Talk:Trump–Ukraine scandal/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Opening sentence, and lede in general

I can't help but feel the first sentence isn't right, and that the lede doesn't summarise the article fully. Currently "The Trump–Ukraine scandal is an ongoing political scandal in the United States". I looked at the Watergate article and could see it read much more coherently

"The Watergate scandal was a major American political scandal, lasting 1972 through 1974, that issued from the apprehension and arrest of five men in process of burglarizing the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C. on June 17, 1972, and the subsequent attempts by President Richard Nixon to cover up any involvement his administration had in such trespass."

I would suggest we refactor the first sentence and lede to summarise the events a little more fluently a la Watergate, and be clear that the scandal is linked directly to the behaviour of Trump in an official capacity (we should summarise the origin of the phonecall, and the context of the alleged coercion, and subsequent attempts at covering it up that prompted the whisteblower to come forwards).

I would also suggest the lede is a little scant in detail currently compared to the complexity of the situation, and actually downplays the allegations and severity of the potential scandal. For instance "reports revealed that U.S. President Donald Trump, his lawyer Rudy Giuliani and top Trump administration officials asked the government of Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden – Trump's potential opponent in the 2020 presidential election – and his son Hunter Biden, reportedly in exchange for U.S. military aid to Ukraine." but most sources interpret this as not merely an "ask" but an attempt at coercion (I would suggest that we reference the Democrat position vs the "No quid pro quo" argument from Republicans and the president), it also feels like the significance of requesting a foreign government for help in interfering in the US election is also underplayed by referring only to the asking them to "investigate". We kind of imply the link, but almost all sources are explicit in suggesting there is a link - and the whistleblower is quite clear too. The final paragraph kind of hits the meat of the subject but we have waffled a bit by then. I would also suggest that instead of "reportedly in exchange" we should probably couch the whole sentence from the POV of the whistleblower. I would suggest an initial lede and structure as below:

The Trump-Ukraine scandal is an ongoing American political scandal, that issued from a whisteblower report outlining concerns that U.S. President Donald Trump had attempted to use political pressure to coerce the government of Ukraine to open investigations into potential Democratic nominee Joe Biden as part of an effort to influence the US 2020 Presidential Election. It is alleged that U.S. military aid to Ukraine was withheld and made conditional at this time. In September 2019 a formal impeachment inquiry by the House of Representatives into President Trump was announced by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Paragraph2: details of the allegations, people involved.

Paragraph3: details of the impeachment proceedings, start of hearings, significant people.

Paragraph4: details of discussion points / claims & counter claims / other pertinent information.

Open to comments, suggestions and feedback - I literally threw it together as a prompt for discussion! Koncorde (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

This is a good start. I'd add maybe a concrete timeframe to the start of the first sentence "...that first came to prominence through a July 2019 whisteleblower complaint alleging..." rather than having it inferred by the impeachment inquiry date. Worth noting in the second paragraph would be the patent illegality of soliciting foreign electoral interference, the illegality of blocking congressionally approved aid without explanation, and the purported quid pro quo for personal electoral benefits. To round it out, the other regular money-oriented corruption belongs in the lede too. I had tagged the intro with MOS:LEADLENGTH earlier because it was too long, but two paragraphs is too short.-Ich (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I concur: good start! XOR'easter (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe the quid for tat is now conceded by the Trump Administration. No need for "alleged"? SPECIFICO talk 14:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about the complaint date, if only because it was temporarily delayed in becoming public. Was not sure if we say when it was made, or when it became public? On "alleging" vs "outlining concerns", they are much of a muchness - I would need to check how the RS's talked about it, but I don't think that the whisteblower complaint should be summarised as allegations (but I could be wrong). Finally I would have leave the arguments of legality to paragraph 2 where the significant issues could be outlined in one fell swoop, with a summary of some key sources. Koncorde (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The reason the lede is in its current state was because it was over-bloated as ledes go, and was tagged as such (see diff). The tag stayed there for number of a few days. Then User:Sandstein resolved this situation by first moving most all of the content into the new "Summary" section (see diff), which helpfully shortened the lede, and the "lead too long" issue was resolved and Sandstein removed the tag (see diff).

Personally, I don't think we need to get carried away with adding material back into the lede. Notice in the first diff Sandstein says, "Some re-summarizing should take place in the lead, but no longer than a few sentences." Meaning we should keep the lede short. I can also interpret this to mean let the summary section and the other sections carry the load.

We have so much happening around the Trump-Ukraine fiasco that we are continually adding new information. Every day for the last several weeks - one, two, or three things have been covered in the media regarding this topic. I think there's no need to worry about the lead right now. There's enough going on.

I pinged Sandstein for first hand input. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

All good points. Let's focus on the chronology of events. Also since most of the events "alleged by the whistleblower" have been thoroughly buttressed by subsequent documentation and testimony, I think the whistleblower should get only a passing reference in the lede, as "concerns first raised by a whistleblower". An aside: as per the complaint itself it was dated 12 August 2019. I made a similar point on Talk:Mueller Report that it's better to avoid focusing on the chronology of when things became public in favor of the chronology of the actual events. The Ukraine scandal didn't begin with the Trump/Zelenskyy phone call. How about a lede hewing closer to this chronology?
...The scandal concerns efforts by President Donald Trump [and his surrogates] to encourage foreign countries, in particular Ukraine, to investigate the family of Joe Biden, a political rival. In exchange for investigating Biden, the Trump administration offered to release $400 million in U.S. military aid that had been blocked at the behest of Trump. A number of contacts were established between the White House and the government of Ukraine [in May 2019?], culminating in a July 2019 phone call between Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the president of Ukraine. The scandal reached public attention through an August 2019 whistleblower complaint which raised concerns about the legality and ethics of Trump using congressionally approved funds to encourage a foreign government to interefere in a U.S. election to the president's personal political benefit. After a summary of the call was published, an impeachment investigation was initiated by Nancy Pelosi.
The direct wording is absolutely not as polished as it ought to be, but it establishes at least the context of what started this, who is involved, when did this start, why did Trump want to do this, and what was at stake.-Ich (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I've not previously edited this article, I think, and don't really intend to do so any more apart from having helped to clean up what I thought was a very unsightly and bloated lead. So I leave the content discussions to those better acquainted with the issue. I would urge, however, not to add much more back into the lead. It should highlight the key points of interest to readers, which are: what's the scandal about, who are the major players involved, and what are the most important events related to it (such as the impeachment inquiry). I don't think that blow-by-blow accounts of the various whistleblowers, statements by political actors, etc., belong in the lead. Sandstein 16:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC) - And for what it's worth, I agree that the lead could be more artfully written, as noted by the OP. There's no real need to begin with a "definition" of the bolded article title, for instance, as that title seems to be more of an appellation of convenience, and isn't as well established as "Watergate scandal". Sandstein 17:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

If we are in agreement to restructure a bit, then I will draft up the other paragraphs / sentences. As a lede I do think it should as a matter of good etiquette always summarise the full article. So while I can appreciate not wanting to over bloat it, it does need some expanding to cover the pertinent point and key players and the ongoing structure of the investigation. Koncorde (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I jumped in and redid the intro along the lines of Ich's suggestion. Further improvements are doubtless possible. XOR'easter (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

IMO, the lead has swung from too long to too short. I suggest the pendulum should settle somewhere closer to the middle. soibangla (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the changes aren't a necessary improvement Xor. It's meandering and is really introducing a lot of synthetic arguments. Koncorde (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Koncorde: You have a good point about synthesis. My previous suggestion should have clearly attributed the "at the behest of Trump" to Mulvaney but I was also trying to avoid a paragraph-long sentence. Further: how much weight should be given to Mulvaney's comments? I think the summary "Donald Trump both personally and indirectly pressured the government of Ukraine (et al) to investigate Biden, a domestic political rival" is fully supported by the body and doesn't need further caveats. I do think the "we-were-just-concerned-about-corruption-in-Ukraine" justifications are laughably flimsy, given the call summary and multitude of public statements both Trump and Giuliani have made on the matter.-Ich (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with XOR. Putting more in the lead right now is counterproductive. What will happen is editors will come along and keep adding more and more information into the lead (because this or that is so important that it must go there! or because it was convenient). This is what happened before. Also, I do not agree there is SYNTHESIS in the lead. And knowing XOR, it is highly doubtful that they would allow SYNTH in the lead. Additionally, the lead really does sum up the article from a perspective equal to 30,000 feet in a plane. I recommend adding to other sections in the body. That is always welcome. Steve Quinn (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

On that note, I am noticing consensus has not been reached for changing the lead or adding to the lead. So, we will need more editor input. I do appreciate the desire for improvement by a couple of editors. "Sometimes perfection is the enemy of the good" - I forget who said that. Steve Quinn (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Consensus is not really required to make improvements Steve, also XOR is the one who added more to the lede and has stated that he thinks it can be further improved... So not sure what element of his statement you are agreeing with (from what I can see you are the only one vouching for the status quo). On the subject of synthesis, we need to be clear who did what and when. Less is more when it is summarised clearly and attributed. At present it's a bit wishy washy. It is also placing some of the claims in Wikipedia's voice as attributed to nobody, when we need to be clear that these are coming from specific sources and perspectives. Koncorde (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• I think current version is good, informative, and actually better than the suggested new version. Yes, it is longer, but not too long and properly describes everything. My very best wishes (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Koncorde, consensus is required when edits are in dispute. And particularly in the lead, see how much discussion there is on what's supposed to be in the lead over at Trump's biography talk page and some other pages pertaining to Trump. Here is what XOR wrote: I jumped in and redid the intro along the lines of Ich's suggestion. Further improvements are doubtless possible. So, he edited "along the lines of Ich's suggestion" and in doing so they may have added a bit more to succinctly capture the summary of this article.

Still, they did edit according to Ich's suggestion. The he wrote "Further improvements are doubtless possible". So, I am not the only one vouching for some sort of status quo - which is a mischaracterization. Additionally, Sandenstein said keeping the lead to a few sentences (or thereabouts) is the best way to go. So this means there is not consensus for adding to the lead, or changing it at this time. And saying it's a bit "wishy washy" is your opinion and in contrast, I think it is very clear and to the point.

Wiki voice is acceptable when backed up by in-line references. Being clear that is comes from different sources - so and so reported this, him and her reported that - can lead to clutter. Also, note another editor chimed in supporting the current version. Please don't make misleading statements such as I am the only one when that is patently not true. I gotta say, it seems you have some sort of agenda here, the way you keep arguing that the lead has to be edited according to your standards. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, please read the templates at the top if this page. This page is under sanctions, and editing behavior on a talk page falls under the purview of those sanctions. It says, "The article Trump–Ukraine scandal is currently subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see WP:ARBAPDS)". Steve Quinn (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Err. Okay Steve. At this point I am taking that as a clear and unequivocal threat for something that hasn't happened, been suggested will happen, or likely to happen. I don't believe any edits are in dispute, as no edits have taken place other than the one you so far approve of. I have never edited the page other than to update it today post the page move. You are seriously failing any degree of WP:AGF.

I suggested that the lede could be improved and what could be a potential outline in order to establish a consensus for moving (but to be clear, to make changes to the article does not require consensus, 1RR rule applies to reinstating content which I don't see anyone advocating), I then fed back that the changes made by XOR are not necessarily the best for both format and clarity and my concern over synth (inline citations are irrelevant if we are using multiple such citations to build a synthetic argument).

I do not believe I have mischaracterised anyones comments or your position; "Further improvements are doubtless possible" is saying that it can be improved... that is not an argument for the status quo of even the updated lede. And while Sandstein said to "not to add much more back into the lead" he did also state that he believed it could be more artfully written.

I have done nothing but give completely independent opinion for users to discuss about what I see is a deficiency. In any case, the below would be a suggested format of the existing information. Less happy with the second sentence and balancing the opening paragraphs with the more detailed summary second paragraph but others can feed back. Koncorde (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I gotta apologize. I misread XOR's comment. And, I didn't mean to come on that strong. I appreciate that you haven't mischaracterized anyone's comment or their position. Also, in general, consensus is required when edits are in dispute. That is Wikipedia wide. Please read this: Achieving consensus through discussion. In any case, there doesn't seem to be consensus against this. I was wrong. Also, thanks for proposing on the talk page. I will step aside for a bit, and give other editors an opportunity to comment. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I changed the target for the link to the related subsection. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

No offence taken, and I have no intention of negating your input so please feedback and make contributions to the below, or suggest an alternative even if it's the original or the current. Thanks for the fix Ich. Per above, I would recommend anyone and everyone feel free to rip it apart. I am not precious about the current layout or content, I just think it reads slightly better'ish in this structure and I still think it is perhaps a little light on some qualifying information (particularly around other interested parties, and other allegations such as his sacking of the Ambassador to Ukraine). Even a blanket sentence such as "following the release of the call transcript, the conduct of several other Trump Administration, or personal representatives were called into question." Koncorde (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I like the flow of the proposed lede. I'd like to see some more clarity around the nature of the investigations, because there been a lot written in the body about how patently false and thoroughly discredited the conspiracy theories about Crowdstrike (and Biden) are. As far as I've gathered, "anti-corruption" is a laughably transparent pretext. Noisily opening a demonstrably baseless investigation serves to muddy the waters and taint public opinion, which is the point, while having nothing to with eliminating actual corruption. How about: ...and to lend support to discredited conspiracy theories... or something that accurately conveys the bad faith nature of the administration's requests. An unfamiliar reader might get the impression that the underlying investigations could be potentially legitimate, which is demonstrably not the case.-Ich (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

That's a bit synthy unless attributed. A standalone sentence such as "The accusations against Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden, have been described as unfounded and Trump's demands were rejected by the Ukraine former Chief Prosecutor Yuri Lutsenko." And "While the call to investigate Crowdstrike who were involved in identifying the perpetrators of the DNC cyber attacks has been categorised as a conspiracy theory." Two ugly sentences but easy to cite independent of each other with no risk of bleed (although I am sure we might find one source that tackles both issues). Just need to compose properly. Koncorde (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Suggested lede

The Trump-Ukraine scandal is an ongoing political scandal focused upon the actions of the U.S President Donald Trump and his surrogates in attempting to influence Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to open investigations into a key political rival. In exchange the Trump administration offered to release $400 million in U.S. military aid that had been blocked at the behest of Trump.

The scandal reached widespread public attention through an August 2019 whistleblower complaint which detailed their urgent concern that on a July 2019 phone call with Zelensky, Trump sought to use political pressure to coerce the government of Ukraine to open investigations into potential Democratic nominee Joe Biden as part of an effort to influence the US 2020 Presidential Election, and find evidence that might undermine the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. It is alleged that U.S. military aid to Ukraine was withheld and made conditional at this time which raised concerns about the legality and ethics of Trump using congressional approved funds to encourage a foreign government to interfere in a U.S. election.

In September 2019 after a summary of the call was published, a formal impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump by the House of Representatives was announced by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Koncorde (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Koncorde: - we need to stress things that are already confirmed by the White House. The allegations are no longer just allegations. We have corroboration by the White House itself, (1) call asked to investigate Bidens, (2) call asked to investigate Crowdstrike / server, (3) call asked to work with Barr / Rudy, (4) call summary placed in highly classified location, (5) Mulvaney: military aid tied in part to server investigation, (6) Trump publicly: Ukraine, China, please investigate Bidens. starship.paint (talk) 02:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

What starship.paint says is accurate. It turns out there was more that Trump and Giuliani wanted besides investigating Joe and Hunter Biden and Burisma. It was actually a widespread plan that included dirt on the Bidens, but also to try to invalidate the Special Counsel's investigations and findings, as well as cook up information that would say it was Ukrainians who interfered in the 2016 election to help Democrats and discredit Trump. That last part is where the Crowdstrike conspiracy theory comes into play. And Giuliani, as we all know, has been a key figure, as Trump's surrogate in the Ukraine, while hijacking America's Ukrainian foreign policy, while subordinating the State Department to his direction, and whatever else. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Dont stand on ceremony guys, just make the changes and / or suggest alternative wording. I just re-parsed the new lede a little which used the above terminology (I think). I originally suggested we should mention a few notable people but concerns were raised over length so I haven't added that level of detail. Koncorde (talk) 07:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I had to change the sentence about the $400 million in aid so it would be more accurate. It took two edits - see edit history. Although Mulvaney admitted to a quid pro quo, at least in part, because coverage in the media shows Trump wanted more, I don't think Wikipedia should definitively say at this point in the intro that quid pro quo is surely true. First, because so far only Mulvaney appears to literally confirm this, and that is only one person, and investigating the server is only a part of what Trump wanted. Second, I think Mulvaney's admission is now in the second paragraph of the intro. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Slightly concerned changes in the live Lede have just gone a bit sledgehammery with detail for what is required. Will look at refactoring. Koncorde (talk) 10:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

One other point: "...and to additionally enlist their assistance with the Department of Justice's current investigation into the origins of the probe into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections". Aside from this whole sentence being quite long, this also takes the purported, nominal goal of the investigation at face value. From what I've read, the request is for Ukraine to further "investigate" (i.e. manufacture fake evidence or at least muddy the waters) where a thorough investigation has already take place, precisely because it would undermine the conclusions of the Mueller Report et al. We are giving those claims undue weight when we uncritically repeat the administration's pretext. Heaps of evidence points to it being a bad faith request.-Ich (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Would concur with above which is why I restructured the phrasing in my outline. The lede should set up the premise, it doesn't need to get into the who said what to who and when and under what pretext. Koncorde (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I fixed it. I left the second paragraph in place, but I don't think that needs to be in the lead section. SPECIFICO talk 16:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure all agree that you "fixed it". As you noted it was a bold edit, but I believe it over simplifies and gets out ahead of where the story currently is. Some content is stated as fact, when the story isn't there yet. I reverted to the prior lead's first paragraph.Garp21 (talk) 10:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Exactly what do you think is not "there yet"? Do you read mainstream news reports and descriptions of events? I am very careful about sourcing and language. If you have no specifics, this just looks like a POV revert. SPECIFICO talk 15:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not a POV edit. I simply reverted to the lead prior to your change. Your change removed any "strongly suspected" or "reportedly" descriptors. Words like "coerce" is a trigger word. Of course I read mainstream media, that seems an insult to WP:AGF. I strongly believe in adherence to WP:NPOV. My thought is let's let the investigation and thus the story play out into factual conclusions, which I suspect it will (it's early still). Garp21 (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The second sentence of the lede (The scandal revolves around efforts...) is a rather long journey. At the very least, it should be split. Moreover, the second half (beginning and to additionally enlist those countries' assistance) grants the DOJ "investigation" more legitimacy than our sources do. XOR'easter (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Our sources don't grant the Biden investigations very much legitimacy either, but I'd like to see strong RSs before calling them entirely unfounded. How about: The scandal involves efforts by U.S. President Donald Trump and his surrogates to encourage Ukraine and other countries to engage in investigations that would personally benefit Trump. In a phone call and subsequent press conference, Trump urged both Ukraine and China to open corruption inquiries into former vice president and current 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden; to date, there is no evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden. Additionally, Trump requested Ukranian support on a politcally motivated Department of Justice investigation that seeks to "prove" a debunked conspiracy theory about Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. I trimmed a little and tried to get at the heart of the accusations first and then giving each one its own sentence. I'm on the fence about the "no evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden" - it might be too far up in the article to "exonerate" them, but as I mentioned above, evidence points to this being an unfounded investigation looking for (potentially manufactured) dirt on the Bidens and don't want to take any of the claims at face value over RSs. I don't know if mentioning China specifically belongs at all. I'd absolutely want to have a strong citation attached directly to the words "politically motivated" (preferably a direct quote) and link it to an appropriate page about the Crossfire Hurricane counter-investigation, although there's not too much written on-wiki about Barr's investigation yet. Bloomberg might be a decent supporting source. The scare quotes on "prove" might also be out of place, but I want it to be clear no "proof" will ever emerge barring (no pun intended) wholesale fabrication of evidence. Maybe "long-debunked" would convey the meaning better. Suggestion?-Ich (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Any version can be improved, but I'd suggest we work off of my revision which is at least written in proper English sentences and is reasonably succinct and lead-style. A committee meeting is not going to improve the previous mess, now restored, and we'll end up with 20 suggestions here, each of them with one advocate. SPECIFICO talk 22:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, is this the version you had in mind? XOR'easter (talk) 03:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm okay with the version linked by XOR if some of the language like "coerce" and "extort" are either be softened to attributed directly to strong RSs. I'd still want to see consensus before taking it live, such as an RFC. In the meantime, I'd like to improve on the version that is live.-Ich (talk) 08:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@XOR'easter: Yes, that version. First, the English words coerce and extort reflect RS descriptions of events as well as primary sources such as testimony, transcripts, etc. Second, this has nothing to do with "investigation" -- the purpose of the Trump/Giuliani campaign was/is to generate a damaging narrative that would then be called an "investigation". This too is amply Verified by the sources. We cannot water down and weasel up our language at the expense of clear narrative in our cited references. SPECIFICO talk 14:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Use of extortion

SPECIFICO, I'm basically fine with that version, then, up to relatively minor choices of wording. For example, I think "refers to" is against Wikipedia house style, and in this case, I tend to agree that it's somewhat weak phrasing. And I might add something like "contrary to established procedure" to the sentence about the call record being locked up. If we could tie a "strong RS" or two directly to the word extort, that would be great. XOR'easter (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I agree with Xor. I probably should have said it above, but I think the words "extort" and "coerce" appropriately represent the sources, but because they are very strong words with strongly criminal connotations, my concerns were more to preempt the inevitable challenges. And if the only sources we could find were Business Insider and the NY Post (not the likes of WaPo, LA Times, NYT, or Guardian) I wouldn't want to do it, but high-quality sources have not shied away from using the word "extort" to describe Trump's conduct. Here are some that can be copy-pasted. And that's not even the entire first page of Google results. I am perhaps over-cautious about including opinion pieces, but newspapers seem confident enough that any lawsuits for the word "extort" would go nowhere. WaPo says "We have never had a president ask a foreign government to interfere in an election on his behalf, and use taxpayer-funded aid to extort an ally into this breach of American sovereignty." Salon.com says "Extorting Ukraine is bad enough, but Trump has done much worse" (and that's just the headline). Then there's NBC News and The Washington Examiner use the term liberally. "Coerce" is used by Time and Vanity Fair. I suppose that's enough support for the lede.-Ich (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Ich, I concur: pre-empting the "inevitable challenges" is my chief concern. Thank you for locating those sources. XOR'easter (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

References

I strongly disagree, and WP categorically rejects article text that does not represent the NPOV WEIGHT of mainstream RS, especially to accommodate or enable vetoes in the form of "inevitable challenges" from editors who deny policy and sourcing on the subject. SPECIFICO talk 19:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I am confused. To me, it sounds like both Ich and I are mostly happy with the lede you wrote. We are just expecting that somebody is going to come along and say "extort is POV!!!" So we want to be able to come back and say, "It is the exact word used by all these reliable sources, already listed in the article itself." We want to preempt the challenges we foresee, not accept them. XOR'easter (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Ha. Fixed it. SPECIFICO talk 20:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

That makes much more sense! :-) XOR'easter (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Please review the versio±n that appeared to be near consensus. In particular your version omits sourced terms in favor of 'pessure. Most importantly, there is no investigation involved. Only smears misrepresented as "investigation". Please revise your version. Consensus is required. SPECIFICO talk 03:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Where in all this verbiage is the "near consensus" version? Is it the one in green above? I have been away for several weeks so didn't participate in the discussion, but I think that version could be greatly improved. I'll try in the morning to come up with a compromise proposal. Can we at least agree that the first sentence should not say "The Trump–Ukraine scandal is an ongoing political scandal in the United States, beginning in 2019" - in effect "the scandal is a scandal"? -- MelanieN (talk) 04:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed on that point. A tautology is a tautology. This was the version that we supported provided the words "extort" and "coerce" had direct attribution (sources above). This consensus occurred before Bill Taylor's testimony. I suppose this is one of the pitfalls of working on a page documenting ongoing events.-Ich (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Repeating the word is a fault of the name of the article having the word "scandal" in it as its proper name. If it was called the "Trump-Ukraine Affair" there wouldn't be an issue. As such this is not a tautology per se. Koncorde (talk) 09:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I was not aware of any consensus. All I saw and participated in was a discussion. I don't think there was any consensus. We are not required to use the most shocking verbiage available. I thought MelanieN did an excellent job. I think that version is or should be the consensus version. Or we should take a formal vote or something like that. --Steve Quinn (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

And we are not a newspaper and not required to use words like "extort", "cheat", "blackmail", "annihilate", "devastate", "smash", "nuke" and so on. In fact we have a central policy known as NPOV - which requires neutral wording. This is not radio station requiring a "shock jock" in the morning to jolt people awake. --Steve Quinn (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

And, Rudy Giuliani is Trump's personal attorney - and this is covered in wp:rs. Claiming this is not in line with NPOV is incorrect. Saying Giuliani is Trump's personal spokesman is probably incorrect and is not in agreement with NPOV to me. The press refers to him as Trump's personal attorney. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Coming back this morning, I intended to do a comparison of the two versions and try to work out some kind of agreement. But I see that multiple people have already been editing and changing the version I put in, so in effect it is already a community document. A couple of comments: I do agree that Giuliani is always described as Trump's personal lawyer and so should we (even though in our opinion he acts more like a spokesman than a lawyer). And I removed the word "extort" which is is NPOV - basically accusing a crime in Wikipedia's voice. If we use it anywhere, it should be in cited opinion material. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Both Mulvaney and Giuliani have publicly stated that the administration attempted extortion. The word "exact" in this context is likewise criminal. "Exact" is synonymous but less clear. Extort is not a tabloid word, it's a very specific description of what the Administration and now RS reporting of State Dept. witness depositions tell us was done. There's no POV involved. The word is widely used in RS, and unless we're going to omit the simple description there is no way to avoid the word other than weaseling it. SPECIFICO talk 16:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I would certainly like to see your source for where either Giuliani or Mulvaney "publicly stated that the administration attempted extortion." I don't mean where they described activities which in your opinion amount to extortion; I mean where they actually said the word. Or for that matter any Reliable Source (reporting, not opinion) using that word. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe your concern was anticipated by the editor who gave a few sources above. Or there's this count. Bear in mind that news analysis by respected journalists, scholars, and professionals is not the same as "opinion" by them or others. And it's good that we can use analysis articles with some perspective, because the alternative is to cobble our own perspective from news reporting and Original Research. SPECIFICO talk 19:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I asked for a citation where either Giuliani or Mulvaney "publicly stated that the administration attempted extortion." You claimed they both did. Bottom line: they didn't; that was your interpretation of what they said. Please be more careful about attributing words to people. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with "exact" but it is slightly less common in use and I usually try to aim for language understandable to a first-year college student. Given that Wiktionary defines it as "To demand and enforce the payment or performance of, sometimes in a forcible or imperious way." or "To inflict; to forcibly obtain or produce." so I wouldn't consider it a softening of the language, either.-Ich (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

"Exact" is not bad, but it does seem a bit less common or familiar, without really softening the statement. I think the sources gathered above are adequate to support the use of "extort" if we want to employ it. XOR'easter (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

This is not an either/or situation. There is no requirement that we use "exact" or "extort." There a plenty of other words available: "extract", "obtain", "procure", "elicit", "attain", "collect", and so on. It seems to me it's kind of rigid to have to use some form of extort, just because the media have used it. Both "extort" and "exact" are loaded words. I think "extract" is a loaded word, but not as loaded as extort. Also, per wp:wikivoice:

• Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize.
• Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

So, at the least, if we are going to use "extort" then it should be attributed - The New York Times said this... The Washington Post said that... and so on.

Lastly, I think the lead is looking good right now - kudos to the person or persons who wrote it - ironing out small kinks is all that is needed right now, imho. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Genocide for example, is used to describe genocides. Extort is used to describe extortion. We call it Murder of John Lennon not "Sunsetting of John Lennon". There's nothing disparaging about "extort" -- it's just what RS tell us was the event. That's quite different than if the article were to state that Trump's actions were contemptible, worthy of his impeachment, a tad impolite, etc. etc. SPECIFICO talk 19:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

And one more thing per wp:wikivoice:

• Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them.

---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't really like the word "exact" either. (For clarity, we are discussing the sentence Trump blocked payment of a congressionally mandated $400 million military aid package in order to exact quid pro quo cooperation from Volodymyr Zelensky, the president of Ukraine.) How about "obtain"? "encourage"? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The "revolves" word has me grimacing a little. I get the intended meaning but it just reads a little newsy. Focused / concentrated / originating etc might be better. Koncorde (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think "obtain" is really good. "Encourage" is certainly acceptable. Even "elicit" seems to have negative connotations.

I think, "revolves" is OK for now.--Steve Quinn (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I think "obtain" might be my favorite right now. I think I might have been the first editor to introduce the "revolves" part (trying to replace "refers to," which seemed a trifle limp); I have no strong feelings about whether or not to replace it, and I'm certainly open to suggestions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, all. I have changed it to "obtain". As for the word "extort" or "extortion", as far as I am concerned it can only be used when attributed, in text, to a named source. Not in Wikipedia's voice. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, there' no consensus for "obtain". The word extort has been removed, so any concerns about that being a BLP problem are met. Nobody's pre-emptively reinserting that word. I hope you'll self-revert per "consensus is required" Discretionary Sanctions. Otherwise, I may do so. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 22:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary, there is at least a mini-consensus right before your eyes - MelanieN, me and XOR. Edit approved and accepted. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

C'mon. This is changing hour by hour. A while back folks were posting references for "extort" and seeking to pre-empt uninformed objections. Then we looked for a substitute, and at least 3 substitutes have been tried on like prom dresses -- each one our fave until the next one rolls out. It's not helpful to rush something into the article in the context of an ongoing search. And behavior like that is costly because it ends up with somebody like me proposing a formal poll or worse yet an RfC over a little detail. It's much better if everyone has a little patience. Consensus is obvious and part of it would be that the consensus occurs before the edit and not within 20 minutes of a new word having been proposed. SPECIFICO talk 23:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

There has been a 3-1 consensus in place for over 24 hours, no one else has chimed in, so I changed it back from the archaic "exact" to "obtain". There has been plenty of time for others comment. And others are still welcome to comment. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Steve that is not how we gauge consensus. Consensus is required - your reinsertion broke DS so I undid it. Slow down. SPECIFICO talk 03:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Extort continue

For what it's worth, the current version of Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump uses "extort" twice in the first three paragraphs and nobody has seen cause to discuss it on the talk page. I think it is handled fairly over there and would adopt similar wording. (Correction: once.)-Ich (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I went over and checked that out. First of all, the phrase misattributed Taylor saying, "that he had gradually become aware of the existence of a quid-pro-quo extortion." This is not correct. None of three in-line citations attribute him saying "aware of...extortion" or "...quid-pro-quo extortion." In reference 26 it says, "sketched out in remarkable detail a quid pro quo pressure campaign on Ukraine" [1].

Reference 27 says, "that the president withheld military aid from Ukraine in a quid pro quo effort to pressure that country’s leader to incriminate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and smear other Democrats" [2]. In Reference 28, the opening paragraph, it does use "extort" in connection with Taylor's testimony [3], but that is the media organization's voice. And consider the fact this is The Intercept. Their wording will tend to be salacious at times, when other more mainstream media would not be the same.---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

WP editors are not parrots who only repeat words without knowing their meaning. If RS unambiguously describe extortion or unambiguously describe coercion, we routinely substitute the single-word nouns or verbs in our WP articles to summarize the sources. And it has nothing to do with The Intercept, so dragging that useless reference into the discussion is an unfortunate strawman.

When Trump said "grab them by the pussy", would you argue WP could not refer to "genitals" "crotch" "private parts" or other words that, in context and with supporting detail, unambiguously convey the meaning reported by RS? There's no rational, policy-based excuse not to use "coerce" or "extort" to describe those actions. And I'm pretty sure that most of the objections that may be raised in any follow-on posts here have already been refuted, so we should all review the discussion before complicating it further. SPECIFICO talk 02:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

In the first place, we do not substitute our own language for the language of the sources (in other words, even if we think what the source is describing amounts to coercion or extortion, we cannot cite them as saying so). We can substitute synonyms, as in the example you give, but we cannot substitute interpretations. More important, the section under discussion here is about what Taylor said. We absolutely cannot cite him as talking about the "existence of a quid-pro-quo extortion", because that is not what he said. That would be encyclopedic malpractice. I have warned you here once already about attributing things to people that they did not say - putting words in their mouth. I am now warning you again. Don't do this. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

In the first place, this thread predates the discussion of Taylor. I asked editors to review the thread before posting. The synonym bit is another straw man. We paraphrase for a living around here. We just need to do it responsibly and neutrally. SPECIFICO talk 03:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

In the written verbatim opening statement, Taylor does not use the word "extortion" in 15 printed pages [4]. So this makes a misattribution like that even worse. He certainly doesn't use the phrase "...that he had gradually become aware of the existence of a quid-pro-quo extortion". (Redacted) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

And Taylor only uses "quid-pro-quo" in his voice only once, at the end of his statement, as part of his two-part (small) summation, along with a succession of other noun-adjectives. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

He does quote Trump or Sondland saying something to the effect there was no quid-pro-quo. Trump might be partially basing his claims of no quid-pro-quo on those few lines. If that is the case, then in essence he is quoting himself in from Taylor's opening statement, to publicly make the case there is or was no quid-pro-quo. However, this is only speculation on my part. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually Sondland did say, in a tweet to Taylor, that there was no quid-pro-quo, but he later said the language of that tweet had actually been dictated to him by Trump. So Trump is basically quoting himself. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

SPECIFICO. I'm noticing that your last response was inserted in the wrong place (probably in error). It was inserted above my last two responses, and should be placed below below MelanieN. Please look at the time stamps. Would you mind inserting your response to the correct place? Thanks very much. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The Intercept citation is one of the inline citations that supports that attribution to Taylor, so it is perfectly valid to bring it into the discussion. It has nothing to do with nefarious motives. It is merely a fact. And I believe The Intercept is acceptable RS. But probably, it's best to use it in conjunction with less adversarial RS. I certainly didn't put it there. And, Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: Correct, WP:RSP lists it as generally reliable for news but has a political bias and should be used with attribution.-Ich (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Ich. Thanks for looking into that. --Steve Quinn (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I remembered what I was trying to think of before. "Extortion" with its heavy negative connotations, seems to be a peacock word, and counters the impartiality of the tone to which Wikipedia aspires. It is similarly briefly stated within the paragraphs at wp:wikivoice. So, there seems to be good policy based reasoning for not using heavily loaded words - because this is an encyclopedia. "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes." [5].

Also, just to be clear, I'm not seeing any previous"arguments" that have been successfully refuted, as seems to be claimed above. So, some stuff might get repeated. I don't know. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

For starters, that claim WP should not use "extort" because, um, extortion isnt nice -- I addressed that at least twice above. See "genocide". Extort is simply a word that describes certain actions that mainstream RS document. Nonsense claims like, "if Trump didn't say 'I extort thee', etc. are just not how it works around here. This talk page is a mess right now because there are abstract discussions of nothing useful. What needs to happen first is article content needs structure, proportion, and NPOV. The lead wording will follow. there has to be some focus on process that is liekly to be productive. SPECIFICO talk 04:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I never said WP should not use "extort" or other heavily loaded words, because "extortion" isn't "nice". That's not what I'm saying at all. Basically, I see it as an identity issue. This is not print or broadcast media with a need to fulfill a bottom line. Wikipedia is not looking for hooks, or shocking words, to grab attention. "A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view." [6]. It has nothing to with "nice", there is no policy that supports "nice" wording. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding loaded words in general: "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias...[t]ry to state the facts more simply without using...loaded words -- [7]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Wording of the lead sentence

Originally the lead sentence said

• The Trump–Ukraine scandal is an ongoing political scandal in the United States, beginning in 2019.[1][2][3] It revolves around efforts by U.S. President Donald Trump and his surrogates to encourage Ukraine and other foreign countries to investigate...

My rewrite of the lead sentence said

• The Trump–Ukraine scandal describes a series of actions in which U.S. President Donald Trump and his surrogates used pressure tactics to encourage Ukraine and other foreign countries to investigate…

User:SPECIFICO changed it to

• The Trump–Ukraine scandal refers to efforts by President Donald Trump to coerce Ukraine and other foreign countries to provide damaging narratives…

User:Sandstein said we should not use “refers to” or similar, per wiki style preference, so he changed it to

• The Trump–Ukraine scandal is an ongoing political scandal in the United States. It revolves around efforts by President Donald Trump to coerce Ukraine and other foreign countries to provide damaging narratives…

So that’s what we now have; we are back to saying “the scandal is a scandal”.

So now what? For now can we at least go back to SPECIFICO’s version, but say “revolves around” instead of “refers to”? Just to get rid of "the scandal is a scandal"?

On "refers", which Sandstein has twice removed: We could say resulted from or something like that. In most case "refers to" can easily be replaced with "is" which is clearly more straightforward. Refers to might be the lesser evil in this case. SPECIFICO talk 20:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

How about “The Trump–Ukraine scandal involves efforts by…” or The Trump–Ukraine scandal arose from a series of actions in which…” ? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Sidenote - I hope you guys don't mind, I moved the investigation stuff down under one topic - "Investigation". Here we can discuss the lead.---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The second set of words - The Trump–Ukraine scandal arose from a series of actions in which…” -- Steve Quinn (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Eh. Take a look at MOS:FIRST.

• "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is. It should be in plain English. ... If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist." What this is is a political scandal (not moral, sexual, etc.), and an American one, not an Ukrainian or Dutch one. In that light, I don't see anything wrong with "The Trump–Ukraine scandal is an ongoing political scandal in the United States". It tells readers plainly what this is about. The alternatives use a lot of fancy words - surrogates, coerce, pressure tactics, narratives. That's political jargon used by pundits and journalists. Not plain English. Keep it simple.
• Moreover: "if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text." So we don't even need to repeat the title. It's made up by us, anyway. We can find a phrasing that avoids it entirely. A simple one, preferably.
• And of course: "Keep the first sentence focused on the subject by avoiding constructions like "[Subject] refers to..." or "...is a word for..." – the article is about the subject, not a term for the subject". Sandstein 22:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

At least I hope we can agree for now that the "is" version is better than all the other proposals that seem to use vague substitutes or near-synonyms for "refer". SPECIFICO talk 22:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree, but let's see your proposal. Something that doesn't say "the scandal is a scandal". Maybe follow Sandstein's hint and not quote the title verbatim in the lead sentence. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

What Sandstein wrote does in part reflect my original thinking about the matter. It was clear to me that "political scandal" in wiki links defines what type of scandal this is. I didn't realize the above was in the MOS. So, I don't mind keeping this in. And, maybe we should consider that plain English is best rather than being too wordy. While we are on the subject, "Trump enlisted surrogates within and outside his official administration, including his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani..."

This seems to be a POV statement - surrogates is descriptive term generally describing a group of people and seems nebulous. It sounds like someone's opinion. Anyway, I think this is UNDUE for the lead. It doesn't seem to be saying anything substantive, imho. Also, the perspective seeing these people as surrogates can be countered by other groups seeing these people as seeming to be only doing their jobs. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

What I mean is, "surrogates" is vague and in fact that whole sentence seems to be a vague assertion. Anyway, to get the ball rolling I think we should stick with MelanieN's second proposal, as I mentioned before. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed lead wording

Proposal 1 - here is my proposal:

• The Trump–Ukraine scandal arose from a series of actions in which efforts by U.S. President Donald Trump intended that Ukraine and other foreign countries provide a damaging narrative about 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidate Joe Biden and about Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. [1][2][3][4][5] Trump blocked payment of a congressionally mandated $400 million military aid package to obtain quid pro quo cooperation from Volodymyr Zelensky, the president of Ukraine. A number of contacts were established between the White House and the government of Ukraine, culminating in a July 2019 phone call between Trump and Zelensky.[1][2][3][6] When Trump's activities were revealed in August 2019, the House of Representatives launched an impeachment investigation.[7] ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2 - a modification of Proposal 1 - MelanieN's proposed wording - see below:

• The Trump–Ukraine scandal arose when U.S. President Donald Trump applied pressure to try to get Ukraine and other foreign countries to launch investigations which would be helpful to Trump’s re-election campaign. Trump blocked payment of a congressionally mandated $400 million military aid package to obtain quid pro quo cooperation from Volodymyr Zelensky, the president of Ukraine. A number of contacts were established between the White House and the government of Ukraine, culminating in a July 2019 phone call between Trump and Zelensky.[1][2][3][6] When Trump's activities were revealed in August 2019, the House of Representatives launched an impeachment investigation.[7] Steve Quinn (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 3 the current lead is proposed by SPECIFICO:

• The Trump–Ukraine scandal is an ongoing political scandal in the United States. It revolves around efforts by U.S. President Donald Trump to coerce Ukraine and other foreign countries into providing damaging narratives about 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidate Joe Biden and about Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Trump enlisted surrogates within and outside his official administration, including his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, Attorney General Bill Barr, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, and Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney to pressure Ukraine and other foreign governments to cooperate in supporting conspiracy theories concerning American politics.[1][2][3][4][5] Trump blocked payment of a congressionally mandated $400 million military aid package in order to obtain quid pro quo cooperation from Volodymyr Zelensky, the president of Ukraine. A number of contacts were established between the White House and the government of Ukraine, culminating in a July 2019 phone call between Trump and Zelensky.[1][2][3][6] When Trump's activities were revealed in August 2019, the House of Representatives launched an impeachment investigation.[7] ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 4 is an option for the lead sentence from Sandstein:

• In October 2019, President of the United States Donald Trump [did questionable things], causing a political scandal and leading to an inquiry into his impeachment. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Survey for proposed lead

Please choose a preferred version:

• Thanks for laying out the options. I prefer Proposal 2. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC) - I copied this from the below discussion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
• I think proposal 2 conforms best to wp:npov and wp:wikivoice. That is what I'm most interested in pertaining to this. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
• None of the above - proposal 3 by Specifico seems least bad though that's mostly indicating how bad I feel they all are;-) . Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
• None of the above - all are misleading and conflict with the actual transcript of the telephone conversation. Beyond that, we have heresay, speculation and partisan allegations by Trump detractors. An inquiry into exactly what took place is ongoing; therefore, I oppose any of these allegations in WikiVoice. It’s all too soon, per RECENTISM. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 09:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC) Adding that as an encyclopedia we should exercise caution regarding the way we include contemporary acts in politics, especially that which is based on testimony in an ongoing private hearing that is controlled by a partisan majority. That is POV, and until historians have had an opportunity to study such acts, we cannot predict long-term impacts. We need less focus on breaking news and should adhere more closely to RECENTISM, and at least wait until the hearings/investigations have concluded. There should not be any weight given beyond the inclusion of in-text attribution to this inquiry considering no criminal charges have been/can be established - see WaPo analysis, whereas the Durham investigation does involve suspected criminal activity and has been elevated to a criminal investigation. (See the link to NYTimes I provided earlier) Mention as to why Trump requested the investigation complies with DUE, but we appear to be non-neutrally focused on a single partisan POV. Our job is to present events that we believe will have lasting historic value in a neutral, dispassionate tone without stating political analysis or a one-sided POV in WikiVoice at this point in time. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

That viewpoint is completely the opposite of what has been reported in the vast majority of reliable sources, however it does align with sources like Breitbart. (breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/26/whistleblower-complaint-entirely-hearsay-media-claims-distorts-ukraine-transcript/) Fortunately, we never use editor's interpretation of a primary source over the reporting of reliable sources.- MrX 🖋 12:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

We do not use narratives found in unreliable sources here. This forbidden advocacy of fringe POV is against policy. Please stop this denigration of the RS-narrative. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• An amalgam of 2 and 3 - My preferred version is somewhere between 2 and 3. The wording "... investigations which would be helpful to Trump’s re-election campaign." in option 2 is too vague. Similarly, the phrase "When Trump's activities were revealed in August 2019..." should be replaced by something more concrete like "Amid August 2019 allegations of constitutional violations by Trump....

Option 3 is rich with detail—so much so that it it will knock reader onto their butts. The sentence that starts "Trump enlisted surrogates within and outside his official administration..." could be shortened to Trump enlisted surrogates within and outside his official administration, including his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani." I prefer "pressure" over "coerce", the later being a bit strong at this point. I don't think we should mention conspiracy theories in the first paragraph. I would prefer that we avoid the phrase "quid pro quo" which is a catchphrase similar to "collusion".- MrX 🖋 12:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Option Twee:

The Trump–Ukraine scandal arose when U.S. President Donald Trump pressured Ukraine and other foreign countries to investigate his political rival, Democratic Party presidential candidate Joe Biden. Toward this end, Trump enlisted surrogates within and outside of his official administration, including his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani. Trump blocked payment of a congressionally mandated $400 million military aid package to obtain cooperation from Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky. A number of contacts were established between the White House and the government of Ukraine, culminating in a July 2019 phone call between Trump and Zelensky. Amid allegations of constitutional violations by Trump, the House of Representatives launched an impeachment investigation in August.

All of this is verifiable in multiple reliable sources.- MrX 🖋 13:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• Option twee is my favorite so far, though the discussion below convinced me that Barr should be mentioned along with Giuliani. XOR'easter (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

No objection to mentioning Barr.- MrX 🖋 17:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Move the impeachment inquiry lead here: The major allegation against Trump right now is not whether he encouraged "conspiracy theories" against the Bidens, but Will Taylor's testimony that he wanted to have Ukraine's president publicly announce the start of investigations into Biden and other top Democrats during the middle of the 2020 campaign. The current lead suggestions here don't even mention this. ZiplineWhy (talk) 21:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

For highly controversial material like what is being proposed for inclusion in the lead, a local survey is not bringing a fair amount of uninvolved editors to the table for a wider view. This needs a formal RfC, not a local survey. In the future, when an editor wants to add highly controversial material, can we please just start with an RfC? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Atsme. To which controversial material are you referring? The proposed leads, or the recent proposal by ZiplineWhy? I'm not clear about this. I think we need to give this thread more time to see if it will crystalize. And then we can do an RFC when there is sufficient input. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Steve - the "Ukrainian scandal" in and of itself is controversial because (1) it is still in the inquiry stage, and (2) it is partisan. The House will have a formal vote on the inquiry Thursday which will confirm the level of partisanship involved. The closed-door testimony did not serve to build much confidence in what has taken place; therefore, we should be adhering more closely to RECENTISM, especially in today's news media environment ^{to which I remain cautiously optimistic so I renewed my subscription to WaPo, and regretted it after reading their description of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi which they quckly changed after receiving criticism over it. I cannot undo what I saw; it obviously represents WaPo's editorial perspective.} Anyway, the allegations in the testimony are not corroborated by the transcript of the phone conversation, and some of it is based on heresay, and/or what may possibly be misinterpretations of what was actually taking place. I tend to write for the enemy as it helps maintain the balance when dealing with partisan divides. As I pointed out below in the Investigation section, there are some elements in articles published in RS that cast doubt on the allegations - such as the Ukrainian president's denial of a quid pro quo, the actual phone transcript, denials by the accused, questionable backgrounds/partisanship/loyalty of a few who gave testimony, and simply not knowing the identity of the whistle-blower, who may actual be a leaker and not a whistle blower per my understanding of the term. A scandal is defined as wrongdoing or immoral behavior but to date, we are still in the allegation stage, not unlike the Trump-Russia collusion allegations that took 2 years to wind down to pretty much a nothing burger that resulted in ongoing investigations of the investigators, several of whom were fired from the FBI. In summary, if it's partisan based, it's likely controversial. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: - (1) questionable backgrounds/partisanship/loyalty of a few who gave testimony - who exactly? (2) the whistle-blower, who may actual be a leaker and not a whistle blower per my understanding of the term - could you back up your understanding with RS? This remarkable claim seems to be totally at odds with RS. starship.paint (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, after all you wrote, you have shown this Ukraine related "stuff" is, at the least, causing controversy. "Controversy" may be an understatement. Maybe something more along the lines of "200 mph tornado" or "Category V hurricane" imho. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• None of the above – Versions 1–3 all state as fact that military aid was withdrawn with a quid pro quo motive, which is putting the cart before the horse, as the impeachment inquiry is supposed to determine whether there was indeed a quid pro quo. The whole paragraph sounds like the foregone conclusion of a trial based only on the prosecution's views. — JFG ^talk 07:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion for proposed lead

Thanks. Just one suggestion: regarding "...scandal arose from a series of actions in which efforts by U.S. President Donald Trump intended that Ukraine and other foreign countries launch..." - now that I look at that again it seems unnecessarily complex. How about "...scandal arose when U.S. President Donald Trump tried to get Ukraine and other foreign countries to launch..." Or "...scandal arose when U.S. President Donald Trump applied pressure to try to get Ukraine and other foreign countries to launch..." -- MelanieN (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I plugged that portion into "Proposal 2" - I figure, why not.---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN:, that's a good suggestion. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: Please add Proposal 3, the corresponding language that's currently in the article. Thanks. You also might add a new section heading to get more eyes on this. It's kind of buried in a long diverse thread. SPECIFICO talk 00:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: - OK, no problem ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for laying out the options. I prefer Proposal 2. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'm commenting only with respect to the style of the first sentence, not with respect to the other content. I'm not a big fan of any option. I'd prefer something like this: "In October 2019, President of the United States Donald Trump [did questionable things], causing a political scandal and leading to an inquiry into his impeachment". This avoids both the repetition of "scandal" and the "refers" issues. What the key issues to be mentioned in the lead sentence are is another matter. Sandstein 13:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

  I would favor hatting this and letting events and RS coverage mature over the next several weeks. With several imperfect or incomplete versions here, it's going to absorb way too much editor time and attention -- maybe with no conclusion, due to the moving target presented by sources and events. WP: NOTNEWS SPECIFICO talk 16:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm thinking about it. The lead really has not changed much over time. See this from about 5 days ago [8]. I'd like to hear from other editors. Ironically, I just announced this discussion at the current bottom of this page [9]. I think I will remove that section until a decision is reached on whether or not to hat and delay. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Would you mind clarifying what you mean by "...several imperfect or incomplete versions..."? If one of the proposals succeeded then that would be the version that is posted - and probably would have to stand without change for awhile. And from my perspective, I don't think future events will impact the lead very much. It seems to me that we already have the overarching issues in place. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, just to give a single counterexample, we had the subsitution of "obtain" as in "obtain a quart of milk at the store before breakfast" for "exact" as in "he bound the farmer to a barnpost and exacted a quart of milk in exchange for her release". So no, I don't think the RS narrative of events is clearly understood by all editors and I think that with time, more editors will join and more editors will read a variety of mainstream sources and our collective judgment will get much better. Also, polls with several very specific proposals invariably invite tweeks and exceptions that lead to even more proposals and a failure of process. Much better to poll (if at all) on a single high-level question, e.g. should we say extort vs. exact, should we say obtain vs. exact. I believe this thread started at that level and then suddenly took a turn for the worse with premature article edits. SPECIFICO talk 17:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

This should certainly not be hatted. It is a productive discussion and deserves to be continued. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

It took me a minute - I think it is best if the discussion proceeds. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• Problems include:

Wording is POV and tangled -- starting by stating conclusions and suspicions and disputed allegations or misleading wording in wikivoice as if not disputed or as if the cause instead of as a conclusion. e.g. 'arose when Trump "applied pressure"' - "applied pressure" (or "coerce Ukraine") is a POV phrasing, disputed, and whatever it is didn't 'arose from' that, it arose from a letter to DNI IG. Similarly "obtain quid pro quo cooperation" at "quid pro quo" and the POV phrase is just an awkward insertion - just "to get cooperation" would be easier to read unles the whole point is to state a POV phrase as if fact and in wikivoice.

Where's what the topic is? - this didn't follow WP:LEAD of start with what the article topic is -- it jumped straight into making biased pronouncements and stating things in the vicinity of the topic.

Excess - 'A number of contacts' ... here it's into details not needed for LEAD ...

Vague - both too long and not saying anything at 'launch investigations' blah blah blah; 'provide damaging narratives' blah blah blah ... Make a short line that actually has specifics Burisma and CrowdStrike in it... 'Biden and son regarding Burisma Holdings' and 'investigate CrowdStrike'. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC) - moved here from the Survey section by me. Steve Quinn (talk) 12:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• I added the new section below because I think it will helpful for this discussion. Please read if interested. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Pointers for the lead

I am copying Sandenstein's comment from an above section because I think they will be helpful: Steve Quinn (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Eh. Take a look at MOS:FIRST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Quinn (talk • contribs) 20:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is. It should be in plain English. ... If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist." What this is is a political scandal (not moral, sexual, etc.), and an American one, not an Ukrainian or Dutch one. In that light, I don't see anything wrong with "The Trump–Ukraine scandal is an ongoing political scandal in the United States". It tells readers plainly what this is about. The alternatives use a lot of fancy words - surrogates, coerce, pressure tactics, narratives. That's political jargon used by pundits and journalists. Not plain English. Keep it simple.
• Moreover: "if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text." So we don't even need to repeat the title. It's made up by us, anyway. We can find a phrasing that avoids it entirely. A simple one, preferably.
• And of course: "Keep the first sentence focused on the subject by avoiding constructions like "[Subject] refers to..." or "...is a word for..." – the article is about the subject, not a term for the subject". Sandstein 22:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Copied from above section by me Steve Quinn (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Seconding the bit about not needing to open the Lead sentence with the the words Trump–Ukraine scandal. Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections is an example of that. ~Awilley (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

This is exactly why it's pointless to get into specific language when there are general points of disagreement among editors here. We now have a poll among three versions, each of which needlessly begin with the article title. That means we now will have at least 6 versions before long, with 3 soon-to-be-added ones that begin with "in September 2019 a whistleblower report concerning..." SPECIFICO talk 00:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

But it *does* need to state what the topic is -- or do some pruning. "Trump-Ukraine" has Australia unrelated to Ukraine phone call. And Lev Parnas is about campaign funds unrelated to Ukraine or CrowdStrike, sooooo -- other than jamming in a lot of negative suspicions in unrelated topic areas it seems here just to be getting to say the word 'russian' again. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

There are some good points here. I think there is value in including the title in the lead sentence, and it can be done naturally. Most subjects can be defined in a single sentence, but this subject is considerably more complex than most, so I think defining it in the first paragraph is sufficient. If readers don't have an attention span of ~100 words, then they are not our desired audience and should be relegated to reading ALL CAPS headlines on Breitbart.- MrX 🖋 13:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

That seems a bit harsh, throwing all people with short attention spans into that basket. I think your point would have been better made using something like "Twitter" instead of Breitbart. ~Awilley (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Good point Awilley 🤣 - MrX 🖋 19:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Sandstein's proposal is far better - it is accurate, and states the facts, not a one-sided allegation. The President of Ukraine stated publicly that he was not pressured by Trump. We have seen the transcript of that phone call. How is it possible that we can ignore what the key people involved in the actual discussion have said; i.e., no pressure? It doesn't make sense. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Nah. Allegations don't have sides. There is about a 0% chance that we will put Zelensky's coerced "no pressure" comment in the lead. As almost every reliable source reports, Trump implicated himself in the phone transcript, and in corroborating witness testimony in several depositions. Trump's state department officials have corroborated the quid pro quo. Even his layer Rudy Giuliani, admitted what Trump had done. Oh, and the butt dials.- MrX 🖋 11:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Reaction section

What is the point of the Reaction section other than to parrot propaganda? I don't care what was said about things. We aren't here to document commentary about the news. WP:NOTNEWS The first two sub sections contain more than 35 quotations when we are supposed to be writing in 1st person Wikipedia voice, summary prose. The other five sections are full of statements, quotes and copies of what was said about things. Wikipedia is not for propaganda of any kind. WP:NOTSOAPBOX - Shiftchange (talk) 01:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia serves millions of people, not just you. Articles are meant to be informative and the "Reaction section" serves Wikipedia's mission to be informative to the public. We derive content from what reliable sources say, which is found in acceptable publications that have mechanisms to review and edit before publication such as The Washington Post, New York Times, the three networks, CNN, Politico, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, and so on.

"Enduring notability of persons and events" is what is in this article - so people can read this history 100, 200 and 500 years from now. So, yes this is not news, it is an encyclopedia. Quotations are acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They can demonstrate accuracy of our entries. Where on Wikipedia does it say we can't use quotations? There are no copies of what was said, that would be copyright violations. And this is hardly propaganda - we have judiciously been in agreement with WP:NPOV throughout this article from top to bottom. I think the assessment is very much inaccurate. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

We do not duplicate content for posterity (that really isn't an encyclopedic intent), there really isn't much point. It's also bad and / or lazy writing, usually because people cannot be bothered to quantify the comments as actual content, or are worried the content will be challenged back to the source of it is not verbatim, or want to use the people / organisations making the comments as some kind of editorial sledgehammer. Lots of people will have opinions on the subject at hand, where appropriate we should reflect those opinions but this doesn't mean a slew of quotations. Btw I have not read the offending section (I am trying to stay away from being involved in another article too heavily at the moment), I am merely commenting from a position of good writing and general MOS guidance. Koncorde (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

The definition of notability includes "enduring" and NOTNEWS. So, posterity is indeed involved in the writing or else we might as well act like a news organization. And where does it say not to use quotations in a Wikipedia articles? Also, the quotes are minimal. This article is not based on opinion. It seems like your comments are acting as an editorial sledgehammer, not the content of this article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the use of quotations is effective writing that favors precision over muddled inaccuracy. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

1. I never said anything about not using quotes. I wholeheartedly support their use. However I did describe situations in which they might be mis-used, or inappropriate, or a symptom of generally failing to do our job to summarise. 2. To that end; that the subject is notable and enduring does not mean every quote on the subject is itself notable or enduring and Wikipedia is not here as some grand archive of quotes on any given subject. 3. Quotes can be used as a crutch by poor writers, or used as a weasel way to insert weight and bias on a subject. They may also be read as not neutral when quotations are provided in a fashion that creates false balance or equivalence. Again, this is not an accusation at editors here, or even this article - it is a statement. 4. I haven't read the offending quotes as I do not believe the person complaining has suggested an improvment, I therefore do not know which ones are being referred to by the person making the complaint or even the make up of the section in question - I am only stating what is common practice and good writing to avoid accusations and accusations of POV. Koncorde (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks for the clarification. And you are correct that quotes can be misused as weasel, inserting weight or bias. I have seen this happen. And good point, just because the subject is notable, not every quote is enduring or notable. I think in this instance - regarding this article - so much was happening as the news unfolded; beginning when the whistleblower complaint broke and the infamous Trump-Zelinski phone call occurred, that it was difficult to keep up, sift through the material for relevance without crossing UNDUE, and then write prose equal to the substance of the quote.

I can't speak for everyone, but I think that is what was happening. Now that the tempo has slowed down quite a bit, the material in this section can be reviewed and prose substituted - as much as anyone cares to do so. After looking at the "Reactions" section, I'm thinking the section needs to be streamlined, besides substituting prose. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

We aren't here to provide information. We are here to provide knowledge. Commentary doesn't include any knowledge beyond "person A said something". That is trivia and off-topic. The subject of all quotations is person A, when we should be discussing the subject of the article with facts, not statements. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Possible 2017 quid pro quo

"In Ukraine, the quid pro quo may have started long before the phone call" WAPO. It looks as though, in 2017, the Trump-Giuliani duo may have influenced the Ukrainian government to "bury" the black ledger, which listed payments to Manafort, and stopped Ukraine's cooperation with the Mueller investigation.

Also, in the WAPO article it says The NYT (c. 2017) "quoted Volodymyr Ariev, a parliament ally of Poroshenko, explaining: 'In every possible way, we will avoid irritating the top American officials.'" There is also a 2017 article in the Kyiv Post about: "Black ledger’ investigation appears to come to a halt" [10]. Interestingly, the current WAPO article is reprinted with credits in the Kyiv Post [11].

Although the WAPO article is an editorial, there seem to be newsworthy elements here, imho. Also, we would need more RS to use this. So, perhaps this will gain traction in the coming days. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Here is a WAPO article about Trump's continuous revulsion toward Ukraine [12] ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

This is very interesting and something we should keep an eye on.- MrX 🖋 10:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Trump's Reverse Cover-Up

Two good opinion articles:

• Trump's Incriminating Conversation With the Ukrainian President
• Trump's Reverse Cover-Up

BullRangifer (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources

More transcripts

The link for the Yovanovich transcript was only working for me intermittently, so I grabbed it when I could and put it on Commons. McKinley's too. The Volker and Sondland transcripts are reportedly being published tomorrow. XOR'easter (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The Sondland transcript is on Commons now, but I have to go to a meeting, so maybe someone else can upload the Volker documents [13][14]. XOR'easter (talk) 19:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Preserving the neutral tone

Since this is an evolving story, and much of the information has yet to be verified, and it is based much around speculation on a transcript, some memos and text messages. I believe that the language is too decisive for such an article, the word "allegedly" should be used in several places where editors have inserted their opinions as fact, especially when early news reports are often incorrect due to the dynamically evolving, and controversial nature of the article's subject. 107.242.125.8 (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

If you have specific areas of concern, please let us know. Koncorde (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

• Editors have stated their opinions as fact - Do you mean wiki editors or news editors? Because there's no unsourced or opinionated content here.  Nixinova  T  C  23:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, definitely need to be more specific. I do not agree with any of those assertions. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Title should be renamed to Trump-Ukraine Controversy. "Scandal" is biased and tabloidish given the fact that no legal adjudication of any criminal wrongdoing has occurred. kornbelt888

It was originally called Trump-Ukraine Controversy, but was changed to scandal by consensus vote, as multiple reliable sources characterized it as a scandal because the deluge of evidence supported that characterization. soibangla (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Nor does calling something a "scandal" require a "legal adjudication" first. XOR'easter (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

add Jennifer Williams, senior adviser to Mike Pence ?

• https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/05/politics/jennifer-williams-impeachment-inquiry

X1\ (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Definitely, since she is testifying. - MrX 🖋 16:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Should Wikipedia name the alleged whistleblower at this point?

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.

WP:SNOW closed. There is no chance that this will happen. - MrX 🖋 19:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

---

A number of far-right conservative outlets have named the alleged whistleblower in recent days. The Washington Examiner has been publishing the name in dozens of its headlines (including its current most read article). However, most if not all mainstream outlets have barred themselves from publishing the name at this point, citing the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act. According to Harry Litman writing in the Washington Post (who have not disclosed the name) "Trump and company argue that the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, which forbids “retaliation” against a whistleblower, only shields against adverse workplace action and not against disclosure.... But the law itself strongly undercuts this argument. The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 amended, and became part of, the Inspector General Act of 1978, and that law provides that an inspector general’s office may not provide to Congress or the public any personally identifiable information on a whistleblower without the whistleblower’s consent."

So, should this Wikipedia article include the name of the alleged whistleblower at this point? Onceinawhile (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• HELL NO WP:BLPNAME is obvious. The whistleblower doesn't want to be named, so we won't float names. Why did you create an RfC anyway? Consensus seems clearly established on this point. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: where is consensus on this? I looked around but couldn't see where it has been discussed. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, I mixed up my talk pages. Talk:Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump#Who is the whistleblower? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

BLP does not depend on local consensus. SPECIFICO talk 17:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Abort RfC How can you even propose this RfC without a single Reliable Source reference. And that's aside from the BLP issues? I don't think we should have RfC's that range beyond the limits of WP Policies and Guidelines. Please consider waiting a while on this. SPECIFICO talk 17:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I reviewed the various discussions of the Washington Examiner at WP:RSN, and I couldn't see consensus suggesting it was non-RS.

I have removed the RFC tag.

It's unclear to me where our threshold lies on this issue, which is of course currently being vigorously debate in the wider media world. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• WP:BLPNAME: "not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed" seems very clear and compelling to me, as that is definitely the case here. Thanks both. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• No, in the strongest terms — this is basically asking, "Should we violate policy on a matter of national importance?" XOR'easter (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Is there a reliable source that has published the identity? If not, we shouldn't either. There is no consensus on the reliability of the Washington Examiner, but there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims. Almost all editors consider the Washington Examiner a partisan source soibangla (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Impact of aid withholding on Ukraine military

The article states, "Trump's withholding of military aid has taken a heavy toll on the Ukraine defenses against the Russian invasion." However the sourced NYT article states, "While the aid was restored in time to prevent any military setbacks, it took a heavy psychological toll..." The article text is therefore misleading as it implies quantifiable military losses when in fact the impact was purely psychological. This needs to be corrected. Lemon Muse (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Done Nixinova  T / C   06:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

4 big takeaways from Bill Taylor's full transcript

4 big takeaways from Bill Taylor's full transcript

1. A second quid pro quo
2. He points the finger at Giuliani, not at Trump personally.
3. The plot thickens on ‘very sympathetic’ John Bolton.
4. Taylor is going to be a very important witness next week.

BullRangifer (talk) 03:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources

I do not understand how there could be a quid pro quo if the aid money was released and no investigation into Biden was announced. If Taylor's testimony "stops short of directly implicating Trump" then what are we even doing here? Mr Ernie (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The wrongdoing is the attempt to use the office of the President to obtain a quid pro quo for Trump's personal political benefit. In other words, trying to get this for that. Think of it like trying to rob a bank, but getting caught before you actually get the money. - MrX 🖋 15:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, MrX is correct. The Mueller Report documents numerous times Trump attempted to obstruct justice, but his aides refused to carry out his instructions. His attempts are enough to convict him of obstruction of justice.

His intent is what counts. This applies to impeachment and obstruction of justice. Neither requires the performance of a crime, just the attempt is enough for conviction. Trump and his campaign have always acted with "bad intent", and that intent is damning. Sometimes the intent is a crime and sometimes not, but whether the crime is ever actually carried to completion is not determinative for a conviction for obstruction of justice or for impeachment. Even before the election, the attempts to cover-up began, and his whole presidency has been a huge cover-up campaign. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Good job Attempted Murder isn't treated the same way as Attempted Obstruction. Koncorde (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Koncorde, from obstruction of justice: Black's Law Dictionary defines it as any "interference with the orderly administration of law and justice". So yeah, it is. You can be incompetent at obstructing justice and still be guilty of it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

That was my point, sorry I wasn't clear with my sarcastic reply. Obviously attempting to commit a crime may still be a criminal offence. By some comments you would believe that they feel attempted murder is the same as being innocent. Koncorde (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Koncorde, yeah my sarcasm detector doesn't work so well on the Internet. Lindsey Graham's latest defense of "they're too incompetent to pull off a quid pro quo" is quite the head scratcher. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Koncorde, one of the better analogies I heard was: sticking your foot out and tripping up the cops in hot pursuit is obstruction even if they go on to catch the guy. Guy (help!) 17:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not lawful for a president to withhold lawfully mandated military aid for any reason, regardless of the bribery. SPECIFICO talk 17:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

more on Petro Poroshenko; previous similar scandal

Expand on Poroshenko?

• Giuliani Associates Urged Ukraine’s Prior President to Open Biden, Election Probes; Lev Parnas, Igor Fruman pushed then-president Poroshenko to announce probes in return for U.S. state visit (8.Nov) WSJ

Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman pressured then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko during a late February meeting in Kiev, to announce investigations into Biden and 2016 election interference in exchange for a state visit to Washington. X1\ (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

This seems important enough to include. XOR'easter (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe useful source

A timeline and explainer. [15]. Guy (help!) 02:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Rand Paul

Paul's nonsense has been reinstated, sourced to The Hill and Politico ([16]). Needless to say I strongly suggest we do not do that. We're not here to prove to the world what an idiot Rand Paul is. Guy (help!) 19:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I removed it again because of my 1RR error, but he is a US senator and he is an influential mouthpiece for many saying the same things across conservative/social media. soibangla (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

We decide what to report based on the amount of coverage it receives - not on our opinion of the material or the speaker. Rand Paul has been all over the whistleblower issue and needs at least a mention. I will work on restoring something. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Done. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Ukrainians Contacted U.S. Officials in May About Aid Fears

I'm not a big fan of Daily Beast, but it's already cited eight times in this article, so maybe someone can run with this:

Ukrainians Contacted U.S. Officials in May About Aid Fears soibangla (talk) 23:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd hold off unless and until we get independent confirmation from another source. It's an interesting report, but it rather contradicts the currently understood timeline of events. How could they have been worried about withheld aid in May when Trump didn't issue that order until July? And other reporting suggests that they were unaware of the aid block until at least August. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

add cease and desist letter ?

• https://thehill.com/homenews/house/469384-jordan-republicans-to-subpoena-whistleblower-to-testify-in-public-hearing
• https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/07/politics/ukraine-whistleblower-trump-cease-and-desist/index.html

The whistleblower's attorney issued a cease and desist letter to the White House due to Trump's "rhetoric and activity that places" the whistleblower "in physical danger." X1\ (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Sounds worth mentioning. XOR'easter (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I added it to this article and also the Impeachment inquiry article. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Lawfare

We have two other sources for this content, but does Lawfare pass RS sufficiently to use it as well, and potentially expand? I think not, though I am a follower of the blog and podcast.

Taylor, Margaret (September 17, 2019). "The Mysterious Whistleblower Complaint: What Is Adam Schiff Talking About?". Lawfare. Archived from the original on September 18, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019. Litt, Robert S. (September 17, 2019). "Unpacking the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Complaint". Lawfare. Archived from the original on September 22, 2019. Retrieved September 29, 2019. Schulz, Jacob (September 25, 2019). "OLC Issues an Opinion About the "Urgent Concern" Determination on the Whistleblower Complain by the DNI". Lawfare. Retrieved September 29, 2019.

I don't think we should be citing blogs here, even good ones. Thoughts? Guy (help!) 18:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Broadly agree. Lawfare offers expert commentary but appears to do little original/investigative reporting. Given how large the article already is, I think skipping this source makes sense. If used, would probably require attribution. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

While Lawfare is often regarded as authoritative on matters of law, I think it should be cited if we use it for legal interpretation or opinion, and not used at all as a source for facts. If we can't find a normal news source for a factual issue, we should probably not report it at all. However, if a Lawfare post provides particular insight into the legal issues, I think we can use it with attribution. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN said it better than I did. Acceptable for matters of law, if there's a section in the future of "Legal analysis" or similar. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

significant add: Earl Matthews ?

• https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/07/earl-matthews-nsc-ukraine-067363

Senior National Security Council official Earl Matthews attended meetings when travelling with John Bolton to Ukraine in August and Poland in September, including meetings with Volodymyr Zelensky and senior American officials including William B. Taylor Jr. and Tim Morrison, will leave his post this week. X1\ (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

See Draft:Earl G. Matthews. X1\ (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Captions restored

I restored several captions that were shortened to the point where they no longer accurately described or gave context to the images or documents. SPECIFICO talk 22:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I generally like the longer captions, though it's possible that I'm biased, since I think I wrote a few of them. XOR'easter (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Please [admin?] remove this nbsp or the regular space next to it – they render together. Thanks. --Brogo13 (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

useful?

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/13/key-events-july-that-extend-beyond-trump-zelensky-call

X1\ (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Rick Perry, Michael Bleyzer & Alex Cranberg

• "After boost from Perry, backers got huge gas deal in Ukraine". Associated Press. 11 November 2019. Retrieved 12 November 2019. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)

Item of interest: Naftogaz, Bleyzer’s investment firm SigmaBleyzer and Cranberg’s Aspect Energy, Ministry of Energy and Coal Mining (Ukraine), Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources (Ukraine), UkrGasVydobuvannya, etc

• Rick Perry Is Up To His Neck In The Ukraine Scandal on YouTube Nov 11, 2019

X1\ (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC) More coverage:

• Trump Administration Models Corruption Even As It Scolds Ukraine on YouTube Nov 12, 2019 The Rachel Maddow Show

X1\ (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

It does appear to be true that during Perry's attendance at Zelensky's inauguration, he took the opportunity to urge the Ukrainians to take stronger action against corruption, while simultaneously promoting the interests of some of his backers. Nice little twist. However, we would need for this to be reported by additional sources, and MSNBC is not a neutral source. It looks like there are additional sources: NBC HuffPost, Chicago Tribune. But I’m not sure this belongs in this article; it’s kind of a little side scam to the main action here. Should be in Perry’s article for sure. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Protected page edit

In the first paragraph of the description of the article, should it be stated somewhat like: "...alongside Biden and Burisma investigations, Trump also requested information or investigations related to widely denied claims of Ukrainian US Election interference, against the conclusions of his own intelligence agencies that it was, in fact, the Russians who interfered in the 2016 US elections."

And that last part could be the hyperlink to the Russian election interference page.

I can't edit this page, I literally just created this account after reading that part, because I'm pretty sure Trump's requests were investigations into the Bidens and Burisma, as well as Ukrainian interference into US elections. Which most certainly isn't what went down according to...everyone. but I'm 99% sure he wanted President Zelensky to look into something that didn't happen, and Trump wanted both of those investigations to be coupled with a public statement regarding them.

I apologize if this isn't the way to do this, again....first account for wikipedia. Ozymander (talk) 05:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see that as an improvement over the current version which is clear, and proportionate to what sources have reported. - MrX 🖋 11:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Lou Dobbs / Soros

Seriously? I really do not think we need to include every bot of delusional bullshit spouted by Trump supporters. Guy (help!) 00:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I find this particularity significant due to diGenova's direct involvement in the matter. soibangla (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you two want to provide a link to what you are talking about, please? -- MelanieN (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

This soibangla (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Leave it out. Don't dignify this kind of nonsense (actually Guy described it well) by publicizing it. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The best way to end delusional bullshit that finally jumps the shark is to publicize it. soibangla (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Totally disagree. Anyhow if only MediaMatters (a nonneutral source) reported this, it fails WEIGHT. I have removed it. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Please follow more closely. I replaced MediaMatters with Haaretz. It passes WEIGHT for the reason I showed above. See. But whatever. soibangla (talk) 01:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The only neutral mainstream source in that Google search is WaPo - or would be if it was a news item, but it is on the opinion page. In any case - do you really think this kind of loony personal attack (let's not forget that George Soros is a living person) should jump from the Lou Dobbs show to the pages of Wikipedia? I certainly don't. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

We disagree. You win. Oh well. soibangla (talk) 01:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Soibangla, I share the concern, but unless multiple RS pick this up and comment on it as a significant matter I don't think it merits inclusion. Guy (help!) 13:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN. This is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Our job is not to expose nonsense. Also, we should avoid using Media Matters as a source in the article. - MrX 🖋 11:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that while MMFA is certainly biased (who isn't?) they do not publish falsehoods, and the fact that certain people/groups who lie hate MMFA because it does a good job of exposing lies, should not be a basis for excluding MMFA as a source. The cited MMFA article (later changed to Haaretz after MMFA was challenged) was exclusively video with transcript, with no commentary whatsoever. And I should reiterate that diGenova's comment is worthy of inclusion because it is in the context of the Ukraine matter, in which he plays a role with Rudy, Parnas et al. It is also in furtherance of a subsection dedicated to Soros conspiracy theories. That's all I got on this. soibangla (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

As to due weight, time will tell. I do not favor rushing recent news into the articles. But on the other hand, it would be worth keeping a little list of all the events we set aside as notnews or recentism, because there have been some that fell by the wayside despite ongoing significance that actually turns out to warrant inclusion. SPECIFICO talk 18:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Soibangla, I don't suggest that they do. This is an UNDUE question, not one of reliability, at least by this point. Guy (help!) 19:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 November 2019

Italicization of “quid pro quo” is inconsistent in this article. Please italicize it throughout as per our house style, per MOS:CONFORM. 96.8.24.95 (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done - Thank you - MrX 🖋 12:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

NPOV concerns re Trump’s intent

From the lead (emphasis mine): Trump blocked but later released payment of a congressionally mandated $400 million military aid package to obtain quid pro quo cooperation from Volodymyr Zelensky, the president of Ukraine.

Is it really okay to state this as fact when Trump and many conservative outlets contest its accuracy? Are we maintaining WP:NPOV? —96.8.24.95 (talk) 05:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I guess it depends on what you mean by "conservative outlets". We care about reliable sources. If there are reliable sources seriously contesting these the facts as stated in the sentence, then we should reword it or at least attribute it per WP:WIKIVOICE. - MrX 🖋 12:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Dishonest statements by Trump

CNN has put up an article listing all the ways Trump has been dishonest about the Ukraine scandal that might be of some use here. I don't edit on this article, so I shall leave it here for others to use or ignore as they see fit. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think these should all be enumerated separately in the article text, but a sentence that states CNN's conclusion, to the effect that CNN reports Trump's primary public defense appears to be relentless deceit -- or some other words from the top of the CNN piece -- might set context at the beginning of the Trump and the White House section. SPECIFICO talk 14:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Whistleblower outing

I guess that when the holder of the most powerful office in the world wants someone to be named and held up to vilification, it's going to happen sooner or later, but I think we all agree we're not going to blaze the trail. In the same vein, during this period of frenzied speculation, I think we need to hold all commentary on this - whether supportive or horrified - to the highest possible sourcing standards. No tabloids, no Fox or MSNBC, avoid Politico, Axios, The Hill (too prone to printing gossip as if fact), probably avoid Axios, certainly avoid the hyper-partisan sites (Mother Jones, Breitbart and the rest). Guy (help!) 18:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with Politico, they are quite anodyne in their coverage, rarely criticized by either left or right. As far as The Hill, I previously questioned some of their coverage, primarily because of John Solomon, but he's gone now, and I think The Hill is at least good enough for coverage of direct quotes. Axios is McNews for amateurs, but I have no real reason to question their reliability. soibangla (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I certainly have no problem if you want to replace existing sources with stronger ones, as you have been doing. But I don’t agree with removing sourced content that is sourced to normally reliable sources like The Hill and Politico.[17] I will investigate whether that content should be restored. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

BTW I agree with excluding all of MSNBC, and all Fox opinion programming. But Fox News is independent and generally pretty reliable in their factual reporting; if there is a bias, it is in the selection of what to cover and what not to cover. It could almost be compared to NBC News, which is the neutral independent partner of MSNBC, and which we cite without hesitation. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I did a partial rewrite of the paragraph, restoring some sources, adding others, and using inline citations instead of lumping all sources at the end of the paragraph. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, the problem with Fox News is that it does not adequately distinguish between factual reporting and opinion. This has been done to death on WP:RSN by now and there's pretty robust consensus that we should not include it at all, especially in anything relating to politics. Guy (help!) 21:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Further to this, I believe that MSNBC does differentiate the news reporting from their commentary and polemics and that the news reporting there is presented by the RS journalists on staff at NBC News. SPECIFICO talk 21:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, I can understand your parallelism between Fox News/Fox News opinion and NBC/MSNBC, which is a difference of bias, but that's where the comparison ceases to be relevant. The bias on Fox News opinion is so extreme as to consistently be counterfactual pushing of false conspiracy theories, whereas MSNBC, even though openly biased, still sticks to facts and is in harmony with the mainstream RS like Reuters, ABC, BBC, etc. That's why Fox News opinion should be deprecated completely, and Fox News used with caution, and not used at all in the absence of better sources. IOW, we can still use MSNBC, but often with attribution. Fact based opinion sources are welcome here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

My experience watching both those outlets is that MSNBC, even in its commentary, does not fabricate factual narratives. But fabrication seems to be presented quite frequently on Fox, and not just in the evening infotainment slots. SPECIFICO talk 22:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to confess that I just used "McNews for amateurs" as a reference in another article. I knew that would happen. soibangla (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a specific concern about Axios, or are you just referring to their limited scope and the niche they occupy. I've seen them do good reporting and worthwhile analysis that's often picked up by larger mainstream outlets. SPECIFICO talk 22:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

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

---

At this point, the whole notion of "outing" the whistleblower by Wikipedia has become absurd. Breitbart and other widely read conservative sources have named him over and over and over. Based on that, he should be considered publicly "outed" for all practical purposes. Nothing Wikipedia does will change anything about that. Right now, not naming him is just a blind profession of loyalty to the Democratic side in this fight. Which, obviously, we should not do, on NPOV grounds. Wefa (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect. SPECIFICO talk 20:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

To quote the OP "we're not going to blaze the trail". You're not the first Breitbart reader to complain about Wikipedia policies. Cheers. - MrX 🖋 21:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Breitbart and other widely read conservative sources have named who they THINK it is. There is no confirmation, no proof, just speculation. We are an encyclopedia, we do not deal in rumor and speculation. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Correct. See also: Pizzagate. - MrX 🖋 23:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Wefa, Breitbart is not a reliable news source for facts. They are reliable for partisan spin. See Breitbart News#Notable stories for a number of examples of where Breitbart published something unfactual. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Only for their own spin. 😐 SPECIFICO talk 23:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

well, Breitbart is the one, absolutely reliable news source for exactly one thing: the question what was published by Breitbart. Beyond that - well. I agree with your claim that they are not a reliable news source in certain areas and lie their asses of, by blatant mischaracterizations, omissions, and, more rarely, by direct false statements of fact. But then, so do numerous papers that Wikipedia happily considers reliable news sources. Basically, every paper that has an axe to grind lies, and some to astonishingly shameless degrees.

But in the end, that's not the point here. The Whistleblower has been outed by several sources who are universially accessible and widely read. And for that, Breitbart IS a realiable, albeit primary, source. Now you can doubt the accuracy of this outing, but the person named has not once denied those claims, and he is certainly prominet and well connected enough that you can assume he could mount a credible counterclaim if that was warranted. Yes, I share the sentiment of "lets not be the trailblazer here" - but with every day of this charade this whole thing becomes more and more absurd. Wefa (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

1. Your talk page statements will only be weakened by gratuitous soapbox and denigration of reliable sources.

2. None of your other points above invalidate the explanations others have offered above to explain why there can be no discussion or repetition of the outing in this article or talk page. SPECIFICO talk 21:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Wefa, I don't know what to tell you other than to read WP:BLPNAME, which explains why we will not publish the name. And also, that the alleged whistleblower is not a politician, so they likely do not have the means to " mount a credible counterclaim", which would likely only serve to fulfill the Streisand effect by creating more unwanted publicity. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I do not think WP:BLPNAME does apply here any more. The name IS widely dissemniated, and there is apparently NO legal guarantee of secrecy for him. Thus, none of the conditions in BLPNAME appliy. Now even a member of Congress has publicly named him in a tweet and demanded he testify ((Redacted)). As noted earlier, it does get more absurd by the day to maintain this charade of purported secrecy. Wefa (talk) 12:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Twitter is not a reliable source and I have redacted your cheap attempt at scoring political points. Move on from this issue or you're going to end up blocked for BLP violations. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Twitter is a reliable primary source for the matter of what was written there. It certainly is a valid source for illustrating a point on a talk page- Furthermorem, how am I supposed to understand your threat? Do you want to exclude me from editing this article? And what in your eyes constitutes a "cheap attempt at scoring political points"? I have referenced a valid primary source - what political point? Frankly, I consider your remark ad-hominem, hostile and threatening. Wefa (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

DO NOT POST THE WHISTLEBLOWER'S NAME OR LINKS TO IT ON WIKIPEDIA. Is that clear enough for you, or do you still not get it? - MrX 🖋 18:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

You misrepresent as consensus what is not. Furthermore, I have never seen a Wikipedia rule that forbids me to link to sources - certainly not when these sources are relevant and the link is in good faith. My argument here is that the name in question is widely published and WP:BLPNAME therefore does not apply. But I am not allowed to bring up links that illustrate my point?

Oh, and lastly, I have made the point the WP:BLPNAME can not apply here quite clearly, and I have only gotten threats as answer. What about you dealing with the point I made? Please explain how the name is not widely published, how the man is not a public figure and what law or rule protects this secrecy that matches BLPNAME's criteria. Wefa (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The identification of the alleged whistleblower was made by two individuals who are disreputable partisans/trolls, namely Sperry and Posobiec. This was exceedingly irresponsible, designed to intimidate and threaten an individual (who might not even be the whistleblower) with retribution. Reliable sources have understandably not reported the purported identity, nor should we. soibangla (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The last instances of Inentification came from US Senator Rand Paul and US Rep Dan Bishop. Earlier instances com from US Rep Louie Gomert. These may be your political oppopnents (I really don't know) but they are not "disreputable partisans and trolls". Wefa (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Wefa, we're not being partisan here. It is wrong to publish the name of a whistleblower. The person doesn't want their name publicised out of fear of retaliation. This is why we have whistleblower protections. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

BLPNAME does apply here. Wikipedia is not a free speech zone, it's a community-driven project to build a freely-available encyclopedia. It is not a matter of law, it is a matter of policy and human decency. If you attempt to evade the edit filter again, you will most likely be blocked from editing indefinitely. NorthBySouthBaranof(talk) 20:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I did not "evade an edit filter". Do we actually have an automated filter for that name? And WP:AGF seems to be lost for you. Wefa (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we do, actually. XOR'easter (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

But I am not allowed to bring up links that illustrate my point? That's right. You are not allowed to post "links that illustrate your point" if they have anything to do with identifying the whistleblower. Please see my warning on your talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

All your claims rest on the assumption that WP:BLPNAME applies here. Which is not clear and you still have not addressed my explanation why it does not.Wefa (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Wefa, BLPNAME applies everywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

of course it does; I do not doubt that. My argument is that BLPNAME spells out three conditions for it to apply, namely (1)the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or (2)has been intentionally concealed such as in certain court cases or (3)has been intentionally concealed such as in certain occupations. I do not think any of these apply any more; and I have argued this from the beginning. Wefa (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

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

I will note here (and protest) that your closing of this matter is neither covered by WP:TPG nor by WP:IDHT despite your allegations to the contrary. I will refrain from spelling out the obvious conclusions of that. Instead, I will let the subject matter of the name rest for a few weeks. If that whole fiasco develops the way I think it will I am pretty sure that sooner or later that name will show up in Wikipedia, and this whole debate will, even for you, be recognizeable as the absurdity I think it is. Wefa (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

A defense of our policies is NOT an "absurdity". The name will indeed appear here, but only after multiple very RS have published it. That is how we do it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Wefa, to your above point on BLPNAME, I think it is clear enough that the name has not been widely disseminated, as no reliable sources have published it, and that it has been intentionally concealed. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)