Talk:Impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump/Archive 3

Pruning the blow-by-blow
As always with developing stories, there's a tendency to add each new detail as it arrives. I'm going to see if I can take out some that has turned out to be less significant, and some that is duplicative of, in an attempt to make the article more manageable.

What I'd like to do:


 * Shorten the lead so it describes the subject directly: the initial trigger, a very short overview of the allegations, the timeline through initial announcement, private depositions, then public hearings. The current lead is four long paragraphs much of which is about the underlying scandal, whereas we should, I think, be reducing redundancy by describing the process here and leaving the scandal to the other article.


 * Shorten the sections on Trump-Ukraine scandal, Rudy Giuliani, Ukraine, and merge to Trump–Ukraine scandal.


 * Prune some of the detail on the individual public hearings, because in some cases material in these hearings was covered in more detail or closer to the source in a subsequent hearing.

My aim would be to reduce redundancy between this article and Trump–Ukraine scandal. At the same time I would prune quite a bit of the redundant content there about the impeachment hearings, and merge it in here if it's not already covered.

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

What do people think? Guy (help!) 15:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree about pruning and tightening the lead. I am more hesitant about removing material about the Trump-Ukraine scandal; I don't see any problem with having a significant amount of material redundantly in both articles. In fact I disagree with the premise that we should describe the process here and leave the scandal to the other article. I think we need to keep a lot of detail about the scandal here. It is, after all, what the inquiry - and potentially the impeachment - is all about. (Maybe some day the articles will be merged but I doubt it.) I also think we need to retain significant coverage about the witness testimony, although the closed-door testimony sections are kind of bloated and could be trimmed, particularly if the person later testified in public. If there is to be trimming, I do agree that most information about the inquiry could be removed from the scandal article and directed to this one. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The Ukraine scandal part of the inquiry is over. There will be further hearings, but not with witnesses talking about Ukraine. With the exception of the two actual reports, there's nothing left to write about. As I stated on a rant several sections below, we either dump 70% of the article or we do a part three and start up again with The judiciary's new Meuller/McGahn hearings and the actual votes and trial. This part is cooked.Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Unfortunately the time passed without me being able to execute my cunning plan, I have a trapped nerve at C7 and it's a bitch, but I am 100% for the "prune 70%" approach. There is so much redundancy and excessive detail and redundancy. Guy (help!) 11:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2019
Add the word "the" to the sentence below before "House Intelligence Committee."

November 13: Kent and Taylor With live coverage on television, public hearings began at 10 am EST (15:00 UTC) on November 13, 2019, in which Kent and Taylor testified before House Intelligence Committee.

CHANGE TO: in which Kent and Taylor testified before the House Intelligence Committee. Ronbert65 (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. Good catch. --Nowa (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Handling the BLT team meetings
The announcements that Parnas has info to share likely caught most eyes here. Specifically about Nunes trip to Europe and alleged meetings to get dirt on Biden as reported by Daily Beast and CNN some of which was placed into the record of the. Impeachment inquiry.

Since Nunes said he would sue both DB and CNN I thought an update to his personal page section Lawsuits was logical.

I predict after reading today how a whole cast of characters associated with the impeachment inquiry began meeting in Trump Hotel BLT restaurant that this budding story will blossom into full ethics inquiry of Nunes.

Characters at these BLT meetings include Nunes via his aid Harvey, Parnas, the two attorneys for Firtash, reporter Soloman?, and of course Giuliani. Each with there own objects and each with possible fall out and cross links to other pages.

Adam Shiff said any issue about Nunes traveling on tax payer dollar to Europe to find dirt on Biden would be set to the Ethics Committee so I think it logical to start a separate page which I propose to be

The BLT Meetings

Creating a whole new page is beyond my available time constraints.

Thoughts? Pbmaise (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's too soon to include any of this yet. If Nunes does actually sue, then maybe there's enough to merit inclusion. For now, you "predict" things and should avoid using the WP:CRYSTAL ball here. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Correction CNN reports this as "The BLT Team" making this the more logical page name. Pbmaise (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Stick to the facts
I had to change a couple of sentences that were not backed up in the sources given. I urge all editors not to go beyond what the sources say. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Alexander
Alexander Vindman has appeared in the latest developements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.11.67.132 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please provide a reference or suggest an edit.--Nowa (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This article already has a 500-word section on Vindman. It's in the table of contents. (Private investigations -> Depositions -> Alexander Vindman) -- Tuckerlieberman (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your postings to my addition in the Trump-Ukraine scandal section. The workup by Tuckerlieberman is much better than mine.

I was actually trying to revise my contribution at the same time when I refreshed the article and saw that Tuckerlieberman had done it for me. (Of course, I was trying to keep it short. :) Just for reference, here is what I came up with:


 * In 2015, the Obama administration became concerned that Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin was not adequately pursuing corruption in Ukraine. In December 2015, Vice President Biden, while on a trip to Kyiv, threatened that the US would hold back its $1 billion in loan guarantees for 2016 if they did not dismiss Shokin. In May 2019, Shokin claimed that he had been investigating Burisma Holdings when he was fired. From May to August 2019, Trump and his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani pressed the Ukrainian government to investigate business activities of Hunter Biden, the son of now presidential candidate Joe Biden, who had taken a board seat on Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma Holdings in 2014. They claimed that Joe Biden had actually sought the dismissal of Shokin, not because he was ignoring corruption in Ukraine but in order to protect his son and his position on Burisma's board.

Thanks again. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for previously putting info there so I had something to work with! -- Tuckerlieberman (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Top photo
I think we should settle this once and for all. Which photo should we use? !vote Option A / Option B. --- Coffee  and crumbs  16:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Option A is my preferred, as it looks a lot more professionally done with all the skin tones looking natural. The other, Option B, makes his eyes look sallow, and his skin looks a bit sickly. — Maile  (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This may be in part because the first is obviously slightly colour-corrected (that is, softened); the latter is probably closer to what Trump looks like in “real life”, at least when you’re photographing him in high definition. But this difference isn’t uncommon in modern professional photographs, and his official portrait certainly looks more “agreeable”. Agreed that the unmodified photo looks a bit “much”. While this isn’t a beauty contest between photographs, I’ll note that the official portrait usually ends up being the default for these type of articles, and for good reason. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * B as most recent image. Nixinova  T / C 18:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * B as well. UpdateNerd (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I know this isn't policy related, but Option A makes him look like he's saying, "Ha! You can't touch me! i'm invicnicible!" I'm not going to bother to correct my typos because neither does he.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  19:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Option A. Same as in his biography article, where we virtually always use the official White House photo for presidents. If we are going to open up the floodgates to the hundreds of pictures of him that must be out there, we will be debating it constantly. There is something nice and final about "just use the official photograph." -- MelanieN (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Option A for now is fine, per M & M (Maile66 & MelanieN). However, if a more relevant photo emerges, that should be used. For example, a photo taken off the House floor when they vote on articles of impeachment; a photo taken during the public deposition of a prominent witness; or a photo of Trump testifying at the Senate hearing. A portrait of Trump is by far not the best lead image, but it's what we have now. - MrX 🖋 11:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Option A - per MrX. The portrait used is largely irrelevant, but it is used on his main article etc and no obvious reason to switch until such point as a new portrait is more significant or relevant. Koncorde (talk) 11:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Option B 2600:1702:2340:9470:95E2:ECE0:428:16D6 (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Option B because the face is a larger portion of the image. Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 22:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: If we get any good screencaps of the public inquiry in the upcoming weeks we should replace it with that. Nixinova  T / C 01:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that screenshots of the C-SPAN footage in committee hearings are not PD. We will not get a PD photo until the whole House votes. --- Coffee  and crumbs  04:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Option B – Because it is more recent, contemporaneous to the subject being discussed. It is also visually better to have a different photo in the infobox than the topic template right below it. Having the same photo twice seems just wrong to me. --- Coffee  and crumbs  06:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Option A: per M, M, and M (MrX, Maile66, and MelanieN). While I do hear the arguments about using a more recent portrait, we should use the first, absent more relevant photographs. &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 22:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I only added option B to the article as it's most recent and contemporary to these shenanigans, so I felt it appropriate. He looks less like a bottle of Fanta in A though. Trillfendi (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Option A It isn't important that we have the absolutely latest image of him the in the article. Others above have pointed out that the official image tends to get used for these things. I also tend to believe there is no reason not to use the nicest looking photo we have of people. Zell Faze (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Option A is the official portrait, and it's got my vote. Also it's less likely to startle me when I pop in to see what the most recent changes are. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 01:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Option A for the reasons stated by MrX. Also, the official portrait just looks better. Mgasparin (talk) 10:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 23 November 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Consensus to not move at this time. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:06, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump → Impeachment process against Donald Trump – Now that the investigations and hearings have concluded, this is no longer just an "inquiry", and since articles of impeachment are in the process of being drafted this should be moved to "impeachment process" to be inline with Impeachment process against Richard Nixon.  Nixinova </b><b style=background:#27f;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>T</b> <b style=color:white>C</b> </b> 01:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I doubt anyone would have reason to refuse the move. And the titling, which is consistent. But I do think as a matter of process we should probably wait until the Articles are actually filed. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Sure, but substantively actually add stuff about the process, can't find what the plan is here although I've heard elements referred to in media, e.g. Articles of Impeachment b4 the full house before the end of the year. 98.4.103.219 (talk) 09:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Think we should wait still until Early December, Congress is currently in Thanksgiving recess and goes open for about 2 weeks in Early December than goes on Christmas recess, they might still request more subpoenas or individuals who were subpoena but declined might decide to accept it and testify, we should wait until the draft of an actual articles of impeachment is done.
 * Above is either MrX or an unsigned ip, not me. 98.4.103.219 (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - While I don't object The proposed title change, I'm not sure there is much point. The title should be changed to Impeachment of Donald Trump as soon as the house votes to impeach, which is likely to occur in 3-4 weeks. - MrX 🖋 11:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * No. Think of the impeachment saga as a book with several chapters. This article is one chapter of the book. It's long and it's complicated. it has a beginning, middle, and end. The end, in this case, is the issuance of the two reports. The hearings before the Judiciary Committee should be the "impeachment process" article, and that should be changed to just "impeachment" when and if the vote passes. In the meantime, we should work on cleaning this up and shopping for thanksgiving. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - What's happening is a multi-step process towards the Impeachment. If we try to put it all into one article, it will be too large downloading on the page, much less editing it.  I believe this will work better as a series of articles, each unique to the individual steps in the process.  This was the inquiry.  Now the House vote to impeach (or not).  Then the Senate proceedings.  And whatever, if anything, happens after the Senate.  It should be a series of separate articles.  We don't need to move this one. — Maile  (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose/wait per Maile66. This article is pretty big already. If we try to make it cover the entire process, it could either become way too big or a lot of material will need to be deleted. If the process stops soon without much else happening, we could revisit the question. If there are several further stages of the process, we can create an overview article at the proposed title. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC):


 * Oppose -The inquiry itself points more to what evidence is there in my opinion and the process is a separate but related beast. Chances are the actual impeachment process page won't be much smaller. There is a lot of material to cover here. Information needs to be kept on Wikipedia with as little removed as possible due to the sheer disinformation around the impeachment inquiry. --Lamoxlamae (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Support/Neutral -It is no longer an inquiry, they have moved past that. Yes, this article is large, but if we don't move it, it won't be comprehensive enough. However, we don't want to turn this into a TL;DR, so I'm suggesting we polish up and shorten the article as much as possible (while keeping the core meaning). Then we move it. We need to have the latest knowledge as the situation progresses but also keep it organized (but we can always do that after it’s over) TL The Legend  talk 21:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment -We can also split this article, moving the relevant information per WP:PROSPLIT. TL The Legend  talk 21:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment -Seconding the idea of splitting the article. Keep the inquiry information on the inquiry page and move the impeachment process information to a linked brand new impeachment process page. This can also be done for sections that are too bloated on the Inquiry page. Information on the impeachment proceedings needs to be kept as complete as possible to help people stay informed. I really can't overstate the high levels of misinformation going on about these proceedings: it's the reason the page is protected. Removing information completely from the wiki is unwise, but relocating to a sub/split page it then linking to it in a summary would be reasonable. --Lamoxlamae (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I would support that. The inquiry stage is done, so this page should be left, and the upcoming impeachment article could be moved to a main impeachment page. <b style=background:#12c;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>Nixinova</b> </b><b style=background:#27f;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>T</b> <b style=color:white>C</b> </b>  00:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose renaming it now; it is still in the inquiry stage, at least until articles are drawn up. They are still receiving documents and other information. And I oppose the notion of splitting it into multiple artices. We had this same discussion just a few weeks ago, see . I disagreed then and I disagree now with the notion of multiple articles about the different stages of impeachment. We have one article about Clinton’s impeachment, and one about the process against Nixon. It would be a disservice to our readers to make them go searching back and forth between multiple articles to get what is basically one story. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I think that we should have two pages (inquiry and process) to describe what happened in the inquiry. E Super Maker (😲 shout) 13:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I recommend changing it to "Impeachment of Donald Trump" as it matches the title of Bill Clinton's wiki. Of course, we also would need to change Nixon's, as his matches this proposed change. 208.185.185.114 (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, we would not change Nixon's. Nixon was never actually impeached. He resigned before the process was complete - before the House actually voted any articles of impeachment. And we will not change this Trump article unless and until the full House votes to impeach him. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I think that we first must decide whether we're going to have:
 * a series of "little" sub-articles (Efforts to impeach, Ukraine scandal, House inquiry (this article), House Judiciary Committee on impeachment, House vote on impeachment, Senate trial on removal of the president and possibly, 'though it now seem unlikely, Removal of President Trump); and
 * an overall article, say Impeachment of Donald Trump.
 * or just one, large article.
 * For point 2, we would start the article "Impeachment of Donald Trump", keeping it to a minimum for now. The sub-articles in point 1 should follow what we have already: Efforts to impeach Donald Trump and Trump–Ukraine scandal. Current sections 2 thru 8 should should form the basis of the "House inquiry" article; that is, this article. Information about the Judiciary Committee should go into a new sub-article, with references in "Impeachment of Donald Trump". And so on. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose – This inquiry phase will probably conclude soon. The actual impeachment phase, if any, will be better served by a separate article. — JFG talk 20:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - It's an inquiry up until a resolution containing the articles is put up for vote and passes, It will then be an actual impeachment, and the title can be then be changed to impeachment process. That happening may only be slightly better than 50/50 at this point. The current article needs to be trimmed by 30-40 % regardless of what happens, either to make room for future material, or to summarize the inquiry if it doesn't go beyond this stage.Garp21 (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - We can change the title of this article as the event itself changes. When the Judiciary committee adopts articles of impeachment (with a Democratic majority, they will), we can change to the proposed page title. When the full House passes any of those articles (with a Democratic majority? they will), we'll then change to Impeachment of Donald Trump. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Honestly, we should probably just start a new article if (or when) the articles of impeachment pass the House. Until then, of course, the inquiry remains only an inquiry, nothing more, and changing its name before that point would confuse readers and fellow editors. &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 18:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Renaming (again)
Couldn't we have two articles for now: this article "Impeachment investigation against Donald Trump by the House Intelligence Committee" and "Impeachment articles against Donald Trump by the House Judiciary Committee"? I think the term "inquiry" is too broad when we're probably going have three inquiries just to get to the Senate trial: the Intelligence Committee, the Judiciary Committee and the full House. None of which will be a simple up-or-down votes. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see above. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * (Take this article to be your "investigation" and Draft:Impeachment of Donald Trump to be your "articles") <b style=background:#12c;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>Nixinova</b> </b><b style=background:#27f;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>T</b> <b style=color:white>C</b> </b>  04:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I've been grabbing some of your stuff in my draft. I was wondering what you think, considering that impeachment is now sure and we should be focusing on the HJC's drafting of the articles and the IC's public presentation.

Not only that, there have been publicly reported meetings in the Senate on how to best organize a trial. The time for a split is nowArglebargle79 (talk)

Recent change to the lead
I object to this wording, recently added to the lead:

It is ungrammatical, and worded in a way that casts doubt on what most sources have reported. The second sentence gives WP:UNDUE prominence to Zelenskiy's [sic] implausible denial and adds some WP:OR about wrong doing. Also, the editor who added this ignored the big bold page restriction above the edit window. - MrX 🖋 12:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed it. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you . - MrX 🖋 16:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The statement "implausible" highlights the issue. "Implausible" is opinion, just as much as "plausible" would be. Only one person knows what he thought of the conversation. To ignore his statements and implement the paragraph as is gives bias to news organasations over the statements of Zelenskiy himself. As it stands the paragraph declares a conclusion that has yet to be reached. One which ignores the statements of the subject at hand. This article as a whole appears to be leaning politically. There are many chances for a cleanup to make this neutral. That paragraph is just the first thing that popped out to me in reading. While the grammar may have been off a bit; I do disagree with "what most sources have reported" as a reasoning, as well. There is only one source for what Zelenskiy was thinking and the sole stance he has taken is contrary to the opinion of the listed sources. We once again are butting heads with WP:UNDUE as it takes the opinions of media over the statements of the subject. I did, in my re-edit, source his public statements. Ultimately for a topic that is happening in real-time with such a divisive set of issues; I believe it would be best to keep this article to actual facts. Given the re-edit was intended to add a source (one of many that could be added), it's far from WP:OR. I ask that all editors look past whatever their politics may be in looking at this article. To an outsider looking in; this is very one-sided. Considering WP:RS information was removed and called WP:OR simply because it goes against opinion of journalists within the United States casts a shadow on the process of neutral editing. Lostinlodos (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We routinely include analysis of facts from reliable sources because journalists are experts in sifting through often contradictory information and sussing out a picture of what is actual happening. In this case, the lead is pretty fair representation fo what the preponderance of sources have written on the subject. Zelensky's denial is overshadowed, if not negated, by the extent of news coverage, including sworn testimony by numerous people involved in the scandal, that contradicts his denial. Your assertion that a person's direct statement (which you assume to be factual) trumps news analysis from dozens of respected news organization is fallacious, and contrary to Wikipedia's content guidelines and policies. Finally, you have not given any evidence to support your claims that the article lacks a neutral point of view, is one sided, or that the 377 editors who wrote the article are less able to look past their political leanings than you are. - MrX 🖋 12:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Facts have changed
A change ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.207.102 (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Since this article was written, many documents have been released that make the information incorrect - sentences make false assumptions based on false media reports, for example this clause: "The proposed investigation of Biden was based on a 2015 push by the US to remove the Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin because he had been ignoring corruption in Ukraine and protecting political elites. At the time, this request had bipartisan support in the U.S. Congress and was also supported by the European Union." Declassified documents now show that the Bidens have been investigated for some time because of possible embezzlement of US Aid - NOT as suggested that Trump is trying to 'create dirt' on a political rival. See facts: https://www.americanoversight.org/state-department-releases-ukraine-documents-to-american-oversight https://www.scribd.com/document/436629348/Lutsenko-Shokin-interviews

This is a good read to understand the released documents: https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/state-department-releases-detailed-accounts-biden-ukraine-corruption — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikireadia2020 (talk • contribs) 11:30, December 1, 2019 (UTC)
 * Where s there any suggestion of "possible embezzlement" by a Biden? This allegation is a borderline BLP violation. You're believing allegations by Shokin and Lutsenko? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Our page on Zero Hedge says Zero Hedge expanded into non-financial analysis,[c] advocating what CNN Business called an anti-establishment and conspiratorial worldview, and which has been associated with alt-right views,[9][10] and a pro-Russian bias.[11][12][13]. So, yeah, not a reliable source.

Read the sources in the article. The article explains well and provides links to sources. If you want I can paste them here for you. Also, your page on Zero Hedge is also biased and in much need of referencing. There is no fact or document that can backup those statements other than an opinionated CNN journalist. This also explains https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/plundering-ukraine-corrupt-american-democrats

Here are links to source documents, to save you the trouble of having to read the article:

http://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-plundering-of-ukraine/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-burisma/ukraine-widens-probe-against-burisma-founder-to-embezzlement-of-state-funds-idUSKBN1XU2N7 Ukraine widens probe against Burisma founder to embezzlement of state funds

https://www.theepochtimes.com/ukraine-deepens-probe-against-burisma-founder-to-embezzlement-of-state-funds_3152650.html Ukraine Deepens Probe Against Burisma Founder to Embezzlement of State Funds — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikireadia2020 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Like Judicial Watch, Zerohedge is never a good source to understand released docs. The primary finding of the docs is that Pompeo was coordinating with Rudy, not anything about the Bidens. And Zlochevsky is being investigated, not the Bidens, and Kulyk has been tainted in motive by meeting with Rudy, who is on a mission from Trump to smear Biden. soibangla (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Zero Hedge is opinionated. CNN is neutral, aside from its pro-corporate bias. Epoch Times is similarly biased with a pro-Trump POV (their YouTube ads basically admit as much) and that Reuters story says that there is investigation of Burisma, but that doesn't connect to Hunter Biden. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Guys, you both need to check your facts better. First, CNN is the most opinionated news in USA, so much so that many confuse it with an arm of the US Government. See statements directly from the CEO https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/10/14/exposecnnpart1/ Second, Hunter Biden *was* under investigation as part of a local Ukrainian corruption investigation, dad Joe got it called off, and then bragged about it. https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story Wikireadia2020 (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , and now you're citing John Solomon, who has been completely debunked as the source of the Biden conspiracy theories, and Project Veritas, which doctors every video that it releases. You need to stop listening to Trump. He's lying to you. Hunter Biden has never been under investigation. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikireadia2020, you are using a number of sources considered unreliable by Wikipedia -- for good reason. You simply cannot use such sources in an encyclopedia. O3000 (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu, you are sitting here spouting your biased unsubstantiated opinions (I know the source, you watch TV, sounds really brainwashed) claiming that fact based research is biased. It's the other way around. CNN is full of lies and bias. There are sources on the internet - based on facts. Wikipedia is obviously not one of them. It's an encyclopedia of opinions. John Solomon has not been debunked. The investigations on the Bidens have been going on for years, far before Trump entered politics. I don't listen to Trump, I read facts. It's the other way around - you are incapable of independent thought - you believe only what you see on TV. It impacts the mind in ways that we are only beginning to understand. Clearly, Wikipedia is infested with lies, bias, and deep state trolls that aren't even capable of defending their own arguments. Here are some references for you to read (I know that you are allergic to reading, but if you want to see the facts, then you have to read)

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/cocaine-laced-cigarettes-crack-and-vodka-binges-hunter-biden-details-his-drug-and-alcohol-abuse

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/12/the-money-machine-how-a-high-profile-corruption-investigation-fell-apart

Each of these statements is substantiated by a link to a document, this is called fact based reporting: https://johnsolomonreports.com/responding-to-lt-col-vindman-about-my-ukraine-columns-with-the-facts/ read the references - it all is substantiated, unlike your conspiracy theory that you see on TV. Wikireadia2020 (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , the Washington Examiner is also an unacceptable source as they don't stick to facts. Hunter Biden's drug abuse has nothing to do with Burisma anyway. Here's some links to read on John Solomon. There has never been an investigation into Hunter Biden. I don't know how much more clear that can be. The Guardian article doesn't say anything other than that it appeared to be a conflict of interest, not that there is any evidence of wrongdoing. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The crack pipe incident is unrelated, I entered it to refute your statement 'Hunter Biden has never been investigated' you can find many investigations into Hunter Biden. The Washington Post, NY Times, CNN, are not credible on this topic. You can't use a Leftist news organization to 'debunk' one of their own conspiracy theories. Try using foreign sources or the intercept.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-post/ Overall, we rate The Washington Post Left-Center biased due to story selection that favors the left and factually High due to the use of proper sources. (5/18/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 10/07/2019)

Hunter Biden obviously didn't do anything wrong by being paid millions of dollars for doing nothing, right? Try this leftist piece that tries to justify it socially: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/hunter-bidens-legal-socially-acceptable-corruption/598804/


 * The Washington Examiner is not used for exceptional claims in Wikipedia and the article you cited has nothing to do with this article anyhow. John Solomon Reports is not a reliable source. The Guardian article you cited makes it clear that Ukraine was corrupt and that Joe Biden undertook efforts to force them to clean up their act. Hunter Biden likely made poor choices and likely made money on his father’s name (like Trump’s children). But, there is no evidence that he was corrupt or that this has anything to do with this article. Please indent your responses. O3000 (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * By what basis do you state these claims? Your conclusions are false, and illusions about Trump's children.  Politicians have enriched themselves for Generations, both Democrat and Republican.  Trump built hotels.  It's a different ballgame.  Not fair to compare.  But again, your false conclusions are opinions anyway, where does it say Washington Examiner is not credible?  What are considered 'credible' sources by you people?   Do you really believe, that these politicians, ALL included, Bill Clinton, George Bush, Obama, are not completely corrupt?  If they were so clean, why are they so terrified of investigations into their past corrupt political dealings?  See Clinton Cash  Writing for The Washington Post, academic and political activist Lawrence Lessig wrote "On any fair reading, the pattern of behavior that Schweizer has charged is corruption.Wikireadia2020 (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/press-conference/625831.html KYIV. Nov 20 (Interfax-Ukraine) – Ukrainian members of parliament have demanded the presidents of Ukraine and the United States, Volodymyr Zelensky and Donald Trump, investigate suspicions of the legalization of $7.4 billion by the "family" of ex-President Viktor Yanukovych through the American investment fund Franklin Templeton Investments, which they said has ties to the U.S. Democratic Party. "Last week, November 14, the Prosecutor General's Office (PGO), unnoticed by the media, announced a new suspicion to the notorious owner of Burisma, ex-Ecology Minister Zlochevsky. According to the suspicion, the Yanukovych family is suspected, in particular, with legalizing (laundering) of criminally obtained income through Franklin Templeton Investments, an investment fund carrying out purchases of external government loan bonds totaling $7.4 billion," Derkach said. With reference to the investigation, he emphasized: it was money criminally obtained by the "family" of Yanukovych and invested in the purchase of Ukrainian debt in 2013-2014. For his part, MP Oleksandr Dubinsky from the Servant of the People faction said that according to investigators, "the Yanukovych 'family' illegally obtained $7.4 billion and laundered the funds through an investment fund close to some representatives of the U.S. Democratic Party in the form of external government loan bonds." Meanwhile, Derkach said that several facts indicate Franklin Templeton Investments' relationship with the U.S. Democratic Party. "The son of Templeton's founder, John Templeton Jr., was one of President Obama's major campaign donors. Another fund-related character is Thomas Donilon. Managing Director of BlackRock Investment Institute, shareholder Franklin Templeton Investments, which has the largest share in the fund. It is noteworthy that he previously was Obama's national security advisor," Derkach said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikireadia2020 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So what? What's the point of copy-pasting this? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you completely incapable of objectively looking at facts? This supports the evidence based corruption charges against multiple Democrats (American) in Ukraine, not only Biden. There are lots of documents in Ukrainian language if you want to see them as well. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union the CIA has backed satellite states, including Ukraine, and used it as ground zero for money laundering and all kinds of financial and political crimes. https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/06/03/how-why-us-government-perpetrated-2014-coup-ukraine/ Wikireadia2020 (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC) http://web.archive.org/web/20140720183946/https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/05/r-hunter-biden-declare-owns-new-ukrainian-employer-burisma-holdings.html The question is - where's the money? We know where it is, and it aint with Ukrainian people. This ain't our first rodeo, this has been done in hundreds of client states, Iraq, Afghanistan, Chile, .. Wikireadia2020 (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , first off, be WP:CIVIL or else you could face a topic ban. Second, it seems like all you're doing is casting aspersions, and none of this has anything to do with Trump pressuring the Ukraine into starting an investigation into the Bidens. I'm rehatting this. I suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Judiciary Committee hearings
So, the entire section is devoted to criticism of Turley's testimony. And not a peep of criticism against the testimony of the other three. Why is that? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there a specific addition you'd like to propose? – Muboshgu (talk) 05:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * You read my previous post.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have properly sourced criticism of the other three witnesses, feel free to add it. This is not a page for complaining. - MrX 🖋 12:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Then, why are you complaining? Mine was a valid question.  Was it or was it not?   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for asking. Because you've been here long enough to know that article talk pages are for working on specific edit proposals and for resolving edit disputes. - MrX 🖋 19:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, consider WP:WEIGHT. I'm not finding any real criticisms of the other three in the press other than the silly reaction to Karlan's "Barron" comments. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 13:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah, there is criticism of the other three. And anything that I provide ... your Wikipedia responses will be "oh, that's not an RS" ... or ... "oh, that's just a fringe theory".  And, yes, what about adding the comment that the female professor said about "Barron and baron"?  And ... regardless of all the POV on this page ... the entire section is devoted to criticizing Turley?  The entire section?   Give me a break.    Please.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have no intention of offering your sources, then you shouldn't have made your comment in the first place. No one will say it is not a RS if it is a RS. Fox News is the way it is, but it is considered a RS as far as I know(just as an example). 331dot (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh, really? How come the last time that I provided Fox News ... (a) it was not a RS ...?  And (b) it was a "fringe theory"?  Why is that?  If you want, I will go find the old discussion logs.  But, I am sure there will be some Wikipedia-speak reply to keep out certain information ... and to keep the article as POV as possible.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't speak to what has happened to you in the past. But this page is not for any user to just come here, criticize it, and then leave without standing up for what they are arguing for and backing up what they claim.  If you have a change you want to make, let's see it.  331dot (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * This is exactly the place for an editor to question and criticize the article content. The exact appropriate place.  (Or is there some other Talk Page that I should be going to?)  My question ... if you don't want to "scroll up" about an inch or two is ...  So, the entire section is devoted to criticism of Turley's testimony.  And not a peep of criticism against the testimony of the other three.  Why is that?   Did you see that, above?     Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I don't know what post you're referring to when you said "You read my previous post". If you're referring to the last time you and I interacted, that isn't relevant to your current criticism, which you are still not laying out in any sort of a clear way. Simply levying broad criticisms is unhelpful. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * ... The words "my previous post" referred to the specific post that you had replied to. Namely, my post that said So, the entire section is devoted to criticism of Turley's testimony.  And not a peep of criticism against the testimony of the other three.  Why is that?   .   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , yeah, I read that post, and you're not talking about what specifically you want changed. Which is why I asked, "Is there a specific addition you'd like to propose? " I don't see an answer to that yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Your criticism boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT unless you are offering what changes you feel would improve what you see as problematic, but you have declined to do that. 331dot (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Then make a well-sourced addition. The talk page is not a forum. WMSR (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * ... I don't have to do anything. So, please don't order me around and tell me what I "have to do".  I am pointing out -- on the appropriate venue, this Talk Page -- that there is criticism from all sides of all four professors.  That is a fact.  And I am pointing out that this article is POV in that it is only detailing criticism against one, and not the other three.  Is that not a valid question / concern for this Talk Page?  And ... as I said ... any source that I provide will be "poo-pooed" in Wikipedia-speak as "not an RS" and "a fringe theory".   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Only if it is not an RS or a fringe theory. Your posts here are not useful. Refusing to provide possible text won't get you anywhere. O3000 (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Then why bother coming here at all? If you're just here to make a point, as it seems you are, please see the relevant policy. WMSR (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * What does that policy have to do with my (valid) question?    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Seriously, of all pages on Wikipedia ... you don't think that this specific page is ripe (for both sides) to be POV? Seriously?  Yeah, right.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This page is not just to point out things. This is for discussing changes to the article.  You aren't proposing any changes.  You need to either propose something or move along instead of disrupting this page with criticism. 331dot (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * It's not my obligation to go out and find sources. I am telling you that there are plenty out there.  I am pointing out a problem with the article ... which is exactly what this page is for.  How interesting that no one seems concerned about this.  Which is exactly the POV that I am taking about.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Or, perhaps you are correct. All of the criticism out there -- all of it -- is against Turley ... every bit of it.  And there is no criticism whatsoever of the other three.  Yeah, I guess that's the case.  Silly me.  Not sure what I was thinking?  How silly of me, huh?    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:TPG: Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic: the talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not vent your feelings about it. WMSR (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Quote all the policies you want. Improve the article by adding criticism of all professors, not just one.  Got it? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT. It isn't up to others to do your work for you.  If you want to see a certain change, you do the work or at least provide the information here. 331dot (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * you seem to have a bad case of WP:IDHT. - MrX 🖋 19:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , have you been prohibited from editing the article? soibangla (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Criticism of all four professors
Here is one source. The Democrats’ Missed Opportunity on Impeachment I am sure I can find many others. I don't have time to do so, right now. Why is criticism of all four professors not included? Why is that? In other words ... what is the reason for that? OK ... now, everybody start quoting 100 different Wikipedia policies, explaining to me why this source is no good and the info cannot get into the article. I am sure that will be the conclusion. I am just curious what the "reasoning" will be. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh, geez ... here's another: Gregg Jarrett: Impeachment-obsessed Democrats ignore logic and law as 4 professors testify at hearing. But, that's probably not a RS ... I assume.  Or, it's a "fringe theory" ... yes?      Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh, geez ... yet another: House Judiciary Academic Witness List Filled With Trump Critics. How is it that I can find all this information in a 5-second Google search?  And no one else can seem to find anything at all?   Wow, that's odd, huh?  So strange?  Wonder what's up?  LOL.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay. So what relevance does Gregg Jarrett's opinion have?  It isn't up to others to find sources to support your claims to do what you want to see done for you.  It's up to you. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Yep, here we go. One thousand reasons why these sources are not "good enough" ... and the info cannot get into the article.  So, just so I am clear ... Reason #1 is that (lawyer) Gregg Jarrett's (legal) opinion is invalid.  Correct?  Or, at least, irrelevant.  Yes?   Oh, ok.  Let's round out the other 999 reasons why this info can't get into the article.  Thanks.  LOL.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed. Gregg Jarrett is most definitely not a reliable source, nor is any other regular guest on Hannity. They make stuff up — bigtime, quite shamelessly. soibangla (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh, ok. You are the final arbiter on that?  Or is that a Wikipedia policy?  Quote -- that Gregg Jarrett is most definitely not a reliable source, nor is any other regular guest on Hannity. They make stuff up.   Where is that policy?  And ... Gregg Jarrett did not author all three of those articles that I cited.  Or, did he?   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Yep, the Hannity show is pretty much wall-to-wall cartoonish trash every night. soibangla (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Why not just make an edit? soibangla (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's funny. If anyone makes any sort of edit against the POV narrative ... it will get reverted ... and we will be right here on the Talk Page.  I was saving us that one extra step.  Just look at all the vitriol in this section and the above section.  No one has any interest in adding any critique of the "other" three professors.  And will put up every obstacle against it.  You don't see that?   "Make an edit to the article" .... now, that's funny!    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't see you've made a material edit to the article since at least Nov 18th. Are you simply presuming your edits will be reverted, choosing instead to rant here about the unfairness of it all? I don't get it. soibangla (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * You yourself just told me that Gregg Jarrett and my other sources were not RS ... don't you remember? Read above.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * You are clearly doing this to make a point and not make a good faith contribution. It's disappointing and does not help this article.  I would ask you to either work collaboratively in good faith with the others here, or find something else to edit. 331dot (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah ... I have to work collaboratively ... but no one else does. Give me a break.  Read the above two Talk Page sections.  This one.  And the one above that someone has "hidden / collapsed".    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You are the one making the WP:POINT here, not others. 331dot (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Didn't you, yourself, just say that Gregg Jarrett's opinion is irrelevant? Didn't you just say that?   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You’ve been here for twelve years, with over 80,000 edits to your name. And you somehow can’t identify reliable sources? Gregg Jarrett is notable, in part, because he is known for regularly making false statements. The Epoch Times is a source widely known for pushing conspiracy theories, and is regarded by the community as being generally unreliable; as one of the editors brought up, they themselves actually tout the former fact as part of their appeal in their YouTube commercials. If you’re unsure if a source is reliable or if it has a decent reputation for fact-checking, take it to the RSN. Continually crossing the line of WP:POINT, opining on what you don’t like, and being generally belligerent to other editors is not helpful. Editing collaboratively works if you don’t run afoul of core policies, and use reliable sources. You’ve been here long enough, one assumes, to know how this works- including the use of noticeboards to gauge wider community consensus. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, it just seems like you're arguing for the sake of argument. If you want to make an edit, do it. But coming to the talk page to complain about the article, even if you provide reliable sources, is inappropriate. Regarding your first source, it may be worth mentioning that Democrats on the Judicial Committee perhaps should have chosen different witnesses, but that is a criticism of the Democrats on the committee, not the legal experts themselves. Beyond that, op-ed pieces are not reliable sources anyway (c'mon–you knew this), and the Epoch Times piece sort of states the obvious: that Trump critics were critical of Trump. That's not a criticism. Regardless, stop picking fights on the talk page. Make an edit. We aren't here to cross-examine each other; we are here to build an encyclopedia. WMSR (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Calm down, folks. This is a pointless discussion. It doesn't matter if a particular legal opinion of the professors is critical or laudatory - because there are NO opinions in that section, no "reviews" if you will, reporting what people thought of them. And there shouldn't be. Our article says who testified and briefly summarizes their testimony. Period. That's all we need and there is no point in arguing about adding third party opinions of their testimony or of the Democrats' strategy or whatever. They do not further the narrative here. We don't need them and we won't be adding any, from any viewpoint. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

What remains to be understood
One Intelligence Committee member (Raja Krishnamoorthi) (during a 12/6/2019 NPR interview) gave three 'knowledge gap' points in discussing trying to understand the broader picture of the "Ukrainian phone call' point in the impeachment inquiry (including who all was involved in the event that they are studying, and what pressures were applied, when and how). Ought this to be outlined as the focus is sharpened? MaynardClark (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * NPR is a strong source, but I’d feel better about its inclusion if it’s also mentioned in another source. However, his position on the Intelligence Committee may make it due regardless. I think it’s fine to add it, provided it’s weighted. Keep it short. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Impeachment process against Donald Trump (December 12)
<div style="border: solid 1px #FCC; background-color: #F8EEBC; padding: 0.5em 1em; color: #000; margin: 1.5em; width: 90%;"> Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Impeachment process against Donald Trump and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Impeachment process against Donald Trump, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Impeachment_process_against_Donald_Trump Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DGG&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Impeachment_process_against_Donald_Trump reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

 DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Is this in the public domain?
https://www.c-span.org/video/?467306-1/house-judiciary-committee-debates-articles-impeachment

Victor Grigas (talk) 13:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

See xxxxyyyy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapianus forever love (talk • contribs) 13:38, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * CSPAN says no. Only floor proceedings, not committee proceedings, are public domain.-<b style="background:#00ffff">Ich</b> (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Date likely needs change.
May have to change the date to December 13, 2019, for when the Judiciary committee votes on the articles of impeachment. Those windbags (committee members) are still yapping & now repeating themselves 3 or 4 times over :( GoodDay (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Nadler's just announced the vote will be on the 13th. GoodDay (talk) 04:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I added at least one citation as it came off the press. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

A new article is necessary (part 4?)
With the articles of impeachment to be announced in a half an hour, I will submit @Nixinova's draft article (he started it, so it's his) to be transferred to the main space. I will then delete my draft. The title will be Impeachment of Donald Trump. If none of the articles of impeachment are passed, then the article will be moved to "the Impeachment process of Donald Trump." Does anyone have any serious objections before I do this?Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, drop the "The." WMSR (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Done.Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I would also wait until there's a bit more consensus. I'm on board but there are a lot of people who should be given a chance to weigh in first. WMSR (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Now is the right time. If you need someone to move the page and it's history over the redirect, I can do it. Just ping me, or you can get an admin to do it.- MrX 🖋 16:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Now is NOT the right time. There is no such thing as an "impeachment of Donald Trump". It hasn't happened. It doesn't exist. There will not be such a thing until the full House approves an article of impeachment. You can have the draft ready to move to mainspace as soon as that vote happens. But not in mainspace, not until it is voted by the House. Right now it is in the realm of WP:CRYSTAL until the vote is taken and he is actually impeached. We can't write an article about something that hasn't happened. Until then it's still an inquiry. (Similar to when a newly elected president is about to take office: someone has all the necessary revisions to that person's article all cued up and ready to go, but not enacted until he takes the oath of office. If you didn't know that's the process, it is; I witnessed it at least once.) -- MelanieN (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL is clear (get it?) that expected events make for appropriate subjects, which is why we have 2020 United States presidential election, and many other articles about things that don't yet exist or events that have not yet happened, but are likely to. This would be an issue if, and only if, there were any sources suggesting that there is any doubt that the Democratic majority house will vote to impeach. Even if that were remotely possible, moving the article back to Impeachment process of Donald Trump is readily available as an option. - MrX 🖋 20:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What said, there is little to no doubt based on reliable sources and government officials that articles of impeachment will be introduced and/or ratified very soon. This isn't an "inquiry" anymore.  Gwen Hope  (talk) (contrib) 22:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. Sure, it hasn't occurred yet, but it's pretty inevitable. Even if it takes a week or so, there should be an "impeachment of" article that goes up. (Sirkh1 3:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * No, it should not be moved to …of… yet, but it can be moved to …process against… now. The draft article is not about the impeachment vote, it's a parent article encompassing the entire process. <b style=background:#12c;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>Nixinova</b> </b><b style=background:#27f;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>T</b> <b style=color:white>C</b> </b>  22:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

We have never reached a consensus about whether to have one article or two. We need to decide that within the next week. I have started a discussion below specifically on that question. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

One article or two?
Impeachment will be voted next week. We have a choice. We can then retitle this article "Impeachment of Donald Trump" and add the trial in the Senate - which is really the only thing left to say. Or we can leave this one as "inquiry" and create a whole new article "Impeachment of Donald Trump," which would summarize this article and then cover the trial in the Senate. We have never reached a consensus on this issue. Comments? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. I should have pointed out that a draft of a proposed second article already exists: Draft:Impeachment of Donald Trump. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging previous discussants. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I favor keeping a single article, this one, and retitling it to "Impeachment of Donald Trump". With all three previous presidential impeachment situations we have a single article, not two. I don't see any good argument for splitting this one into two articles. Either the new article will have a ton of necessary duplication with this one, or else there will be a constant need to refer back and forth between two articles to get the whole story. If this one is too long (which is probably is), we can easily trim out a lot of the day-to-day detail; we have a tendency to report every development on a play-by-play basis, but a lot of that stuff becomes unimportant the next day or the next week. I will be glad to help with that effort. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * BTW it appears that the actual trial in the Senate is going to be fairly short, possibly pro-forma. That suggests that this current article already contains at least 90% of everything there is to say on the subject. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Unless the Senate proceedings become exceedingly long, I wouldn't mind a single article. We already have an article for what caused this impeachment, Trump-Ukraine scandal so we don't necessarily need something else at this time.  Gwen Hope  (talk) (contrib) 19:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Best we rename this article Impeachment of Donald Trump, whenever the House passes either (or both) impeachment articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I would favor a separate article for the impeachment for now. It would be better to do two and then look at merger than to attach at the end.   There is a clear separation of date and scope, so should be little or no duplication between the two articles.  If there was only one article it would also be a lengthy period mess of ongoing reorganization and massive cuts to this content due to different scope and to squeeze out space for a tidbit at the end.  For now retitling would also just appear as mis-naming, as the article would be 95% inquiry and just a tidbit at the end of whatever new things.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * There are already two. There should be another one. A trilogy that I've been arguing for for weeksArglebargle79 (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * We should always have a bias against creating multiple articles, but I think we have to wait and see. Can we have a consensus in advance?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I favor one article as well but support renaming to Impeachment Process against Donald Trump after the Committee voted to send to the House floor. Nukaboy23 (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Significant errors in the lede
I've had to temporarily trim the first paragraph of the lede (listed above) due to significant errors - presumably coming from editors who haven't read the actual whistleblower complaint clearly enough. Here: whistleblower alleged that President Donald Trump had abused the power of the presidency by withholding both military aid and a White House meeting - (1) the whistleblower wasn't sure whether the military aid was part of the pressure campaign: I do not know definitively whether the below-mentioned decisions are connected to the broader efforts I describe (2) the White House meeting plays a minor role in the whistleblower complaint, where it is vaguely stated it would depend on whether Zelenskyy showed willingness to “play ball” on the issues that had been publicly aired by Mr. Lutsenko and Mr. Giuliani - note that Trump's involvement was not explicitly stated on this point. Also, here in the lede: as a means of pressuring newly-elected President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky to publicly announce investigations - (3) the whistleblower complaint does not mention public announcements of investigations. It merely mentions investigations themselves.  starship .paint  (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * - please be more careful. Error (3) was contributed by ZiplineWhy on November 26  and errors (1) and (2) on December 1 for CarolynETaylor. .  starship  .paint  (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * - the whistleblower was not sure whether military aid withholding was abuse of power or genuine policy. Please read what the whistleblower wrote.  starship  .paint  (talk) 07:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


 * - error (3) to publicly announce investigations as listed above is still in the lede - the whistleblower didn't allege that. In fact, I'm wondering if we should bypass the whistleblower in the first sentence. Events since then have bypassed the whistleblower, and in fact, the impeachment inquiry was started even before the whistleblower report or the call transcript was released to Congress. In starting the inquiry, Pelosi said:  Therefore I propose the following first sentence.  starship  .paint  (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for continuing to point out oversights and errors regarding this complicated topic! I've just made another edit to more accurately reflect what's in the whistleblower complaint vs. what was announced later. I do think it's a good idea to keep the complaint in the first paragraph since that was the impetus of the impeachment inquiry. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * - while the existence of the whistleblower complaint no doubt spurred the inquiry, the inquiry still began in spite of the contents of the whistleblower complaint being withheld. My point is that there is so much more to the scandal than what was in the whistleblower complaint. People closer to the president have now testified - alleging even more than the whistleblower. Attempts to force-fit the whistleblower into the bigger picture and wider allegations are off the mark, in my view. As such, I have attempted to alter the lede. - please take a look.  starship  .paint  (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * No judgement on your proposed new lead paragraphs, but I temporarily reverted because 1) it's still in open discussion 2) I've had to copyedit countless variations on major lead changes already and I'm not doing it again unless the new lead structure gains consensus first. I agree with your general sentiment that the inquiry as a whole has to do with more than the initial whistleblower complaint at this point, but at least the status quo has recently been thoroughly checked for errors. I'm happy to help draft a new version but IMO this is too highly read and important to rashly implement a new pre-copyedited lead. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Where it says "perform two favors: to pursue investigations of Joe Biden and his son" is not actually true, what is the case (and what was said in the impeachment hearings, for instance by ambassador Gordon Sondland ), is that "He had to announce the investigations, he didn’t actually have to do them". So there was no need to pursue any investigation, only to announce it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.108.203.133 (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * That would arguably be much worse from a defensibility standpoint. The current Republican talking points are trying to say Trump was just trying to investigate the "corrupt" Bidens and this is coming from a place of good faith. This perspective you've proposed is claiming that Trump just wanted Zelensky to bad-faith purvey the appearance of investigations to get the aid released after his lies about the investigation damaged his political rival.  Gwen Hope  (talk) (contrib) 23:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * That is what the whistleblower alleged; it's explained in the body that they only to be announced. As we're discussing above, a new lead might better summarize the inquiry as a whole rather than focus on what the whistleblower alleged verbatim; however, I think the whistleblower complaint pretty well summarizes the extent of the accusations, and as Gwen Hope pointed out, the fact that they only had to be announced is not particularly exonerating. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

- so, - you reverted me, can I get a sense with what you object to with my proposed first two paragraphs. Thanks!  starship .paint  (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

- any comments?  starship .paint  (talk) 03:16, 15 December 2019 (UTC)


 * My main objections were that you need to get consensus and finely tune this in a draft version to fix any errors before replacing the first two paragraphs of the lead. Feel free to open an Rfc to get input from other editors. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)


 * - RFCs usually take a month at least. Who knows what might happen during that time. Anyway, if the article is indeed moved, then the scope of the lede will have to be tweaked. I'll think about making a new section.  starship .paint  (talk) 02:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

So what do we do now?
The vote in the HJC is over. Impeachment will be voted on Wednesday. The article's too long. What do we do?Arglebargle79 (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait until the vote.--Nowa (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, we need to decide what to do, within the next week. I've started a place for discussion above, but I probably should have put it down here. I will move it here and give it a section of its own. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Do what there is in easy cleanup and shorter phrasing. Then pursue cuts of whatever seems removable.  A lot of the day-by-day “On xx month” were just steps along the way, and might get cut.  A number of other spots are sidenotes that seem low-relevance.  Prune the blow-by-blow, stick to the facts, and generally raise the bar on how much details to have and eliminate the excess.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Please! - The inquiry and process are two separate events. Please don’t move! E Super Maker (😲 shout) 01:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• weak oppose We should wait until trump is formally impeached to rename the page, but I do support creating separate pages for the inquiry and the Impeachment of Donald Trump. Luke825015 (talk) 06:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Split proposed
As of the current revision of this article, it is 288,000 bytes in length, which is extremely long. Therefore, I am proposing multiple splits in this article into the following: The name of these titles may be debated accordingly, but the content of these articles will remain the same throughout. The content that exists in this article should be used to create these new articles and summaries should be left in their place on this article. Jay Coop &middot;&#32;Talk &middot;&#32;Contributions 04:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Investigations related to the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump
 * Timeline of public hearings in the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump
 * Reactions to the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump
 * Public opinion of the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump
 * You haven't even edited this article, which is important in this case because the proposed titles seem rather useless to me. I suggest withdrawing your split proposal at least until you have a better grasp of the content. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Just because I haven't edited the article, that doesn't mean I haven't been watching the article nor does it mean I don't have a "grasp of the content", a comment of which I find condescending. I was the person who proposed a split in the timeline of the 2019 Hong Kong protests article and I didn't edit the article either. Jay Coop &middot;&#32;Talk &middot;&#32;Contributions 07:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The article is 282 kB in "Wiki text", but that's not the number that matters. What matters is "readable prose size", which for this article is 77 kB (12189 words). WP:SIZERULE says it "probably" should be split, but we could choose not to. Or we could trim instead. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Too soon. And I agree with those who suggest withdrawing the request because it adds a huge block of distracting red text to a very highly read article. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually I support an article for "Timeline of public hearings..." because that section is beginning to get out of scope, and could easily compose its own article. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support / Comment: I agree on the idea of a split, but not to those names. It should be more like the following: Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump (For the inquiry phase), Impeachment process against Donald Trump (for the phase starting now). Also possibly there could be sub pages for sections that have arguably gotten too big. Just summarize the overall information, then link to the subpage in that section for users who would like further details.
 * For those of you wondering, this idea is something that came out of the rename/move proposal of the same article further up on this page. The article in quesiton is getting very large and there is likely to be even more information added as the impeachment proceedings get underway. A simple rename/move wouldn't help as the article size. As I also said in the renaming section, it's wise to keep as much information on this on Wikipedia as feasibly possible due to the high levels of misinformation on this subject. In order to keep things readable, this may mean some split pages or subpages. It will be set up a little different than the other impeachment articles, but with the extreme level of misinformation, the further details could be welcome to readers. -- Lamoxlamae (talk) 06:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support / Comment: I too, don't like the titles. It should be an Impeachment process, not impeachment investigation. While the investigation may continue, but the whole thing is a process.

(An aside to make the issue clearer. Events that took place before the invention of Wikipedia in 2002, are a lot shorter than those events that took place after. For example the 1956 Republican National Convention article is barely more than a stub, while the 2004 one is huge. Why? There were editors interesting in the subject following it and writing the article collaboratively in real-time. Same with the Nixon, Andrew Johnson and Clinton impeachments. Wikipedia wasn't there. Wikipedia is there now, so we should have a longer series of articles.) Arglebargle79 (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose the proposed splitting. Split the impeachment vote and articles, maybe, but not into separate articles about "investigations", "reactions", and "public opinion"; that's too far. <b style=background:#12c;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>Nixinova</b> </b><b style=background:#27f;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>T</b> <b style=color:white>C</b> </b>  20:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Just wait and see. What we should do will become apparent when the next big action is taken. The house is in recess for thanksgiving. We should focus our efforts on organizing the article. We should be merging stub sections and lightly trimming material that is repetitive. There is no rush. This article is still not out of hand. --- Coffee  and crumbs  21:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I Oppose any subdivision of the impeachment process into multiple articles, but I certainly oppose a splitting of this article, which so far is only about the preliminaries. What are we looking at, 15 or 20 impeachment articles by the time this process is complete? A timeline could be created, but it would be a supplement to this article, not a splitting out. I agree with the suggestion that some excess detail could be trimmed.. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Coffeeandcrumbs and per WP:CRYSTAL: we need to wait and see what happens first. Also, if we were to split, I suggest at least include reactions and public opinion in the same article. Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * -Support I have read this article in its entirety and I agree--this article is getting too long for its own good. But don't split it into 4 different articles, that's not what I wanted. Splitting it into these many articles is like WP:LGB, but with a process. We simply don't need that many articles! And to the three people who say that we should wait until they've advanced further: They're already done investigating! When will you say it's soon enough--when they've already impeached him?! (Sorry if I'm a little hysterical. Besides, as the one who suggested this, I knew I would do this eventually.) TL The Legend  talk 04:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think we should at least wait until the articles of impeachment have been drafted before the article is renamed/split. Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 00:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose — jumping the gun once again.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment — I think we have sort of a consensus. We need several more articles on this topic, but the proposal at the top ain't the way to do it. We need a timeline and process/Impeachmwent article, and maybe a separate one on the trial. There might be other ones (splitting off a trial one is premature), but the two I mentioned are necessary now. The report is being drafted as we type, and there are more than enough secondary sources pointing to a new set of hearings before the judiciary committee starting next week. Also, several of the mentioned articles already exist. There are two others besides this one already. We should have a plan, not "wait until it happens." Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Easier for readers to keep everything under one roof. The article is not overly long yet, and if it grows, we'll be able to trim a lot of minor blow-by-blow detail. — JFG talk 20:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is an actuality article, once the reliable sources comes and we switch on the encyclopedic style, many details here will appear irrelevant (Or not, we'll probably just forget this thing honestly). It's 2019, 288kb is nothing. Iluvalar (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose It should remain one article titled impeachment process after a resolution containing the impeachment articles passes. The size of the current article should be trimmed by 30-40 %, either to make room for additional material, or to summarize the inquiry if it doesn't go beyond this stage.Garp21 (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Seems useless to use over complicate the articles. This isn't a subject that can be made into a series, in my opinion. Vallee01 (talk) 13:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: It appears that has gone ahead and started the split anyway, despite the conversation here. See Impreachment process against Donald Trump. – bradv  🍁  21:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It has now been moved to draftspace, with the correct spelling Draft:Impeachment process against Donald Trump. It doesn't change the fact that this article is premature, and against the consensus here. – bradv  🍁  21:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * yeah, it's in draft stage...or at least the PTB have put it there. The thing is, is that there WILL be such an article next week when the report is out and the HJC has a new set of hearings, which begins a week from tomorrow. I'd appreciate you go there and give it a once or twice over, so when the time comes, it looks as good as possible. Right now, it's mostly stuff I got from here and the Attempts article. Be brutal. Arglebargle79 (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * there WILL be such an article next week when the report is out and the HJC has a new set of hearings No, there won't. It will still be an impeachment inquiry. The issuance of a report, or hearings by the Judiciary committee, do not change that. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Actually, there are quite a few votes/comments supporting a split that are actually in the wrong section. The rename/move proposal section at the time of writing has five "support" type comments on the idea of a split. If you add those in, the votes in support of a split is actually higher than it looks. There's also a second section calling for a split for more votes. --Lamoxlamae (talk) 05:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


 * There was clearly not a consensus to split this into multiple articles as proposed here. Please see the discussion below about whether we should have one impeachment article or two. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose This is not nescesary, as we have an article on the efforts to impeach providing the basic summary of efforts to impeach or accuse the president (such as the Mueller Investigation, the Emoluments Clause, etc.) an article on the Trump-Zelensky scandal which started the investigation, and the investigation itself. Anything more is confusing, and we don't know whether Trump will be impeached or impeached and removed from office (which is highly unlikely, considering Republicans control the majority of the Senate).  One Blue Hat  ❯❯❯ (talk)   22:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

current event banner?
Should this have a current event banner template? Mdewman6 (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion, but no. Those are for fast-moving events, the kind of situation with different information coming out all the time, sometimes conflicting or erroneous, and everybody trying to edit at once. This article gets a lot of edits but nowhere near that level. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, per Template:Current. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The current event template is pointless.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Now that it is one day away from the official vote in the House, starting tomorrow it DEFINITELY should have a current event banner on 12/18/19. We are already starting to see several edits to articles about the impeachment inquiry. Userafw (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * why wouldn`t it be ? it`s a current event 2600:1702:2340:9470:68CF:7721:95A:5260 (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Donald Trump responds and sends letter to Nancy Pelosi
This may be pertinent to the article... On December 17, 2019, the president wrote a 6 page letter to Nancy Pelosi "for the purpose of history and to put my thoughts on a permanent and indelible record".

https://www.scribd.com/document/440155100/Letter-From-President-Trump-Final#fullscreen&from_embed - 74.76.202.168 (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This letter has already been added to the "Responses" section as one of Trump's responses. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2019
Want to add short description Has a Username (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. MadGuy7023 (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Just rezailed the is one.Has a Username (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

add +700 scholars urge impeachment letter here?
X1\ (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * More than 700 scholars pen letter urging House to impeach Trump Dec. 16, 2019
 * mirrored at SFgate without payway here

Edit problem...
Someone added that the impeachment of Donald Trump began on December 18. Was this a good idea? I feel like that should've been saved for the article that's being made. Someone say something if I'm wrong. Thenorthgoingzax (talk) 01:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If there will be an article about the inquiry and a different article about the impeachment, then I think the statement at the top of this article is out of place. I think it makes more sense for the article about the inquiry to state that he has been impeached at the end of the introduction rather than the beginning. Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Technically, he's not impeached until the amendment with articles passes the house, which just happened a few minutes ago. 98.4.103.219 (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 13 December 2019
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED per WP:IAR. (non-admin closure) ---  C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump → Impeachment process against Donald Trump – They've passed the articles of impeachment and Trump is being impeached next week, so its about time to upgrade this from an "inquiry" stage which arguably ended on December 4. Unless we want to skip a step and wait until we move it to Impeachment of Donald Trump on Wednesday. <b style=background:#12c;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>Nixinova</b> </b><b style=background:#27f;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>T</b> <b style=color:white>C</b> </b>  21:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Now that there has been an actual vote on the matter, we are into process.  This is as far as the Impeachment process against Richard Nixon got. 331dot (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and above (and move again once he is impeached). Colonestarrice (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It is a different topic than the content of this article. Later on try a merge to combined structure can be cleanly done - but just changing title doesn’t help. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * They did an inquiry into Nixon, too, but I don't believe there is a separate article for that. 331dot (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * (There are at least six, actually: US v. Nixon, Watergate Scandal, Nixon White House tapes, Impeachment process of Richard Nixon, United States Senate Watergate Committee, Saturday Night Massacre, Richard Nixon's resignation speech, plus some others. Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There are multiple impeachment RELATED articles for Clinton and Nixon, yes, and there already are for Trump also. Primarily Trump–Ukraine scandal, but others too, like all the Russia related articles. And somebody might write a timeline article. That's not what we are talking about. We are discussing whether there should be more than one article about the impeachment process itself. Presumably, one about the impeachment inquiry and one about everything after the point at which impeachment is voted. Neither Clinton nor Nixon has that. The actual impeachment is a single article. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support: Per 331dot. It's become the process, now. &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 21:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Per above. Bulhis899 (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. Consistent with the case of Nixon. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There's a perfectly good article in the draft space. Plus there are three other articles, There are three on the Clinton Impeachment, too.Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Any further arguments before the Senate will just repeat past arguments. If there is some reason to split this later, deal with that later. O3000 (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - For now. Renaming is moving the page. Every time you rename a page, you leave behind a redirect that serves a purpose in searches. Not a big deal in normal circumstances, but every renaming creates a redirect. It seems to me like this article is frequently suggested for renaming. And not always the same one. Will we have redirects to redirects? And if we move this page, and then decide to divide it up into additional pages?  Or not?  I think the logistics need to be thought out before a definitive move happens. Maybe someone could propose defined steps/article names for the full process, before any moves happen. — Maile  (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * To offer some information regarding the points you raise, double redirects (redirects to redirects) are eventually bot-fixed, or can be manually fixed. All of the page names being discussed already exist and redirect to this page. I don't think the logistics are the main concern; let's name this page the most appropriate name at a given moment in the process and redirects will be sorted out as necessary, since any moves will require moves over redirects, which can only be done by admins and editors with special privileges. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This article is pretty big already (e.g., it has more than 500 citations and is more than 300 kbytes long). If we try to make it cover the entire process, it could either become way too big or a lot of material will need to be deleted. Instead, we can create a separate article at the proposed title and retain a more in-depth discussion of the inquiry stage here. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – This intermediary move seems unnecessary. Although we do not have a separate article for the impeachment TRIAL of Bill Clinton, it seems necessary to have impeachment trial of Donald Trump. By the time we finish this discussion, unless it snows, we are sure to move to impeachment of Donald Trump. If Draft:Impeachment of Donald Trump is going to be the parent article, then this article should remain as "inquiry" as that is the COMMONNAME. If we publish the draft, the Judiciary Committee hearings should be split to the new article about the whole impeachment (the proposed parent article). This article then remains mostly about the inquiry. A comparison to Nixon is not helpful. I think the only reason that article is named it that unusual way is because Nixon resigned before the House voted to impeach. If Nixon had resisted for a few more days, that article would have been named impeachment of Richard Nixon once the House voted to impeach, which the chamber never got a chance to do. If the impeachment of Bill Clinton was a Featured topic, there would be a separate article on the senate trial. We can just wait to December 18, and rename this article Impeachment of Donald Trump or publish Draft:Impeachment of Donald Trump. We need to remember that the House impeaches. Period. End of article. The senate trial is an aftermath to this article. IMO, the senate aftermath should be a separate article. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am now convinced that there should be three articles: Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, Impeachment of Donald Trump, and Impeachment trial of Donald Trump in the senate. There will be some overlap between the first and second articles, and some overlap between the second and third articles. There is no reason to have an article named Impeachment process against Donald Trump or Impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump.--- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * comment: I've been advocating that for weeks! Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This article should end with the section named Final report (of course followed by the section on Responses). --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It's almost guaranteed that this will article will soon become Impeachment of Donald Trump, so why bother changing it now when we're 99.9% certain it will need to be changed again? User101010 (talk) 04:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Coffeeandcrumbs.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per Coffeeandcrumbs, particularly the point that after December 18, we can just rename this article or create a new one called Impeachment of Donald Trump. UpdateNerd (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment What if we just wait until Donald Trump is either impeached or beats the Impeachment Inquiries, and then make an article describing either Donald and other's reactions and updates there if he's impeached, or if he beats them, just add it to this article? Thenorthgoingzax (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I would ordinarily support the name change as the process has moved to the next stage. However, as it is entirely possible that actual impeachment may begin very soon, we might want to wait until it moves or doesn't move to that level. Alden Loveshade (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd prefer "proceedings" to "process." soibangla (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support I do believe that we should do 'something' with this article, but not necessarily a move. We could rename it, per Coffeeandcrumbs' suggestion, or do something else, but I believe that a move is the best option. TL The Legend  talk 19:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * comment; @The legend: "Moving" in wiki-speak is synonymous with "renaming."Arglebargle79 (talk)
 * Support I really think a move would be beneficial for this article. But, As User:Alden Loveshade said, maybe we should wait until it's all over, or until we're in the next stage. Just my opinion.Thenorthgoingzax (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm against a move if this is just temporary and we'll be back for another discussion when the process moves to the Senate next month. If the trial will be a separate article, then go ahead with this move. But repeated moves cause problems with redirects and links and it makes no sense to retitle Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump to Impeachment process against Donald Trump for three weeks if it will just be moved again, to Impeachment of Donald Trump, in January. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 19:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong Support We are past the inquiry phase. --TFFfan (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per above points on how it is not an inquiry anymore. Additionally, against the point that this will have to be moved in little while again anyway, the purpose of the name is to be accurate, not convienent. WittyRecluse (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The suggested title is more accurate since the impeachment proceedings have gone beyond just being an inquiry.Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment why not change the article to Impeachment of Donald Trump because it is more than proceedings and inquiry. This title is more general and fits WP:COMMONNAME even many news source used title just as "Impeachment of Donald Trump". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.127.58 (talk) 06:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The current title of "Impeachment inquiry" instead of just "Impeachment" dates back to September, per this archived discussion. WP:COMMONNAME solely based on today's breaking news sources may sometime be ignored when it is rapidly ever-changing. Despite what the news sources are saying right now on December 15, the full House has not voted yet to officially impeach Trump yet, so it is still really in the impeachment process. Similarly, the Impeachment process against Richard Nixon is so named because the full House in 1974 did not get to pass their articles of impeachment against Nixon -- Nixon resigned before he was impeached. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The inquiry is over, The process has begun Great Mercian (talk) 09:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per C&C. Mgasparin (talk) 08:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - just wait for Impeachment of Donald Trump. Far less wordy! Ljgua124 (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Once impeachment occurs literally tomorrow, this will be a moot point. Master of Time   ( talk ) 04:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Move to Impeachment of Donald Trump. Trump has just been impeached so this title should be used. Interstellarity (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

part two
Okay, it seems that there is, and has been, a consensus, for a while. That this article should be moved on December 18th. Fine. If on that date, the vote goes one way, i.e., Trump wins, we move it to Impeachment process of Donald Trump and be done with it. I don't like it, but I can live with that. The article is too long anyway, but what can ya do?

If the vote goes the other way, then there's the rub. What I've been suggesting (WP:Dead Horse) for months now, is that if Trump loses, we don't move this article at all but move @Nixova's draft to the main space (As was tried twice, already) as a parent page, start Impeachment trial of Donald Trump, and maybe a timeline article and a polling article, which will shorten this one by quite a bit.

I've explained this a couple of times before in the archives. The reason that the "impeachment" articles on Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton didn't have separate articles on their trials is that the events predated Wikipedia's invention. I'm 100% sure that had the Monica mess taken place with Wikipedia already in cyberspace, then there would have been a separate trial article, same with Nixon.

So if Trump is impeached on Wednesday: We should A) leave the page as is, and add three more articles, @Nixonova's parent page, A Trial page, and a Timeline. Or B) Turn @Nixonova's page into the trial page (going from the vote in the HJC to the vote in the Senate) and leave it at that.

I Support A. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * A When this is all over, we'll need a timeline to make it more orderly. There's a whole lot of stuff that's hard to keep track of. We'll also need a trial page, and @Nixonova's parent article should be useful. Thenorthgoingzax (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * WAIT: it's only a few days!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: that's why we should be ready. So we know what we're doing when whatever happens happens. There are three choices that don't need to any postponement. We decide a couple of days before and depending on what happens execute that choice. The question is on what to do on Wednesday, not to do it on Wednesday.Arglebargle79 (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * comment We should have everybody put A or B in their main titles, like my comment. That way, we'd reach a real consensus. Thenorthgoingzax (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Basically support the above—but if Trump isn't impeached, I don't see that any renaming is necessary. UpdateNerd (talk) 08:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:TOOSOON. We don't know how this will end, and we probably shouldn't move the page or create a new one until the drama dies down.  We can sort through all the info during winter recess (winter break) and talk about it.  For now, we should let the process unfold a bit more, just in case something crazy happens (like the impeachment falls flat or something).  One Blue Hat  ❯❯❯ (talk)   22:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * comment: The prosses stops the day after tomorrow. We cannot talk about whether or not "the impeachment falls flat" over the winter because if it does so, it will happen the day after tomorrow. Granted it could happen on Thursday morning, but then it'll be over all the same. The "impeachment inquiry" is already over. This article is already way too long, and we...you get the idea. Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * TOOSOON to actually move or create, but my expectation is *this* article should finish up with the result of the full House vote. The vote determines if it is an actual impeachment or not, and whether there will be Senate trial.  What next article(s) might be comes after the vote I think.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree with Jack Upland: it's only few days (down to one day now) so we can wait. Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 02:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
 * Well, that was quickly decided. Not even the House Democrats moved that fast. GoodDay (talk) 04:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The power of procrastination
The New York Times, the Washington Post and Politico have all reported that a majority of Representatives have announced that they will vote to impeach the President this evening. This renders everything and all the opinions given above moot. The possibility of moving this article to "The Impeachment Process of Donald Trump" is gone. Unless a fantasy action, such as a battalion of Marines invadeing the House Floor, takes place, then the President will be impeached this afternoon or evening (or maybe even tomorrow morning).

this leaves us with the following decision. with this particular article already too long, should we
 * A) Move it to " The Impeachment of Donald Trump? and add an article on the trial
 * B) Move it to " The Impeachment of Donald Trump? and don't add an article on the trial, leaving it one of the longest articles in all of Wikipedia depending on what happens in January.
 * C) Don't move it at all, but add an article on the trial and/or a parent page, with a maximum of three to five articles on demonstrations (yesterday there were tens of thousands of people across the country marching, that's notable) and the like?

The time for procrastination is over. The deadline is here ane now.Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * C.Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * A. Move it to "Impeachment of Donald Trump" & begin new article on "Impeachment trial of Donald Trump". Drdpw (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * A It makes the most sense to move it like A says. That way, we have two articles splitting up the progress. B wouldn't work, it get moved again anyway. And C just adds WAAY too many articles that aren't needed. Thenorthgoingzax (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * B - as we got Impeachment of Andrew Johnson & Impeachment of Bill Clinton, which covers both of their respective trials. GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * A: The best practice for readers and viewers; by adding less to this article, and separating this process from the trial itself. I should note that both Johnson's and Clinton's impeachments and trials occurred before the creation of Wikipedia, and, as such, were settled fact, with only so many reliable sources, etc., before Wikipedia was even a thought in Jimbo's mind. We're not entirely constrained by our former practices, and, let's be honest, this is "one of the longest articles in all of Wikipedia" already. It's time for a fork. (I don't say that to disagree with GoodDay, whom I hold in high regard; just as further explication for my sincerely-held belief in option A.) &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 23:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't move this article – This article should be about the "inquiry" and should end with the Final Report. The Judiciary Committee hearings and everything after the Final Report has been copied to Draft:Impeachment of Donald Trump, which I have significantly improved. We should publish Draft:Impeachment of Donald Trump to Impeachment of Donald Trump when the House votes to impeach. This article about the inquiry, which the House conducted itself, is notable enough to need its own article. Moving this article would destroy it. It is long enough. If the senate trial becomes long enough we can split that in January, when necessary. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 *  WAIT : it's only a few hours!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , come on. There is no reason not have a plan now. I can understand saying wait a week ago but now we need a plan before chaos ensues. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That will be futile. If chaos does ensue, any plan will be as useful as a wet paper bag.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see any chaos.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait: All these rename proposals seems rather excessive. Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, GO!!! --Jack Upland (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * B no need to separate articles and prior consensus above supports this course of action.  Gwen Hope  (talk) (contrib) 01:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – I have ignored the rules and taken action to create a content fork. I hate to have done it but action was needed. You are welcome to start a discussion to merge the articles back together. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Jeez. Not even the House Democrats moved that fast. GoodDay (talk) 04:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Split without agreeing to split?
What was the point in all the previous discussions? That's not how Wikipedia works, and that's not what IAR is for. I'm not even necessarily opposed to the idea, but this really should have been discussed. Master of Time  ( talk ) 02:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said at the time, all previous discussions were pointless. The editors who should be blamed are those who continually initiated pointless discussions rather than waiting.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Once it became clear and inevitable that Trump was going to be impeached, we should have already had a discussion about whether we were going to move the article to "Impeachment of Donald Trump" or split the article. In the future, I hope that we won't have such massive outcomes dictated unilaterally. 'Ignore All Rules' is about ignoring rules that prevent the upkeep and improvement of the encyclopedia, not as some way of opting out of the consensus-forming discussion process. Master of Time   ( talk ) 03:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What? We did have discussions, as you know!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 03:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * By my reckoning, there were split discussions at which went nowhere,  which went nowhere,  which went nowhere,  which went nowhere, and  which while well-intentioned was too disorganized and was a mess of a discussion. We really should have had this discussion at, but for whatever reason, it got overlooked by most people.  Master of Time   ( talk ) 03:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In fact, similar discussions were held at Efforts to impeach Donald Trump back in May 2017.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 'Ignore All Rules' is about ignoring rules that prevent the upkeep and improvement of the encyclopedia - The discussions here were going nowhere which is why IAR was invoked, matching your interpretation of IAR. At the end of the day a split is the right decision as this inquiry page is 330kB and the impeachment page is already 60kB+ <b style=background:#12c;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>Nixinova</b> </b><b style=background:#27f;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>T</b> <b style=color:white>C</b> </b>  03:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The reason why discussions went nowhere was that there was no consensus to split. Failure to get consensus is not a reason to invoke IAR and carry out the split!!! That's dictatorial!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 04:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Recentism vs consistency, I guess. Felt like I was about to get a big car & was handed 3 dinky cars, instead :( GoodDay (talk) 03:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)