Talk:Kurt Volker

Subject's age
If Volcker was born in 1964, even if it is in December, shouldn't he be 55? Milhistor8 (talk) 14:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

NNDB - DOB & CIA
The current RSN consensus is that NNDB is not a reliable source, especially not for WP:BLP articles. I have removed two assertions that were sourced to NNDB:
 * Volker's birthday. I can't find an independent confirmation of this (it sometimes shows up in congressional hearings or questionnaires) but googling locates only Wikipedia mirrors. I want to avoid citogenesis as much as I can, and it looks like the date has spread. There are also good arguments against listing the date of birth for living people based only on primary sources. As for the alleged birth year (1964) Volker would have earned his master's in '87 (age 22-23) which is slightly on the young side but wholly plausible. Süddeutsche Zeitung gives his age as 54, but I'm cautious about citing foreign sources for Americans; these are the same qualms I had on Talk:Gina Haspel/Archives/2020.
 * Volker's age is listed as 54 by The Washington Examiner and The American Prospect so I'll update the DOB templates accordingly.

I found the WaPo article after removing the CIA claim altogether, so I will carefully re-add that assertion and quote "brief stint" from the WaPo article.-Ich (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Volker's dates of employment at the CIA. I have found references in The Washington Post ("a brief stint") and The Hill ("Volker began his career as a CIA officer before working as a foreign service officer for the State Department during the Reagan administration.") but neither give a start date. Süddeutsche Zeitung states he worked for two years for the CIA, but like above, I'm cautious about foreign sources and I'm not sure how much of this might be citogenesis. Working as a CIA analyst since 1986 while pursuing a master's degree (awarded in 1987) isn't unheard of but I want to get citations for the dates before they show up uncritically used in subsequent reporting.

Kurt D Volker, born 27 December 1964 U.S. Public Records Index, 1950-1993, Volume 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.192.184 (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Public hearing
added:
 * On November 19, 2019, Volker testified before the U.S. House of Representatives during a public hearing, during which he recanted his deposition denial of seeing no indication of that Trump had conditioned a White House meeting and military assistance for Ukraine on a promise from the country's president to investigate Trump's political rivals. Asked why he recanted, Volker stated "I have learned many things" since the previous closed-door hearing on October 3, 2019.

Since this appears to accuse a WP:BLP of perjury, I think it needs more robust sourcing and possibly some wordsmithing. Guy (help!) 11:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Is even backed by the actual video of his testimony.JoeScarce (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We go by reliable independent secondary sources. Remember: this is a witness the Republicans called, and it backfired, there will be intense scrutiny from the political right, and we need to be sure that we remain scrupulously neutral. Guy (help!) 15:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Guy, I'm sorry, I don't understand your objection to this. Who is being accused of perjury? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. The fact that he revised or recanted his earlier testimony is the lead item in all the reporting about this hearing. Not just Politico but NBC Washington Post (can't link - subscription required), CNN, etc. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it just the proposed wording that bothers you? How about something like this?

"In his public testimony, Volker amended his earlier private comments, saying that since then 'I have learned many things that I did not know at the time of the events in question.' He said he did not realize there was any linkage between the military hold and the request for investigations by Ukraine, and never suggested such a linkage to the Ukraines. He also says he didn’t understand that talk about investigating Burisma was actually intended to target the Bidens. He added, 'In retrospect, I should have seen that connection differently, and had I done so, I would have raised my own objections.'"
 * Is that OK with you? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes, because your version is NPOV and properly supported by a better source. Guy (help!) 17:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll add it. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Oops, I see that you have already added something, with multiple sources, so problem solved. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you MelanieN.JoeScarce (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)