 2019). "As Sondland testified, a misleading Ukraine story spread among conservatives on social media". NBC News. Retrieved November 20, 2019.

A misleading claim about the head of the Ukrainian energy company at the heart of the House impeachment inquiry went viral across conservative pockets of social media Wednesday, receiving hundreds of thousands of retweets and shares from some of the president's most ardent online supporters.

Worth keeping an eye out in case the ZeroHedge/QAnon story gets pushed on here, probably. XOR'easter (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Fascinating. soibangla (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I suggest linking the Morrison and Sondland testimonies

It would be very interesting to include, as Morrison's testimony mainly involved Sondland. Sondland also testified today.JoeScarce (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

But Sondland's, much more prominent, did not mainly involve Morrison. SPECIFICO talk 01:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you mentioning that. Maybe we should just include them separately then.JoeScarce (talk) 01:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Curation time

As always with developing stories, there's a tendency to add each new detail as it arrives. I'm going to see if I can take out some that has turned out to be less significant, and some that is duplicative of Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), in an attempt to make the article more manageable. I'm proposing something similar there.

What I'd like to do:

Reorder the lead somewhat, so that we describe the allegations first, then why they are a problem, then the way they came to light. It's a little disjointed right now.

Move the last two paragraphs of Background to a later section describing the administration's reactions, for clarity.

Move the section on Donald Trump and prior indication of willingness to accept interference - this is not core to the scandal but just adds colour.

Prune some of the details of early shots in the battle (e.g. Rand Paul asserting that the WB is a "material witness" (we now know they are not) and so on. Yes, noise about the scandal is a thing, but we should be describing the scandal more than the noise, right?

Try to copyedit Communications with Ukrainian officials and maybe make one or two subsections, as this is a tough read right now.

Move the withholding sections higher up as they are the scandal.

Drastically prune the WB complaint sections, as they are now almost entirely redundant to subsequent testimony.

Prune the contacts with other governments as redundant to Russia investigation origins counter-narrative (maybe there should be a split-out of the Durham inquiry but it's not so big right now).

Remove the sections on the individual testimonies, as redundant to the sections in Impeachment, and instead form a coherent picture of the course of events noting who corroborates which.

The Reactions section is enormous and blurs the distinctions between reactions to the scandal and reactions to impeachment, so should probably be split out.

Much of the Conspiracy theories section is redundant to Conspiracy theories related to the Trump–Ukraine scandal and can probably go or at least be summarised.

My aim would be to reduce redundancy between this article and Impeachment, and make the narrative more coherent. At the same time I would prune quite a bit of the redundant content there about the scandal, and merge it in here if it's not already covered.

If people think this is a good idea, my plan would be to slap an {{under construction}} tag on, some time tomorrow morning UK time, with the intent of completing it so as to minimise conflicts by 8am Eastern.

What do people think? Guy (help!) 15:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

These generally sound like good ideas. Not everything that seemed important a month ago still is. XOR'easter (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I support anything that make the article more readable and subject more comprehensible. Some of these ideas have been floated before, without much objection. Pruning excess detail is always good, and rearranging content to fit the timeline is good. Go for it. - Mr X 🖋 12:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Devin Nunes involvement

According to some sources,

"The attorney for an indicted associate of President Donald Trump's personal lawyer says his client is willing to tell Congress that Rep. Devin Nunes, R-California, met with Ukraine's former top prosecutor about investigating the activities of Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden."
— [4]

Also, [5][6][7]

This could be pretty significant. We should add something to this article soon. - Mr X 🖋 12:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Nunes denies that and said he will be suing CNN. It seems that story comes from Fusion GPS and several other outlets passed on it. And anyways is Parnas a reputable witness? We need to be extremely careful with this. I would say leave it out until any hard evidence emerges one way or the other. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

"Suing CNN" is irrelevant. I think MrX's sources are reliable and sufficient to put something in the article. "Fusion GPS" is irrelevant. We do not have enough information for more than a sentence or two at this juncture. SPECIFICO talk 15:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I’m not doubting that those outlets are reporting that. The point is the claims that Parnas are making are unverified and could be BLP violations, insinuating something about Nunes that may be untrue. You’ve worked hard to keep similar smears out of Hunter Biden’s article so I’m surprised to see you taking this approach here. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not suggesting that we say that Nunes was trying to help Trump by pressuring the Ukrainians to investigate the Bidens, but we should consider including something attributed to the source of the information as well as Nunes' denial and the pending lawsuit.- Mr X 🖋 15:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The claims about Hunter Biden are either false or irrelevant to the articles in which the insinuations were attempted. In fact, most were determined to be false by RS. The RS coverage of this is appropriately couched, and Nunes (as a public figure) is BLP-tougher than private citizen Hunter Biden. SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The claim about Nunes may also be false. There is no evidence out there yet, and in fact the claim comes from someone recently arrested for corrupt behavior. Until there is any substantiated evidence, the claim violates BLP and should be omitted. Who cares what claims someone arrested for corruption is willing to make? He could say or claim anything - we need evidence and verification. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I think a simple statement within the article about what Parnas has suggested he would be willing to testify to a la "Parnas via his attorney has suggested that he would be willing to corroborate the testimony of key witnesses, and that he was party to further involvement with members of congress". If required can then name Nunes and the couple of other named Congress / senators, but I would shy away from it at the moment given it is a relatively unclear statement as to whether there is any relationship to the current investigation rather than just a general smear (although it would almost certainly raise the spectre of a clear CoI between Nunes and the Impeachment process). Koncorde (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, yes, "The claim about Nunes may also be false.", but according to WP:PUBLICFIGURE that is irrelevant. We have multiple RS, so we should just docuement it and include any denials, if those denials appear in RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Ernie, remember, the journalists have already done your "evidence and verification" thing, and all accounts give appropriate attribution. SPECIFICO talk 16:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see how deep Nunes is in this, given his unwavering defense of Trump in all situations. I must say, this is quite stunning from an elected official:

"When CNN asked Nunes for comment on these new allegations, Nunes refused to respond, telling the outlet, “I don’t talk to you in this lifetime or the next lifetime. At any time. On any question.”"
— [8]

- Mr X 🖋 17:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Well to be fair that’s been his position regarding cnn for a while now. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. Is it in his Bio article? Media relations section?

I just took a look at the Nunes article. Looks like it could use some updates to reflect the current state of mainstream knowledge. SPECIFICO talk 18:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I don't know if it's in Putin's bio, or if it would be significant there (disinformation is pretty much SOP for Russian intelligence, and he's ex-KGB, which does not stand for Kindly Guardians Brigade). Guy (help!) 18:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I saw it in a *gasp* Breitbart article I think. So no it’s not in his article. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm inclined not to include it at this time. "X's attorney says his client is willing to say" is a far cry from "X says". -- MelanieN (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Especially if said client has a penchant for being corrupt and untruthful. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, I am struggling to think which of the characters involved in this could be justly described as corrupt and untruthful. Other than those with vowels in their names. Guy (help!) 22:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

If Lev Parnas is willing to spill the beans, that's useful information for the investigators and for us. But, I agree with MelanieN that we should wait to see if he actually does come forward and make these allegations under penalty of perjury, rather than just having his lawyer tease us with bombshell revelations that may not be made. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

To co-opt a certain highly-esteemed editor, let's wait 48 hours on this one. soibangla (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 November 2019

This edit request to Trump–Ukraine scandal has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

When discussing "alternative narratives" of "false narratives" (conspiracy theories) in Wikipedia articles I think it would be useful to clearly state that concerns exist over the "facts" stated and, whenever possible, reference should be made to the source of these "narratives". For example, the article mentions conspiracy theories without providing information about their source. Some of the sources (from immediate to less obvious) include Sean Hannity, Yuriy Lutsenko, and Russian State Agencies.

I also have and EDIT REQUEST affecting the BACKGROUND heading:

The article reads, "… to investigate Joe Biden, Trump's political opponent in the 2020 presidential election, as well as his son Hunter Biden and the company CrowdStrike, and to discuss these matters with Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr"

This is a complicated list that would be more clear either as a series of subordinate clauses separated by semi-colons (you left out Burisma in your list / I include it in mine) or as a series of bullets (each representing a subordinate clause). For example: "… to investigate: Burisma Holdings, the holding company for a group of energy exploration and production companies based in Kyiv; Joe Biden, Trump's political opponent in the 2020 presidential election, as well as his son Hunter Biden who was on the Board of Burisma; and, CrowdStrike, the cyber-security technology company engaged to investigate the hack of DNC servers. He also asked President Zelensky to discuss these matters with Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr" Agondontor (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. OhKayeSierra (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

It's likely there will be an update of the lead section language you reference, so I suggest you keep an eye on the page and participate in the discussion. SPECIFICO talk 17:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

President Zelensky's Position in the Lede

I added the following to the lede: "However, President Zelensky denied that he was pressured by Trump." [[9]]. This is cited elsewhere in the body of the article.

It was reverted by XOR'easter (talk · contribs) with the edit summary: "obvious politician temporizing is obvious; not lede-worthy"

However, as per WP:LEDE, The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish the context, and explain why the topic is notable, all of which should be established in the first sentences. It should summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. Clearly, President Zelensky's opinion on whether he was pressured is absolutely an important point in an article which deals with whether President Zelensky was pressured. XOR'easter's inferences/assumptions about Zelensky's motivations are not pertinent. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Including it in the body is adequate. I have yet to see a reliable source saying that his "everything is fine, we're all fine here, how are you" statement (paraphrased) should be taken at face value. Inserting it into the lede would push the POV that it should be. XOR'easter (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no "POV" being pushed by stating that this is what Zelensky said. There is no "point of view" to a simple, factual reporting that Zelensky denied being pressured. The fact that you, as an individual editor, do not believe that Zelensky was truthful does not mean that it shouldn't be included. President Zelensky's opinion on whether he was pressured, in an article about whether he was pressured, is unquestionably important and relevant. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 15:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

In addition to what I wrote above, I also wanted to recall WP:TRUTH. Specifically, Wikipedia's core sourcing policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, previously defined the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia as "verifiability, not truth". "Verifiability" was used in this context to mean that material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them. Believing that Zelensky was "temporizing" is not a reason to remove a verifiable statement from an article. It is not necessary that you believe he's telling the truth, but rather that it's a verifiable statement made in reliable sources. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 15:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no "point of view" to a simple, factual reporting that Zelensky denied being pressured. Which is why there's no problem including it in the article body. But the selection and presentation of items of simple, factual reporting can indeed be POV-pushing. XOR'easter (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@XOR'easter: Can you explain how it's "POV Pushing" to include Zelensky's statement on whether Trump pressured him in the lede of an article about Trump pressuring Zelensky? Please cite to the part of WP:NPOV that you're referring to specifically. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 18:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

RS and now witnesses discuss Zelensky's public statements, including that one, as the calculated actions of a head of state under duress who was attempting to defuse a threat from Trump. Do you think he was voluntarily going to make a public announcement to pursue Giuliani's "investigatons" of his own free accord? RS do not present the matter anything like that way. The juxtaposition of your proposed "no pressure" -- out of its own context but in the surrounding lead content -- is SYNTH. SPECIFICO talk 18:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS - The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. The best source for a statement is the person who made it. Speculation about what Zelensky "really" meant, even if made in an otherwise reliable source, is not an appropriate source for trumping (no pun intended) what Zelensky said. It's a fact that Zelensky said what he said and speculation that he may not have meant it is not enough to nix that from the lede. In any event, WP:SYNTH does not apply. As per WP:SYNTH: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. There is only one source that I added, which was Zelensky himself. Therefore, it's not synthesis. Really, there's no policy-based argument for keeping this out of the lede. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 18:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, if you're claiming that a primary source, "what he really said" trumps RS contextualization, that's incorrect. And it's always going to be a single additional sentence/source that triggers SYNTH. It doesn't need to be one editor concatenating and adding both parts of the SYNTH. So your second point is incorrect as well. I suggest you try to flesh out and balance the article text about Zelensky's reactions and then see what is lead-worthy. SPECIFICO talk 20:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

No, what I'm saying is that it's an objective fact that Zelensky made this statement. It's an "important point" as per WP:LEDE because this article concerns whether Zelensky was pressured and Zelensky said that he was not, in fact, pressured. People have speculated that Zelensky was not telling the truth. My point is that this speculation is just that -- speculation -- and is not a reason to exclude Zelensky's statement as per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Speculation is not contextualization, and as CONTEXTMATTERS indicates, just because a source is generally reliable does not necessarily mean that it's reliable on this particular point - or at the very least, that it is somehow more reliable than Zelensky's own statements. I'm frankly confused as to your WP:SYNTH claim. What do you claim is being synthesized? May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 22:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat myself. See whether you can garner any support for your view. I provided a suggestion that would improve the article and might end up addressing the events you wish to describe in the lead. SPECIFICO talk 23:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with SPECIFICO - it should not go into the lead. She gives you some good advice about how to handle this and you should follow it IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll probably open up an RFC on it. I think it's surreal that Zelensky's position on whether he was pressured is being kept out of the lede on an article about Zelensky being pressured but here we go I suppose. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 11:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I support inclusion of this in the lead. His position had never changed and he’s reiterated it several times. It’s important in an article called Trump Ukraine controversy to include the Ukrainian (ie the President of Ukraine) position. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, I know, right? You'd think it would be self-evident that the Ukrainian President's position in an article called "Trump-Ukraine Scandal" would be important as per WP:LEDE. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 11:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you review the dozen witnesses' testimony and RS reporting of it for prospective article text on how the Ukranians viewed the US' failure to deliver the legally mandated military assistance. SPECIFICO talk 15:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, Yes. Don't listen to the Ukrainians on the topic of how the Ukrainians viewed it. Clearly, these sources which have not communicated with the President of Ukraine are a far better source than the President of Ukraine when it comes to how the President of Ukraine saw the interaction. (Do you see how bizarre this sounds?) May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 19:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

What I see is a rude and unresponsive reply and a failed attempt at irony, humour, or some other unhelpful rhetorical affectation. Read the testimony and RS summaries and comments on it. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I’m not sure that potentially partisan US press outlets know better than the President of Ukraine about his position. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, The standard set in WP:LEDE is that "important points" should be contained in the lede. In an article called "Trump-Ukraine Scandal", certainly the position of Ukraine as articulated by its President should be contained in the lede as an "important point." Especially given that the entire issue here, as we describe in the first couple sentences of the article, is whether Trump pressured Zelensky. There's no way to say that Zelensky's statement on this is unimportant. Therefore, it should be in the lede.

Your argument is perhaps better suited for something like Facebook than Wikipedia. I understand that you believe, in your opinion as an individual, that perhaps Zelensky is lying or is not credible on this point. Okay, I respect that, but your personal POV on this does not render Zelensky's comment unimportant or not worthy of inclusion in the lede.

I still have not seen a policy-based argument that this should not be in the lede. WP:IDONTLIKEIT (or WP:IDONTBELIEVEIT) is not a good reason. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 01:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I gave you a mild rebuke for being snide. I'm not going to respond to you any more in this thread. If you'll give a close read to what I said you may discover its meaning. SPECIFICO talk 01:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, that's fine. I'm not here to "discover meaning" in anyone's post. I just want policy based points and if you don't have any then your time is probably better spent elsewhere. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 02:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not a significant point, so it doesn't belong in the lead. It also lacks credibility, so it would be a violation of WP:NPOV to include in the lead without explaining that Zelensky had to say that because he was put on the spot and depends on continued assistance from this administration.[10] - Mr X 🖋 13:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

MrX, can you explain why Zelensky's opinion as to whether or not he was pressured is not a significant point in an article that's about whether Zelensky was pressured?

Anyway, if you really want to have a sentence like "anonymous sources claimed that he was pressured" or something, then fine. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Because the reporting about that single comment has been minuscule in comparison to the overall coverage of the subject, including the extensive coverage of each closed door and public deposition. Is it really possible that your don't already know this, or are you trying to apply a WP:FALSEBALANCE? - Mr X 🖋 15:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

MrX, Please WP:AGF. I'm trying to work this out. As a part of that, I'm trying to figure out what kind of policy rationale that the exclusions are relying upon so I can respond to that. The question is not whether the reporting about that comment is smaller than the overall coverage of the subject (which is true for any comment - unless that comment appears in every single news article about Trump-Ukraine scandal.) The question is whether Zelensky's comment, in the words of WP:FALSEBALANCE, "should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship." There is no "accepted academic scholarship" on the subject of Zelensky's opinion as to whether or not he was pressured, so this obviously does not apply. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC) Afterthought: I shouldn't have to state this, but I thought it would perhaps be a good idea given the conversation thus far - an anonymous source contradicting Zelensky does not render Zelensky's opinion about his own feelings a hoax on par with flat earth theory, as WP:FALSEBALANCE uses for an example. There is no POV problem with stating Zelensky's opinion with attribution as per WP:NPOV. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@May His Shadow Fall Upon You: I am assuming good faith. However, you don't seem to be able to properly weigh the relative importance of this piece of information against of the other information in the article. This makes me wonder if you have absorbed a propaganda talking point from a fringe source like Breitbart, The Daily Wire, Rush Limbaugh, or Rudy Giuliani such that you think this information represents a valid point of view that Trump did not pressure the Ukraine government to investigate Biden. Notice I did not link to any policy shortcuts because good editorial judgement is what builds articles, not Wikilawyering. - Mr X 🖋 16:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

MrX, It's not a "propaganda talking point" to state that Zelensky denied that Trump pressured him. It's a simple statement of verifiable fact with substantial coverage in reliable sources like AP, CNN, etc. It's also attributed to Zelensky and not stated in Wikipedia's voice, which is entirely appropriate. This is exactly the kind of factual reporting that Wikipedia should engage in. Notice I did not link to any policy shortcuts, because good editorial judgement is what builds articles, not Wikilawyering. It's not wikilawyering to suggest that editorial decisions should be made on something more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Policy is on the side of inclusion here. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 16:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Only the word "however", is problematic. I don't know whether any source has used "however" in this context, but if we remove the word, claims of improper synthesis are without merit. I.e. including "President Zelensky denied that he was pressured by Trump" seems reasonable. It is a significant point of view and has been widely reported. One short sentence would be DUE. Claims of false balance or POV pushing are without merit. Politrukki (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

How many articles have been written by reliable sources expounding the importance or plausibility of Zelensky's comment? Then we can talk about significance.- Mr X 🖋 16:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Other stuff I don't see in the lead: "the call was perfect" "no quid pro quo" "I want nothing" All widely reported by RS media. SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The two comments just above by MrX and SPECIFICO said what I was going to say. XOR'easter (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Add David Holmes to closed door hearings

On November 15, David Holmes, a US Department of State foreign service officer who works at the US embassy in Ukraine, and serves as an aide to BIll Taylor, testified in a closed door session before three house committees that he and two unnamed aides overheard a phone conversation between Ambassador Sondland and President Trump, while at a restaurant in Kiev, and immediately following a private meeting between President Zelensky and Sondland, where Trump asked Sondland about whether or not the Ukrainian President had agreed to investigate the Bidens.^[1]

References

^ "House committees request new closed-door impeachment testimony from U.S. official in Ukraine". Axios.

Volker public testimony

JoeScarce added the following without prior discussion, I am not comfortable with the sourcing.

Volker and Morrison public testimony: Also on November 19, former U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker and former National Security presidential adviser on Europe and Russia Tim Morrison gave a public testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives. In his testimony, Volker recanted his deposition denial of seeing no indication of that Trump had conditioned a White House meeting and military assistance for Ukraine on a promise from the country's president to investigate Trump's political rivals.^[1] Asked why he recanted, Volker stated "I have learned many things" since the previous closed-door hearing on October 3, 2019.^[1] During his testimony, Morrison stated that Sondland confirmed to him that there was indeed a quid pro quo for US aid to Ukraine and that Sondland informed Morrison of this following a September 1 conversation he had and Ukraine official Andriy Yermak.^[2]

References

In fact I think there is a fair bit more about the testimony that could be written about the day's testimonies (though I hope we can avoid anything about Vindman schooling Nunes on forms of address, or any of the personal attacks from Republicans), but this could be read as accusing a witness of perjury in violation of WP:BLP so it needs some discussion I think. Guy (help!) 09:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The Politico article is an analysis of Volker's prepared opening statement and does not cover the actual testimony so it is not an optimal source about Volker's testimony. We should more recent sources, but if we say "Volker said X in a closed setting and later revised the statement saying Y", and X and Y are robustly sourced – and the content adheres to V, NOR, NPOV, and so on – there is no BLP violation.

The Vox piece is what mainstream publications would call an editorial or analysis and should not be used for stating facts in Wikipedia's voice. What do major newspapers and other mainstream sources say?

On the process issues, you have both breached 1RR and it was probably not a good to idea to use rollback. Politrukki (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Politrukki, What RS have said so far is largely nothing, which is why I brought it here rather than simply fixing the source (I tried several different searches this morning). I agree it would be fine if supported in these terms by RS, but, as you note, it isn't, in fact, as phrased it's WP:SYN. We need to be super conservative with BLPs, especially these ones. I will confess that I find edit summaries like "make me go to the noticeboard" needlessly aggressive. The source actually says:

{{quotation:In perhaps one of the most glaring updates to his earlier testimony, Volker said that during a July 10 meeting at the White House with top Ukrainian officials, he now recalled that Sondland made a "generic comment about investigations" and that "all of us thought it was inappropriate."

In fact, Volker told lawmakers flatly during his closed-door deposition on Oct. 3 that investigations were not discussed at that meeting — testimony that was contradicted by other officials in the room. Rather, Volker said the meeting went poorly because the Ukrainians delivered a dry, bureaucratic presentation that didn't help give their American counterparts a clear picture of the political dynamic in Ukraine facing its new president, Volodymyr Zelensky.}}

I think it's reasonable to challenge the representation of this text in the edit. I have no objection to its inclusion in more NPOV terms and with additional sourcing (but not the video, I am not a fan of sourcing things to "watch the damn video"). Guy (help!) 15:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't dispute your claim that there was improper synthesis included and I'd say starting a conversation on the talk page was reasonable.

JoeScarce added this back into the article: During his testimony, Tim Morrison stated that Sondland confirmed to him that there was indeed a quid pro quo for US aid to Ukraine and that Sondland told him this following the September 1 telephone conversation with Ukranian official Andriy Yermak.

Rather than reporting what Morrison said – Morrison said Sondland had mentioned telling to Yermak prosecutor general that Ukraine would have to announce investigations for the aid to be lifted – we are only including a claim that there was a quid pro quo, and falsely implying that Sondland use the term. Well, quid pro quo means "something for something" and we only have one of those somethings, "US aid to Ukraine". The same problem we currently have with the lead. Politrukki (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Not a claim, but an encyclopedia fact backed by secondary sources.JoeScarce (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

You specifically asked on the other talk page to include a more robust source. Here it is.[11]v] Please note that Volker made this perfectly clear in his own words.JoeScarce (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

We have a good neutral summary with multiple RS references at the Volker article. Why not just copy it here? Or if people prefer, there is wording that I proposed, extensively quoting him, at the Volker talk page. And JoeScarce, we will not be using the video as a source. Our rule is to use WP:secondary sources, not WP:primary sources - and not to add any interpretation beyond what is done by neutral secondary sources. Of which we now have plenty, half a dozen at least. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd be happy with either the wording at Kurt Volker or the suggestion at Talk:Kurt Volker. And I generally dislike pointing to videos as sources, for accessibility and bandwidth reasons. XOR'easter (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I've added the material from the talk page. And I reorganized the article so that public testimony has its own subsection. It may need to be cleaned up a little. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I am very satisfied with the page's new editing and wouldn't have included, or even mentioned, the CBS News Youtube video if the Volker and Morrison testimony was kept in the article in the first place. Thank you.JoeScarce (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

JoeScarce, the lesson here is as per my comment on your talk page. Stick close to the sources, and use the best sources you can get. If all you have is Politico then exclude it. Multiple sources are preferred for controversial content. Guy (help!) 01:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I strongly back multiple sources as well.JoeScarce (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Adding name of alleged whistleblower

This is settled and we're not going to publish more of the same. Read the talk page archives if you are interested. SPECIFICO talk 21:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I noticed that the alleged whistleblower's name wasn't listed in the article. I'm not on Trump's side (which, if I was, would be a bad reason to make the edit anyway) but I support Wikipedia's goal of providing an objective, uncensored source of relevant facts, so I thought I'd "be bold" and fix that omission. It got caught by the Biography of Living Persons policy filter though, so it didn't go through. I think the name in question is absolutely a relevant fact (the fact being what the whistleblower's name is alleged to be) as it's the entire topic of the Identity section, so shouldn't we have it? flarn2006 [u t c] time: 21:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

If you don't know who it is, and the name has not been released, and has not been reported on in reliable sources, why would you add it? There is a section under BLP for this sort of thing? Why would knowing the WB "alleged" name be relevant? Koncorde (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Because it's a section that directly concerns those allegations. If the allegations are worth documenting, and that name is what forms the entire substance of the allegation, how is it not relevant to post the name? flarn2006 [u t c] time: 21:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Rudy Giuliani provides clarity via twitter

Notforum. SPECIFICO talk 21:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following text tweet by Rudy Giuliani seems to address the subject matter of this article. This may provide additional clarity regarding scandal.

1. There was no military aid withheld.

2. The conversation about corruption in Ukraine was based on compelling evidence of criminal conduct by then VP Biden, in 2016, that has not been resolved and until it is will be a major obstacle to the US assisting Ukraine with its anti-corruption reforms. The American people will learn that Biden & other Obama administration officials, contributed to the increased level of corruption in Ukraine between 2014 to 2016.

This evidence will all be released very soon https://twitter.com/RudyGiuliani

174.158.81.220 (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

LOL. And I have a bridge to sell you. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, Rudy's text tweet might not fit the whole scandal narrative of this article but it might possibly mean the corruption scandal he mentions may require a whole new wiki article...

This evidence will all be released very soon https://twitter.com/RudyGiuliani - 174.158.81.220 (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Trump has acknowledged that he spoke to President Zelensky about Biden, but only in the context of warning about corruption in the country

yet another speculative thread, NOTAFORUM soibangla (talk) 00:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Regarding the Ukraine scandal - Giuliani accuses Ukraine of laundering millions to Biden’s son and questions: “How could Obama have allowed this to happen? Will Dems continue to condone and enable this kind pay-for-play?”

Doesn't this belong in this wiki article?? https://nypost.com/2019/09/23/giuliani-accuses-ukraine-of-laundering-millions-to-bidens-son/ - 174.158.81.220 (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

"Man accused of crimes accuses other others of crimes". Seems legit. But what is your point? Koncorde (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Point is the scandal may not be Trump-Ukraine but Biden-Ukraine. Oh! btw, what is Giuliani accused of? 174.158.81.220 (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh! btw,what is Giuliani accused of? Well, he's being investigated by the very same SDNY he once led, on myriad charges including possible bribery and money laundering, as shown in the lead of Rudy Giuliani. soibangla (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Also is tied to potential issues with the dear Ukrainian pals and foreign money in US politics. Koncorde (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

So is this discussion to talk about how a Biden-Ukraine rename of this article is to be quashed? I am not certain/convinced the Biden-Ukraine Scandal is not the real topic here... So let's see what evidence Rudy provides. I am open to more discussion. 174.158.81.220 (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

There is no evidence of a Biden-Ukraine Scandal, so I'm going to close this yet another speculative thread soibangla (talk) 00:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Section on Soros is biased and unsupported.

+1 SPECIFICO talk 18:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please report the facts and other information as presented. These statements "without offering any evidence" and "again without evidence" shows left-leaning bias within Wikipedia's editors.

Note; investigations are on-going. In other words, Mr. Giuliani doesn't need to provide any "evidence" at this time. In fact, he most likely can not provide any evidence to the public either.

Also, commentary regarding "conspiracy theories" needs to be edited out. It's been well reported that Mr. Soros has been influencing the Ukrainian Government for a very long time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Renaissance_Foundation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.162.68 (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Why close the thread without providing comment while still retaining the biased text in the Soros section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.162.68 (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Because the text isn't "biased", everything there is factual and supported by reliable sources. I believe that should have been stated before closing the thread. The thread can be closed now. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The section is based on conjecture and is misleading. The words "without offering any evidence" demonstrate that it is biased. Otherwise, why would I be stating it? Read the entire section again, and without using your own personal biases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.162.68 (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

You're "stating it" is biased because of your biases. There is no evidence of any Soros allegation, which is why no evidence was offered by Giuliani, or diGenova, or Toensing, or anybody else. If we are wrong and there is evidence, please present it here. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

This page violates basic Wikipedia Policies

Content policies violated include: Neutral point of view/ WP:NPOV, No original research/ WP:OR, and Verifiability/ WP:V. The unrelated kinsman (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Specific examples, please? soibangla (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Numerous examples, but we can start with the first. Example 1). The second sentence in lead paragraph: “It revolves around (alleged) efforts by U.S. President Donald Trump to coerce Ukraine and other foreign countries...” I’d edit it myself but Wiki won’t let me, being locked up and all. The unrelated kinsman (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The unrelated kinsman, Curious: do you have a TV at all? Or an internet connection? Oh wait: maybe you stick with conservative sources so don't realise what happened over the last month. Guy (help!) 23:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Guy, please don’t try to derail this conversation. I’ll wait for a response from soibangla. Thanks, The unrelated kinsman (talk) 00:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The unrelated kinsman, taking the piss out of admins is not a good look, my friend. Guy (help!) 11:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Guy, implying that I’m a troglodyte is not a good look for someone who is supposed to be an experienced admin, my friend. You’re comments added nothing constructive to this discussion. You should know better. The unrelated kinsman (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The unrelated kinsman, Ah, so you mean "do you think I'm a troglodyte?" No I don't, but your question does make it appear that you are several weeks out of date with the facts, and that's only possible if you have either not been watching TV or have consumed only right-wing media. Guy (help!) 23:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Again, you add nothing useful to this conversation. Please stop. The unrelated kinsman (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

No it doesn't, and The unrelated kinsman, you should make sure that you're following our policies before dispensing advice to far more experienced editors.[12] - Mr X 🖋 20:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

What policies am I not following? It’s apparent by any standard that the lead paragraph is biased. Doesn’t the second sentence deserve an ‘allegedly’ or an ‘alleged’ or some other way of denoting that the charges have yet to be proven? The lead as written implies unquestionable guilt, which constitutes original research which violates WP:OR, and is unverifiable because formal proceedings have yet to prove or disprove the charges, which violates WP:V. I expect better from ‘far more experienced editors’. The unrelated kinsman (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

It's not alleged when he himself admitted to it on the lawn in front of the press and then doubled down on it by suggesting other countries might help too? Then was admitted to by Mulvaney? Koncorde (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Koncorde, I googled ‘Trump admits coercion’ and didn’t find anything. It might be implied, in which case the second sentence in the lead should read “It revolves around (alleged) efforts by U.S. President Donald Trump to coerce Ukraine and other foreign countries...” Now, please don’t try to derail this conversation. I’ll wait for a response from MrX. Thanks, The unrelated kinsman (talk) 00:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

There's no derailment, all reliable sources recognise his statements, and Mulvaneys, and the witnesses have stated their observations and knowledge of what they were being asked to do and take part in also, including Trump appointees. There is no "alleged" when everyone working for him knows it was happening and has admitted as such, other than those that have been barred from testifying. Koncorde (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The unrelated kinsman, After two weeks of testimony by serious professionals in front of HPSCI, we now know:

Trump withheld aid and a White House visit.
He demanded in return for these things an announcement of investigations into the Bidens (named) and the Kremin-sourced Crowdstrike conspiracy theory.
He did not inform the Congress of the hold on Congressionally appropriated aid, which is a violation of Federal law.
At least two officials resigned because of demands that they find a legal fig-leaf to cover this withholding of aid.
He released the aid only after he knew that a whistleblower had come forward.
The White House withheld the whistleblower complaint from Congress, also a violation fo Federal law.
The White House obstructed all efforts by Congress to understand the background of the issue (also a violation of Federal law).
While the President has the authority to withhold a WH visit, he does not have the authority to withhold Congressionally appropriated aid, and he does not have the right to withhold WH visits in return for political favours.
Sondland was working not on US policy but on a private political errand. So was Rudy Giuliani.
All applicable agencies had cleared the aid.
All applicable agencies had informed the WH that the Crowdstrike conspiracy theory is bullshit. The President has the right to request investigations, even of batshit insane conspiracy theories, but the route for these is via Justice and does not include any right to withhold Congressionally mandated aid or official visits in return.
The WH also recalled Marie Yovanovich in response to conspiracy theories and disinformation supplied through a devious route including Parnas and Fruman, and driven by (among others) Viktor Shokin, the corrupt former prosecutor general of Ukraine. The President has authority to recall ambassadors, but not with corrupt intent and not in response to lies and disinformation.

I could go on but later today we'll have a condensed summary of which speciifc laws have been broken. And no, it's not "alleged" - Trump has always committed his crimes in plain sight and then defied anyone to do anything about them. Guy (help!) 12:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@JzG and Guy: do you figure it's possible to get all of this from reading the lead? Heptor (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Heptor, I think the section headings from the HPSCI report could be used to summarise the thing.

I. The President Conditioned a White House Meeting and Military Aid to Ukraine on a Public Announcement of Investigations Beneficial to his Reelection Campaign

The President’s Request for a Political Favor

The President Removed Anti-Corruption Champion Ambassador Yovanovitch

The President’s Hand-picked Agents Begin the Scheme

President Trump Froze Vital Military Assistance

The President Conditioned a White House Meeting on Investigations

The President’s Agents Pursued a “Drug Deal”

The President Pressed Zelensky to Do a Political Favor

The President’s Representatives Ratcheted up Pressure on the Ukrainian President

Ukrainians Inquired about the President’s Hold on Security Assistance

The President’s Security Assistance Hold Became Public

The President’s Scheme Unraveled

The President’s Chief of Staff Confirmed Aid was Conditioned on Investigations

Guided by that chronology it should be relatively easy to summarise the body. What do you think? Guy (help!) 21:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't look easy to me 🤨

You inserted unsourced content into an article, and then when you added a source, you inserted original research and editorialized.[13] Please don't do that!- Mr X 🖋 22:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

MrX, I think this was meant as a response to a different discussion. I have not edited the ‘Trump-Ukraine scandal’ article at all. Thanks, The unrelated kinsman (talk) 00:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The lead looks biased to me too. I haven’t been following this case at all. I just read this Wikipedia article. The sentence taken up by The unrelated kinsman is very bold and assertive, but poorly supported by the rest of the lead. If Trump said that he indeed tried to pressure Zelenskiy to investigate Biden (as Koncorde says here), then this should be clearly stated in the lead. Heptor (talk) 07:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The lede is supported by the dozens of sources quoted within the main body of the article. If we want to run with the supporting quotes from innumerable sources:

BBC; "In July, he urged his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate one of the frontrunners to take him on in next year's presidential election. This matters, opposition Democrats say, because it is illegal to ask foreign entities for help in winning a US election."

BBC #2 "US President Donald Trump, already facing an impeachment inquiry after urging Ukraine to investigate his political rival Joe Biden, has now urged China to do likewise."

BBC #2 "When asked what Mr Trump sought as a "favour" from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in this summer's phone call, Mr Trump responded: "Well, I would think that if they were honest about it, they'd start a major investigation into the Bidens. It's a very simple answer. "They should investigate the Bidens," he said, speaking to reporters on the lawn of the White House."

CNBC; "Trump, speaking outside the White House before departing for Florida, mentioned China after pressing his call for Ukraine to launch a probe into Biden and his son — a request he made in a July 25 phone call with Ukraine’s president that led Democrats to launch an impeachment inquiry. “If they were honest about it, they would start a major investigation into the Bidens,” Trump said when asked what he wanted Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky to do about the former veep and his son. “They should investigate the Bidens,” Trump said. “Likewise, China should start an investigation into the Bidens, because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine.”

AP News "There was no hinting around, it was a straight-out trade, two key White House officials told impeachment investigators. If Ukraine’s new leader wanted an Oval Office welcome from Donald Trump — and he did — he would have to open a public probe into the president’s Democratic foe Joe Biden and his son."

None of these articles say that what he did, or has admitted to freely and provided a transcript for, or is has been corroborated by multiple senior officials, is "alleged". What is "alleged" is that this is impeachable, and a criminal act. Koncorde (talk) 07:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Those things should be in the lead, not in the sources quoted within the main body. The position of the president (and other involved parties) should be presented. Heptor (talk) 08:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

They are in the lede, in paragraph two with inline sourcing (something that isn't technically required, but is being done here for the sole purpose of waving a white flag to people who claim stuff is unsourced). They are then fully documented in the main article, and associated article.

As for Trumps position, and 'other parties': none of them have testified to hold a different position, nor have they denied the substance of the events, and have actually stood on the lawn saying "Yeah, I did it - by the way, can some other countries help us do more of the same? Ok cool.". Koncorde (talk) 09:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Where does it say that Trump supports the allegations that he attempted to coerce, and that it was into providing damaging narratives? Heptor (talk) 11:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Which alternative excuses do you want listing? What weight is there in reliable sources to reflect on claiming "the call was perfect", repeating his calls for an investigation to multiple other countries, spreading conspiracy theories, and complaining about the process by talking about unrelated issues. A sentence saying "Trump denies this" would require him to actually deny his actions took place, and to provide an alternative reason for his actions. So far these have been not forthcoming, or hidden behind executive privilege. So, what is Trumps alternative position? Is it the same as Mulvaneys? What about Sondland? Koncorde (talk) 11:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Heptor, here we have a difficult position: how to fairly represent, per WP:NPOV, the claims of a stranger to truth? Put bluntly, Trump lies. All the time. He lies so freely that some sources wonder if he is mentally ill. Not one of the serious professionals who have testified, claims the call was "perfect", even including the Republicans' own witnesses. So to give this any weight would violate WP:UNDUE. Yes he denies it. Well he would say that, wouldn't he?. Guy (help!) 12:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

“Trump lies. All the time.” Guy, you are obviously a biased partisan. You should remove yourself from this conversation. The unrelated kinsman (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

There is literally more than 1 website dedicated to counting the number of mistruths and lies. Multiple independent sources have decided that pretty much anything he says is probably the opposite of the truth, and more often than not a wilful perversion of the truth to aggrandise himself. This is one of the most basic observable facts on the internet. Koncorde (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I’m surprised that you’d think a google search for ‘Trump lies’ proves anything because, and I hate to break this to you, but a fundamental fact of life is ‘Politicians lie’! And you can’t seriously believe that because politicians lie it’s Ok to violate WP:NPOV, and/or WP:OR and/or WP:V in any wiki article. Again, if it’s implied that Trump ‘coerced’ then the second sentence in the lead should read “It revolves around (alleged) efforts by U.S. President Donald Trump to coerce Ukraine and other foreign countries...”. And again, have you googled ‘Trump admits coercion‘? Because, you know, he doesn’t. AND again, the lead as written implies unquestionable guilt, which constitutes original research which violates WP:OR, and is unverifiable because formal proceedings have yet to prove or disprove the charges, which violates WP:V. The unrelated kinsman (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Trump, literally, said the call "was largely [about] fact that we don't want our people like Vice President Biden and his son creating to the corruption already in the Ukraine" while at the same time a gang of his employees were exerting political pressure in Ukraine, and he personally instructed millions in aid to be with-held. He doesn't need to admit to coercion, he has openly admitted to steering the discussion in that direction and then has been skewered by every single material witness so far for what his tactics where to achieve it.

Meanwhile a google search that brings up dozens upon dozens of reliable sources all discussing innumerable lies definitely meets the criteria of proving he is a liar par excellence. And the presence of other liars does not preclude us from reporting what the majority (and in reality all but the most sycophantic or utterly corrupt and likely tangibly linked to the President or his supporters) of reliable sources state is the situation at hand.

I would suggest you learn what WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WPV actually mean before throwing them around. Koncorde (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Koncorde, And the "anti-corruption" President sent Rick Perry to Ukraine with a list of donors in his pocket to pitch for oil and gas deals.

Nice country you have here, be a shame if something happened to it. My friend would like a 50 year gas extraction lease. Guy (help!) 23:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The unrelated kinsman, That Trump lies is actually the charitable interpretation. The uncharitable interpretation is that he does not know or care what the truth is when he makes statements that are obviously and verifiably false. Guy (help!) 23:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Why not put what Koncorde said here in the lead? That is, a phone call had been placed. It was interpreted by (credible sources) to be an effort to coerce [...]. Trump confirmed the contents of the phone call, did not provide an alternative reason for it, and described the conversation as "perfect". Heptor (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Because that would give WP:UNDUE weight to Trump's interpretation, and would not accurately reflect the facts. When reliable sources state something as a fact, so do we. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: “Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.”

It doesn’t matter if Trump is a great liar or if many reliable sources say he’s guilty of coercion. I can find reliable sources that say he didn’t coerce. Here is one example Experienced, unbiased admin shouldn’t allow these obvious violations of basic Wikipedia policies to continue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The unrelated kinsman (talk • contribs) 00:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you think it's possible Zelensky calculated the risks of a severe backlash from Trump by publicly implicating him in a quid pro quo? soibangla (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Occam’s razor. Sure, Zelensky could be afraid to speak the truth, but it’s also possible that he’s telling the truth. But that’s not the point. We should be following basic Wikipedia policies. We should ‘avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts’, as stated in WP:NPOV. The unrelated kinsman (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The point is: we can't know what Zelensky thinks, so "he said there was no pressure" is pretty much worthless as a defense, given the evident US-Ukraine power imbalance that Trump could exploit. soibangla (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

soibangla, it doesn’t matter if you believe my reliable sources or not. I could provide a lot more reliable sources for you to argue about, and I’m sure you’d have no problem refuting all of them. That’s not the point. The point is these are ‘seriously contested assertions’, and we should ‘treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts’, according to WP:NPOV. The unrelated kinsman (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The main thrust is who contests such statements, and whether it’s a generally held view among reliable sources. The NYP is a bit of a mixed bag per our sourcing requirements, mainly per fact-checking and lack of retractions when they get the story wrong. The main issue here is whether this has been generally reflected in reliable sources. And the short answer is that it’s mainly been asserted in an ideological echo chamber, with a few exceptions. If this changes, I’m happy to support that. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 05:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Symmachus Auxiliarus. Odd that an experienced admin would find time for this sideline and not bother to address the thrust of my argument. The unrelated kinsman (talk) 05:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The thrust of your argument is more a stab on the dark, wildly aiming for some wiki guideline that you can hang your hat on. If multiple experienced editors, and admins at that, are saying "I don't think so"; is the reason that we are all liberal shills, or is it that you just don't have a case at all and are wasting your efforts? Koncorde (talk) 09:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Koncorde, you’ve pretty much already proven you’re unwilling to have a civil discussion with me. I think you’re just trying to derail this conversation. Please stop. And please allow the people I address in my remarks to answer for themselves. I’m sure they’re more than capable. Thanks The unrelated kinsman (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I am being very civil and have been nothing but civil. You might not want to read what I say, but I am telling you what you need to understand. There is no point quoting wikirules if you do not understand them, there is no point arguing for special knowledge that cannot be refuted if it comes from unreliable sources or reflects not only a minority opinion, but barely an opinion of any sort that might be supported by any other source, nor is there much point arguing against users who have specifically refuted your claims and POV push. I would suggest that you make clear what it is you think should be added to the article, read your replies, and then WP:DROPIT. Koncorde (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 December 2019

This edit request to Trump–Ukraine scandal has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Giuliani's name is mispelled in the "Rudy Giuliani" subsection of the article. Please change from Giuliant's to Guiliani's Grabillr92 (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Done. Fixed. Koncorde (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

add "Pence rejects calls to declassify new impeachment testimony" ?

Pence rejects calls to declassify new impeachment testimony; The vice president's lawyer says it “serves no purpose.” 12/11/2019 Politico.com by Andrew Desiderio, Kyle Cheney

X1\ (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC about requested name change at Trump–Russia dossier

Please participate:

Talk:Trump–Russia dossier#Requested move 13 December 2019

BullRangifer (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

add new Office of Management and Budget claim?

White House Office of Management and Budget claims in a new memo that it withheld U.S. military aid to Ukraine as a temporary exploratory measure, not as part of a political effort to override Congress' appropriation of the money.

per

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-new-legal-memo-white-house-budget-office-defends-withholding-aid-to-ukraine/2019/12/11/0caa030e-1b95-11ea-826b-14ef38a0f45f_story.html

X1\ (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

X1\, I believe the sources show they tested a number of pretexts. Guy (help!) 23:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm interested to see what Heavily redacted OMB communications on withholding of Ukraine aid released by Trump administration say. More here. soibangla (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Soibangla: I agree the PublicIntegrity.org and Abcnews.go.com items look interesting, I only wish I could keep up with this more. Have either of you seen updates on this/these? 23:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 December 2019

This edit request to Trump–Ukraine scandal has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change: “It revolves around efforts by U.S. President” To: “It revolves around alleged efforts by U.S. President” Yosemite747956 (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. This statement is well-sourced in the body and the addition of "alleged" will require a consensus of interested editors to endorse. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Add mention of alternative title "Ukrainegate" to the lede (or at least to the article)

Numerous highly notabele and reputable sources have referred to the scandal as "Ukrainegate". [14], [15], [16], [17], many more easily findable by google search.

I would propose changing the first sentence of the lede to read, "The Trump–Ukraine scandal, also known as Ukrainegate, is an ongoing political scandal in the United States."

Alternatively, if there is not sufficient support for adding it to the lede, I would suggest incorporating this alternate title for the scandal somewhere else into the article. Flip^and Flopped ツ 04:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Flipandflopped: Nay. I suppose if you - along with everyone else in America - were to secretly take a vote and change the meaning of the entire English language... then yeah, I guess those sources are "notable and reputable". I mean just look at the second article. It literally has a giant, golden 'OPINION' title slapped at the top. WP: FACTS PROCEED OPINIONS

HOWEVER, if you really would like to add that then we'd have to add both viewpoints to keep it net neutral. For instance, "The Trump–Ukraine scandal is an ongoing political scandal in the United States. While some refer to the scandal as Ukrainegate, most have not adopted the -gate suffix yet as there not currently enough evidence made to the public that has demonstrated criminal activity."

StanTheMan0131 (talk) 16:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The suffix "-gate" usually means large scandal, not necessarily criminal activity. X1\ (talk) 01:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a non-starter. The -gate thing deprecates the seriousness of things and is most often used to convey facetious or ironic subtext. Pizza-gate, etc. We don't hear about 911-gate, Pearl Harbor-gate, or Kids in Cages-gate. SPECIFICO talk 01:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

RFC: Ukrainian President's Statement on the Trump-Ukraine Scandal in the Lede

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was reached to not include President Zelensky's comments in the lead, rather he should be quoted in the article. (non-admin closure) SusanLesch (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Should the lede of the page Trump-Ukraine scandal, which deals with whether Trump pressured Ukrainian President Zelensky, include Zelensky's position on the matter? May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Support as proposer - President Zelensky has repeatedly denied that he was pressured by Trump (first in September, most recently a couple days ago) and it has been covered extensively in reliable sources. [[18]] In the most recent statement, he clarified that he was unaware military aid was held up at the time he had the call with Trump. These are "important points" as per WP:LEDE and should be included. After all, this article is about whether Zelensky pressured Trump, so Zelensky's position on the matter would obviously be an "important point." In addition, as Zelensky is the mouthpiece for Ukraine, certainly his opinion merits inclusion in the lede by virtue of that role. (In an article called "Trump-Ukraine scandal", the position of Ukraine is obviously important.) May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC) Afterthought: I should note that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. The best source for what Zelensky thinks is Zelensky. Just because a contrary opinion is expressed in a reliable source does not mean that we should supplant that as per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 17:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose as WP:UNDUE if placed in the lead. Can you see why Zelensky would deny being held to ransom while still desperately needing the money, and knowing that Trump has all the self-control of a two-year-old? One public statement under duress can't be used to assert parity with the mountain of evidence that the shakedown was a problem. Guy (help!) 14:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
JzG, Certainly you are entitled to believe that he was lying, but an editor's personal opinion regarding the veracity of a statement is not a reason for exclusion. Because the position would be attributed to Zelensky and not stated in Wikipedia's voice, it is appropriately couched to the reader. We could even add a "rebuttal" to Zelensky, if you have a source that claims Zelensky didn't really mean what he meant. But to completely exclude it from the lede because an editor doesn't like it? I don't think that's right as per WP:LEDE. Unless you can say that Zelensky's opinion as to whether he was pressured is somehow irrelevant in an article about whether Zelensky was pressured. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 17:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
May His Shadow Fall Upon You, It does not belong in the lead because in the lead it is robbed fo the context that we cannot assess the extent to which he was coerced, but we absolutely do know that the actions met all the elements of bribery. Guy (help!) 18:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
JzG, Is there a Wikipedia policy that suggests we should exclude verifiable information, in reliable sources, with significant coverage - because an editor is not satisfied to the extent to which that statement might or might not have been coerced? May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
May His Shadow Fall Upon You, who's suggesting we exclude it? It's fine to put it in the body with full context (e.g. the fact that while Zelenskiy says Ukraine is not corrupt, this is probably reflective of an aspiration and a still-new government, not of the reality, which still shows evidence of deep and systematic corruption, e.g. in the award of as 50 year exploration lease to a Perry donor). And because it's complicated and because his statements are at odds with independent sources in numerous significant ways, it does not belong in the lead per WP:UNDUE. Guy (help!) 14:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
JzG, How is an attributed statement providing undue weight to Zelensky's own opinion? May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 16:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Because Zelensky's opinion is irrelevant to the scandal. He doesn't need to have his opinion validated for the scandal to exist. The scandal is about what Trump did, and what he asked others to do, and the potential implications. The weight of reliable sources reflect this. The weight of reliable sources, included those that have testified, have all indicated that there was pressure to coerce domestic political gains from international allies. Koncorde (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Koncorde, He doesn't need to have his opinion validated for the scandal to exist. That's not what I'm saying, though. In an article about whether Zelensky was pressured, Zelensky's opinion is an important point that should be included as per WP:LEDE. This has substantial coverage in reliable sources. We don't pick a narrative we agree with and then exclude points accordingly. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 17:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

This isn't an article about Zelensky being pressured. You are misrepresenting both the article and the weight of reliable sources when you ask for it to be shifted to discredit the notion that Trump didn't do the thing that he is on record as saying he did, and that nobody is claiming he didn't do - which is try and leverage his position for domestic political advantage. The argument is solely about whether what he did is impeachable and the scandal around his actions and those around him. I am not sure why, or why you would think I am choosing a narrative when the article is about the scandal of Trump's actions, not Zelensky's feelings. Koncorde (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

"which is try to leverage his position for *domestic political advantage*" You just inserted your own opinion, this is not asserted fact. Trump is obligated per statue to ask information about corruption investigations. We have no idea if it would give him political advantage or not, and your accusations about his intent amount to speculation. From the transcript, it's clear Trump asks to investigate previous possible election meddling, and references a video where Biden brags about getting a prosecutor fired, and the investigations ended up going nowhere after that. You can argue his intent was to smear Biden, or you can argue that it was to fight corruption, or both. Your argument fails, just because you claim factual prove of intent, where there is none. Milanbishop (talk) 11:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Milanbishop, yes it is. Fiona Hill summed it up best: it was a "domestic political errand" not connected to legitimate foreign policy goals. Guy (help!) 18:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. Every single witness called has made it clear that what they were doing was not foreign policy, and that there was no indication of corruption being at the forefront of the concerns. They wanted a public display against Biden. They were willing to corroborate extort a foreign power to get it. Not my opinion, the reported weight of sources (and often the words used by non-partizan government employees with decades of loyal service in multiple branches). Koncorde (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Support. It's very possible that Zelenskiy was pressured to deny that he was pressured, but this determination should be left to the readers. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information to the readers, not to think on their behalf. Heptor (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Heptor, that's incorrect. An encyclopedia does not leave clues and breadcrumbs for readers to take a guess. We state in the clearest most explicit terms what the weight of RS describes. This bit has been rejected before and it's being rejected again. In fact, it's ripe for a SNOW close, in my opinion. SPECIFICO talk 22:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, Disagree. Most of the people posting in this RFC are participants from the previous discussion. (I think all of them, but I haven't checked.) The purpose of this RFC is to bring in outside voices. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

There's leaving crumbs and there's force-feeding. ~~But anyway, this RfC looks done, let's just close it.~~ Withdrawn per the above argument by the Shadow --Heptor (talk) 09:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose JzG's point summarizes the context that reliable sources have noted. We're not thinking on behalf of the reader; we're doing our job and reflecting what the secondary and tertiary sources have stated. In addition, there is the more procedural matter that the lede should summarize the main text, and the main text glances over this in a brief paragraph. The article needs reorganization on a significant scale, which may likely affect the lede; bringing this up now is doing things in the wrong order. XOR'easter (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean? Zelenskiy's position was certainly noted by reliable secondary sources, for example the NY Post article mentioned by MHSFUY Heptor (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I meant ... what I said. Yes, reliable sources have noted Zelensky's "position" (I might use the term "statements" instead, but that's a detail), but they've also given it a context that we can't omit [19]. (There's a lot of context for anything to do with Zelensky [20].) Part of this is what JzG noted, but it also includes, for example, Zelensky pushing back on Trump's claims that Ukraine is a corrupt country, which the NY Post skipped over but other sources covered [21][22][23]. (Parenthetically, according to WP:RSP, There is no consensus regarding the reliability of the New York Post. The New York Post is a tabloid newspaper with high circulation, and most editors prefer more reliable sources when available.) XOR'easter (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Heptor, yes, and that's a great reason for covering it in the body but not in the lead because it gives undue weight to an implausible denial. Guy (help!) 16:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@XOR'easter: why would we want to omit the context? Add it. Especially the part about Zelenskiy pushing back on Trump's claims that Ukraine is a corrupt country. If we allow us some optimism, it could well be that Zelenskiy wants to stay as far away from shady dealings as he possibly can. An honest politician would certainly ignore an offer like that. @Guy: it also would also give the reader an opportunity to decide for themselves if the denial was plausible or not. Instead, a reasonably astute reader now will ask questions like, why is Ukraine's position not mentioned, and why is Trump's position not mentioned. This is not good for the project. Heptor (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Heptor, all great reasons for including it in the body, which I don't dispute. In the lead? Not so much. Guy (help!) 14:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose, but with comments - 1. the lede summarises. We should summarise that there was pressure, it is irrelevant what statements are made by individuals if the significant weight of reliable sources all identify the denial as effectively compromised. However 2. the body should ensure that it refers to the denial by Zelensky, but it should also refer to the weight of significant sources opinion of his statement. Koncorde (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Koncorde, As per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. Sources that speculate on Zelensky's motivations, even if they are otherwise reliable, lack the appropriate context to be considered a reliable source for that fact. Zelensky is the best authority on what he thinks. All the speculation in the world does not outweigh that as per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 17:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

That is your interpretation, which is wrong, and I am not even entertaining begging the question as a means of refuting any arguments. Man denies that he was aware of thing, while all available sources indicate that leading Ukrainians were asking questions long before it was released; attested to by witnesses privy to it that were presented. Koncorde (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Koncorde, Wikipedia cares about verifiability, not truth. An editor's opinion as to whether or not it's true or false is not a factor in whether it's included. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is. We know what Zelensky said is indeed what he said. We don't know how he truly felt at the time, or after, or his motivations - so we're not going to guess. We do however know that the significant volume of reliable sources and witness statements disagree with his assertion that he did not know, and their arguments (and indeed the argument of the whole impeachment process and scandal) is that it is irrelevant how the Ukrainian President did or did not feel, or what he claims he wasn't aware of. The significance of the scandal is the attempt to utilise foreign policy for domestic political gains. This is not only verifiable, and supported by the significant majority of reliable sources, but it is also a true and accurate representation of the significance. Few sources are going to call Zelensky a liar, but the majority have certainly suggested that all evidence so far presented points to the contrary. Koncorde (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Koncorde, right. A man walks into a bank, points a gun at the teller and asks for a million dollars. Do we care if the teller says she did not feel threatened? If the gun was fake? If the robber had a million dollars on deposit and could have just withdrawn it? If the manager was on the take? If the money was the proceeds of some other guy's bank robbery? No we do not. Guy (help!) 14:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. "Teller is cool as a cucumber when faced with a gun" sounds like a great click-bait article title, but it isn't the subject of the court case and is unlikely to be used as a valid line of defence in court. Koncorde (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Koncorde, Even if Zelensky was lying, the fact of the matter is that the President of Ukraine has weighted in on a scandal called the "Trump-Ukraine scandal" which has involved, of course, the President of the Ukraine. This has been covered extensively by reliable sources, so it's not as if this is some minor point. It appears that the main argument against inclusion is that other sources disagree, but it's not as if we are here on Wikipedia to pick the side that's "true" or "right" and then exclude verifiable points with significant coverage in reliable sources because they disagree with our opinion. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 17:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

No, the argument against inclusion IN THE LEDE is because it is undue weight being lent to a statement made that is directly contradicted by every single witness on both the US side of the aisle and the Ukrainian side of the aisle and the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources questioning his intent, sincerity, and accuracy. It is undue weight IN THE LEDE to go into the detail of what Zelensky said without that context and so it is dealt with, in context, within the main article itself quite clearly. I am done discussing this with you because you have not taken a single thing on board so far repeatedly explained a dozen times over. Get a new argument please. Koncorde (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose per my previous comments on the matter.[24][25][26] - Mr X 🖋 16:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per above and my previous comments. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per Muboshgu and MrX Gandydancer (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per my comments in the prior thread and my remark to Heptor, above. SPECIFICO talk 22:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Support If it has Trump's perspective, why not Zelensky's?HAL 333 00:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
HAL333, because the scandal is about Trump and his actions, and Zelensky's opinion isn't relevant. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Per UNDUE and comments above. Putting in the lede, without context is not WP:N either.Casprings (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Casprings, What kind of context would you be looking for? May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Support but with context Obviously there are reasons to doubt Zelensky's statements but that's true for pretty much anyone who was involved with this in any way. The lead is supposed to summarize the most important information in the body, and Zelensky's opinion should be part of that. That said, we should also briefly summarize skepticism about his point of view. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Support, but with comments - Zelinsy is a central figure in the scandal, so I disagree that his statement (as opposed to an opinion) on the matter is undue for the lede. Referring to or quoting an individual's statement on a matter isn't an endorsement of that statement, especially when that individual is so involved in the matter. The context can come in the body, where it belongs. I'll also note that there's an abundance of other responses and facts in the lede - all pointing to corruption occurring - this provides some context in itself. However, I'm concerned that that paragraph (where I'd assume Zelinsky's reaction would go) has already become an unwieldy barrage of facts smacking the reader over the head that it was corruption. I'd suggest examining the paragraph as a whole for what the intended purpose of it is, and how to most clearly and concisely fulfil that purpose. Cjhard (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Support I can't see how Zelensky views are not relevant as the president of one of the two country's involved, Trump and the USA are certainly no more reliable and their views no more due than those of Ukraine. Seems obviously due to me. Bacondrum (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Bacondrum, because we can't include it without having to also include commentary showing that such a statement made by someone under duress may well not be, you know, true. We can do that within the article easily. This question is about the lead, specifically. I don't think anyone objects to it being covered in detail in the body. Guy (help!) 23:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

JzG Made under duress? There's a lot of assumptions being made there. Zelensky is the president of a powerful nation with large economy, high standard of living and one of the largest military forces in Europe (I believe they have the largest armed forces after Russia?). Zelensky is a big boy, in charge of a big country, whatever external pressures he faces we have no reason to assume he is any less his own man than say...Trump. We don't assume that he is a weak leader, nor do we depreciate his views, they are just as relevant as those of US leaders. Bacondrum (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Support Zelensky's statements are very relevant to the claims being made in the header and are reported on by reliable sources. It thus makes sense to include them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit5001 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Per JzG and XOR'easter. Not our job to selectively decide what context is useful for the lede, we go by what is being emphasized in the abundance of sources. Zelensky's statement is not encompassed in that. Not every set of claims which is "relevant" by the assessment of wikipedia editors merits inclusion in an article lede, especially if what is deemed "relevant" does not also include context which is offered by the vast majority of sources. It certainly would merit inclusion in the body if it has reliable sources to back it, as the Zelensky statements do - provided the proper context. However, the lede has to be reserved for the facts and context for those facts which are most unanimously agreed upon and reported. Flip^and Flopped ツ 04:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Support. This is a perfect example of why Wikipedia is not trusted. Zelensky was on the other side of the call. Zelensky was on the other side of the transaction. That Zelensky’s response, no pressure from Trump’s administration is not in the lead of this story indicates Wikipedians really are not interested in truth. Then, the usual, Wiki editors start lawyering up. What a joke. Put Zelensky’s responses in the intro. Let the readers decide what the truth is. 10stone5 (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

That Zelensky was on the other side of the call is irrelevant; so far over a dozen witnesses have been called who have testified to the contrary. That the intent was clear. That multiple Ukrainian officials had asked repeatedly what they had to do to get the aid and state visit. That the power imbalance between the US and Ukraine by default means that there is an expectation of compliance (or else). That Zelensky is still subject to potential recriminations is clear and testified to, and multiple reliable sources have outlined the reasons why Zelensky would deny.

This has nothing to do with Wikipedia. This is to do with the desire for a certain portion of the political spectrum to deny the evidence, or interpret it in such a generous way that they would never afford to a rival, and the attempt by those groups to influence all media in their favour through threats, trial by their own echo chamber of public opinion, and dog-piling. Any source that disagrees (or to be exact; reports accurately) is immediately subject to the same hand wringing demands for fake balance. Koncorde (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@10stone5: "Let the readers decide what the truth is." - That is simply not how WP works and it's a non-starter to propose ignoring the weight of RS. SPECIFICO talk 22:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Support As far as my experience as an avid Wikipedia reader, and aspiring editor can tell. It is common to have allegations accompanied by a rebuttal is there is such.

Since a trial on the matter has not taken place, the allegations should remain as such: unproven fact. Certainly, attributing motives to Zelensky's comments is an egregious overstep of common decency.

Zelensky is not on trial here, and if we can not even include his statements, even for the sake of it being an observed utterance, without attributing motives or sentiments, I have no idea why Wikipedia should :even venture into politics. Milanbishop (talk) 12:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

We rely on reliable secondary sources for context, not the primary source. Zelensky may claim he felt no pressure, but that is all we can ascribe as weight to his opinion. In contrast pretty much all other reliable sources indicate (including those that testified) indicated otherwise. Koncorde (talk) 14:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

That is completely nonsensical, and contrary per WP:USINGPRIMARY - " Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation.". We are quoting Zelensky and can easily provide multiple reliable sources such as article from Time magazine. I propose to you to provide a reliable source which claims that Zelensky did feel pressured by Trump. Generalizing, using words like "pretty much all reliable sources indicate", does not offer any verifiable objective proof of contradiction and is completel irrelevant to the notion that Zelensky did in fact deny the allegations, and is one of the two heads of state involved in the matter. Additionally to Time, I provide This FactCheckt.org article referencing Washington Post directly citing Zelensky:

“There was no pressure or blackmail from the U.S. I had no idea the military aid was held up [at the time of his July 25 call with Trump]. When I did find out, I raised it with [Vice President] Pence at a meeting in Warsaw" Milanbishop (talk) 14:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

We know what Zelensky said. It is directly attributed in the body of the article. Primary sourcing is fine for a quote. However we are not providing a quote, just as we are not providing quotes from other people in the lede, we are instead providing the weight of reliable sources and Zelensky's singular claim is refuted by not only his own Ukrainian staff involved, but also by the US witnesses directly involved, and even Mike Mulvaney who explicitly stated that there was a quid pro quo. That is pressure.

Among many others, you can just Google dozens of such articles, nevermind those that don't explicitly say the words but refer to the testimony provided by the people who were actually doing the pressuring who say that not only were they aware of what was going on and what was being held back, but also what they were being coerced to do in order to get their money and their state visit.

If you are not going to look for sources that do not support your position then you will only hear what you want to hear. That is not what we do, and it is why we cannot and do not rely upon single sources, particularly primary sources. People have a bad habit of not telling the truth. Koncorde (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I have sit through almost all public hearings, and/or have read the testimonies. The only one that comes close to counter Zelensky's statement, is the one from Fiona Hill, where she testified that a staffer (who was in the 7th May meeting) relayed to her the notion that the Ukrainians felt pressured. There are no other testimonies that support your claim. They are all implied. Mulvaney quickly retracted and corrected his public statement, which you don't take into account, and again you are attributing motive to Zelensky's quote. You are implying to be a liar. It's fine if that is your opinion and conclusion, but it's completely irrelevant to the Wikipedia's guidelines of "verifiability, not truth" as per WP:TRUTH. His statements have verifiable reliable sources, and Wikipedia readers do not care if me or you think Zelensky is lying or not. Zelensky is one of the two main actors in the 'scandal', and thus, his statements are as relevant as are the statements of Trump. Milanbishop (talk) 09:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

No it's not just Fiona Hill, Taylor's testimony is very clear that he knew what the outcome of "conditioning" support meant, his texts reveal as much, and Sondland among others have stated it too. They knew they were exerting pressure, or else why would you do it? Mulvaney admitted that exerting pressure is normal practice. He denied that this meant the pressure was exerted to investigate Biden, but it is independently verifiable that pressure is a function of politics (see Biden and Ukrainian prosecutor) and is a legitimate tactic. This is not my opinion and conclusion; this is the conclusion of reliable sources interpreting the evidence and presenting it as verified content that we use for our content.

Trump's statements, Mulvaneys statements, Zelensky's etc are all facts, but this does not make them immune to being refuted, or subject to context. I.e. they are not necessarily true. Reporting them as 'true' would require evidence from reliable sources to investigate, report, and present those facts with context. Those reliable sources are the verifiable element of the "verifiability not truth" clause that is a foundation of wikipedia.

Zelensky, per almost all reliable sources, is a bit part actor, and presented as a victim in this scenario. This was not some equal exchange between countries of relative parity. I gave you the Google search that detailrd multiple reliable sources that are accusing Zelensky of having to lie in order to protect himself from recriminations from the Trump administration and Trump himself - and those were just the articles using the exact words, nevermind those being more nuanced. Koncorde (talk) 10:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - Zelensky's perspective is DUE for inclusion in the article, but not in the lede, per the balance of Reliable Sources. Most of the Support votes do not include a policy-conpliant argument for inclusion in the lede specifically, and therefore are not strictly relevant per WP:CONSENSUS. Newimpartial (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:UNDUE. Zelensky's position, as chronicled in the body, is neither prominent nor extensive enough for it to exist in the lead section. KyleJoan^talk 05:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. Zelensky, quite obviously, did not tell the truth, and this should be described in the body of the page, but it is undue for the lead. Instead, these newly revealed documents should be mentioned in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Support. Too much attention given to internal US politics. This was a conversation between leaders of two sovereign nations. The position of Ukrainian president Zelensky must be in the lead! He was one of the parties to the call! JoeZ451 (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per Muboshgu, MrX, and Koncorde. Presentation in the lead is undue because it would lack critical context. As (multiple, reliable) sources have discussed, Ukraine's leader would of course deny feeling pressured in order to avoid recriminations from the Trump administration, upon which Ukraine depends for vital U.S. aid. Explaining this all in the lead section would take up too much space, while presenting Zelensky statement alone is context-free and misleads the reader. Moreover, this is not a really important part of the scandal - asking a foreign leader to smear a domestic political opponent is still a scandal even if the foreign leader never accedes to the the demand. Neutrality^talk 17:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per Muboshgu, MrX, Koncorde, and Neutrality. Without context, this does not belong in the lead. Even with context, it would create a false balance by juxtaposing Zelensky's equivocation with the improper/illegal pressure from Trump, as if Zelensky's statement absolved Trump, when in fact his statement is just an appeasement reaction to the criminal pressure exerted by Trump. The comedian is under pressure to do what Trump always approves, any lie which protects and covers for Trump. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Support. It is clear evidence of a bias-clouded judgement when we have editors arguing here that there is no place for the view of one of the two primary parties to the call in the lede! It would certainly solve the problem if the lede was reduced to two or three short, editorially devoid sentences. (The entire second sentence of the lede is troublesome, in that it could just as well have been written by press office of the DNC.) Jsniessen (talk) 04:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

1. It's impossible to reduce it down to such a short number of sentences or paragraphs. Not sure how you could imagine such a complex subject might be summarised in a few sentences; but still include Zelensky.

2. There is no argument that there is no place for one of the parties. In fact the argument is that all parties are relevant to the events and that the significant weight of opinions outweigh Zelensky's denial (particularly in the face of numerous witnesses all stating otherwise). :3. That he did not feel pressure (allegedly) is also irrelevant to the acts that have led to the impeachment. The intent has been testified to. Koncorde (talk) 05:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Trump's impeachment is only half of the story. The other half is Ukrainian foreign relations and security, which is unrelated to politics in the US. JoeZ451 (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you will find a single reliable source anywhere in the world that would support that claim. The scandal is related entirely to Trump's actions (and those of his allies). The significance of Ukraine is pretty much nil, they just happened to be the ones at the centre of the Trump administration activities, and seen as an easy target for exploitation because of their precarious position. Koncorde (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Ukrainian media cover the Ukrainian position. JoeZ451 (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that the sources will be less about the US political "scandal" this article is referring to and more about the weakness of the Ukrainian government to not be exploited, which is an entirely different article / issue. If you have sources with some unique perspective I suggest you provide them so that they can be evaluated in a new section. Koncorde (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The title of this page is “Trump-Ukraine Scandal.” Therefore I believe that Ukraine’s statements must be mentioned because they are given such a prominent place in the title. In order for this to be balanced and fair to all sides, we must say that Zelensky said he felt no pressure. Someone mentioned that Zelensky’s staff contradicted his statements? Maybe it would be good to say something on those lines as well. DemocracyRepublicAmerica (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

DemocracyRepublicAmerica, that's not how it works. The scandal is Trump's withholding of aid and demand for announcements of investigations of a political rival in order to release it. The protestations of a victim who was still dependent on the US for future aid are interesting, and covered in the article, but are not definitional, per WP:LEAD. Guy (help!) 23:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - The majority of the reliable sources already cited in the article indicate that the Ukrainian president only made that statement under duress. We should include his statement in the article, but absolutely not in the lede, unless it's placed in its proper context noting that the president had good reason to not tell the truth. Worldlywise (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2020 (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.

Letter Giuliani to Ukrainian President

I have uploaded letter provided by Parnas to the House and then to the public via docs.house.gov.

Would some one extended rights please add the letter to the page since it is a record of requested meeting by Giuliani and confirms Giuliani was acting with the knowledge and on the behalf of Trump in his personal capacity.

File:Giuliani letter to Ukraine President.jpg

Letter May 10, 2019 from US President Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani to Ukrainian President Zelenskyent

Thank you Pbmaise (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Never mind I have extended access. My internet connection is so slow it took many attempts but I got letter added. Please delete this and duplicate request Pbmaise (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

[Sumter_11/16/2017-1] Sumter, Kyler (November 16, 2017). "The five most interesting claims in the Donald Trump dossier". The Week. Retrieved December 24, 2017.

[Kramer_McIntire_Meier_8/14/2016-2] Kramer, Andrew E.; McIntire, Mike; Meier, Barry (August 14, 2016). "Secret Ledger in Ukraine Lists Cash for Donald Trump's Campaign Chief". The New York Times. Retrieved October 1, 2019.

[Rhodan_8/15/2016-3] Rhodan, Maya (August 15, 2016). "Donald Trump's Campaign Chief Slams Report on Ukraine Payments". Time. Retrieved October 1, 2019.

[holmesdeposition-4] "House committees request new closed-door impeachment testimony from U.S. official in Ukraine". Axios.

[denialtorecant-5] ttps://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/19/kurt-volker-public-impeachment-hearing-071566

[6] ttps://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/19/20973157/impeachment-hearings-morrison-quid-pro-quo-ukraine

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[1]

[2]