Talk:Marie Yovanovitch

POV
This article is a talking point for the impeachment machine. Very simply, the president of United States has the power to remove diplomats for any or no reason.2601:243:CC00:FF30:F477:4935:2968:A4B3 (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * See the top of the page. This is the page for discussing improvements for the article. Very simply put, it is not for discussing the subject of the article or presidential powers. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * They are saying that the article is POV ... i.e., that it violates NPOV. Which is a valid topic for this discussion page.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Audio leak has clearly shown the motive for Yovanovitch being fired. Not a transcript, not a news article, actual audio that anyone can hear. Why does this article still present debunked allegations? I am quite shocked to see what looks like partisan hackery on Wikipedia, of all places... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.61.207.181 (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Nothing about her ordering surveillance of Trump supporters?! Just asking why it's ommitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.33.138.215 (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

BRD discussion re addition of a para to the lead and editorial POV
This is a WP:BRD discussion re the addition of a paragraph to the lead section regarding a 2019/2020 incident in the life of the subject person. I have removed that paragraph in its current state from the lead and requote it below:

"While ambassador to Ukraine, Yovanovitch was subjected to a conspiracy In May 2019, Trump recalled Yovanovitch from her post following claims by Trump surrogates that she was undermining Trump's efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rival, former vice president and 2020 U.S. presidential election candidate Joe Biden. Yovanovitch's removal preceded a July 2019 phone call by Trump in which he allegedly attempted to pressure Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Biden. Following a whistleblower complaint about the phone call and attempts to cover it up, an impeachment inquiry against Trump was initiated by the House of Representatives. Yovanovitch testified in several House committee depositions in the inquiry."

I have also expanded the heading of this section from what I mentioned in the edit summary of my removal to add: "and editorial POV".

I looked back at edits since this content was added to the lead section, and there appears to have been an edit war about its content and POV tilt. That edit war and the POV may extend to the Smear campaign against Yovanovitch and ouster section, and even to the naming of that section. I have not warned any participants about edit warring, but please note the Edit warring policy.

Please discuss contentious matters regarding her removal as Ambassador, including conspiracy theories and/or smear campaigns alleged to be related to her removal, below and come to an editorial consensus here on the talk page rather than edit warring. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I disagree with entirely removing this content. A slightly earlier (and better) version of the content summarizes an extremely important episode in the subject's life and is extremely well-sourced:


 * "While ambassador to Ukraine, Yovanovitch was subjected to a conspiracy-driven smear campaign, amplified by President Donald Trump and his allies. In May 2019, Trump abruptly recalled Yovanovitch from her post following claims by Trump surrogates that she was undermining Trump's efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rival, former vice president and 2020 U.S. presidential election candidate Joe Biden. Yovanovitch's removal preceded a July 2019 phone call by Trump in which he attempted to pressure Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Biden. Following a whistleblower complaint about the phone call and attempts to cover it up, an impeachment inquiry against Trump was initiated by the House of Representatives. Yovanovitch testified in several House committee depositions in the inquiry."


 * The version of the lead summarizes the body, as is the function of the lead section. The version of the text has also been repeatedly upheld by multiple editors who have objected to attempts to remove or water this down. If there is some specific actionable alternative or change, then I think editors would be willing to consider it, but I don't see that on the table. Neutralitytalk 19:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for discussing this here. I've fleshed out the &lt;ref name=Edmondson> cite in your quote above so that a link to the cited source appears here.
 * Regarding that cite and the assertion re conspiracy it is cited to support, I think that WP:BALANCE and WP:DUE ought to come into play here.
 * My take on WP:LEAD here is that the lead of this article about a particular person in this online encyclopedia ought to summarize that person's life overall, not just events in that person's life which are recent at the time of writing. Significant events in that person's life might be covered in article body sections. In those sections, if those events are part of a larger story, WP:SS ought to come into play -- probably with wikilinks to other articles or article sections relevant to those events in that larger story and this person's connection to that. If this person's role in that larger story is of great significance in this person's life and/or in that larger story, perhaps it ought to be documented in a standalone WP:SS detail article.
 * I'm hoping to see comments here from other interested editors. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The above version reflects the reliable sources. Principles of due weight and balance generally refer to the relative representation of viewpoints (i.e., instructs that viewpoints should be represented "in proportion to their prominence" as "published by reliable sources"), so I don't really see the relevance here. Each of the five sentences sets forth facts; it does not purport to summarize viewpoints. If you think there's some element that's not captured, please clearly identify it.
 * As to the lead section &mdash; I obviously agree that a lead section should "not just [summarize] events in that person's life which are recent at the time of writing" &mdash; but that obviously was never the case, as the entire first paragraph of the lead goes over Amb. Yovanovitch's distinguished previous career. Obviously, given the great significance of the Trump-Ukraine scandal, it needs to be included in the lead, hence the second paragraph. If you disagree with that, then please do say so. Neutralitytalk 21:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've outdented here to provide contrast in this back&forth without accumulating increasing indents.
 * I would suggest the word current in your remarks above as "given the great current significance of the Trump-Ukraine scandal". How significant this will be in her life overall has yet to play out, but it should not play out in the lead section.
 * I haven't looked thoroughly at the article's Smear campaign against Yovanovitch and ouster section, but the Smear campaign part of that section heading bothers me. I see here that Rudy Giuliani has confirmed that he was a player in her ouster, but I'm not really clear on the mechanics of that ouster or how a smear or a conspiracy played into it. From my recollection of news coverage I've seen, she received instructions from the State Dept to pack her bags and come home immediately, but I don't recall coverage of the mechanics of causing those instructions to be issued and how a conspiracy and a smear campaign figured into that. In any case, those details ought to be in the section of the article dealing with that period of her life, not in the lead. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that this was a very unusual, irregular, and high-profile ouster of an ambassador, I don't think there's any reason to doubt that this is biographically significant. I don't think any other editor has questioned that this needs to be included into the lead.
 * As to the smear campaign, that is an established, confirmed fact. See, among many other sources, Top State Department Official Confirms Smear Campaign Against Ousted Ukraine Envoy (New York Times, October 30, 2019). Obviously the specific details of the smear campaign should go in the body, but the fact that the campaign occurred belongs in the lead. Neutralitytalk 23:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be much interest here -- just the two of us going back and forth. I'm going to drop this -- do whatever consensus here will let you do. I would ask that you keep MOS:LEADBIO in mind, particular the paragraph saying, "Well-publicized recent events affecting a subject, whether controversial or not, should be kept in historical perspective. What is most recent is not necessarily what is most noteworthy: new information should be carefully balanced against old, with due weight accorded to each.". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I will plan to restore the earlier version of the paragraph reproduced above later today, absent anyone raising a concern by then. Neutralitytalk 15:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC) I have found a different more important photo on the US Ukrainian Website in a press release issued by the US Government regarding her anti-corruption work. The photo has been uploaded and added to the page. Pbmaise (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Marie Yovanovitch oath 2 2019 02.jpg

April 2018 / Trump @ donor dinner
[https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/recording-appears-capture-trump-private-dinner-ukraine-ambassador/story?id=68506437 "Get rid of her!" is what the voice that appears to be Trump’s is heard saying. "Get her out tomorrow. I don't care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. OK? Do it."]

nytimes.com: Tape Made Public of Trump Discussing Ukraine With Donors

Where is the best place in the article to mention that ? --Neun-x (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * That audio leak also provides context which debunks many previous claims, albeit media reporting is focusing only on the last quote, seletively omitting the context (i.e. the reason for the firing, which is clearly stated in the leaked audio) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.61.207.181 (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is extremely biased.
This is extremely biased as many articles on Wiki is.

"Yovanovitch's removal preceded a July 2019 phone call by Trump in which he attempted to pressure Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Biden."

Even the president of Ukraine himself said he was not pressured, so why do Wikipedia think this is a fact? And did he ever mention Biden specifically? Ukraine's involvement in the US election in favor of Hillary is well known, so there is a lot that can be investigated. While it is likely that Biden is within the scope, this is just pursuing justice. There is no way the ukrainian president could be pressured either because he didn't know the money were held back. So please reformulate this and many other sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.247.252.140 (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Everything that you wrote is factually incorrect, other than what you quoted from the page. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

No please the article is extremely biased. This ambassador never hanged a Trump picture in the embassy as it is the practice everywhere. And she refused to do that even before the Ukraine Scandal. The article is also assuming as all democrats that Trump is guilty in the Ukraine Scandal. Thiermub (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yovanovitch not hanging up Trump's photo is a falsehood. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Judicial Watch publicly announced https://www.judicialwatch.org/ukraine-hillary-clinton/ evidence that she was corrupt and that the Trump administration removed her for it. The article is in need of proper repair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.32.168.11 (talk) 02:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Retirement
I have reverted your edit saying that she "announced her retirement on Friday." Only Business Insider, a source not known for independent journalism, said she announced it on Friday. Other sources are all over the map about who said she is retiring and when it was or is effective. Since no other report mentions an announcement or Friday, I have removed "announced" and restored “reported”, at least until there is some agreement among the media. Here's what my search found:
 * NPR:  But sources tell NPR that she has officially left the department. (cited to “sources”)
 * CNN: It is unclear when exactly Yovanovitch retired, but the official said it was sometime in the last two weeks. (cited to “one former State Department official”)
 * CBS: Former Ukrainian ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, who testified in the House impeachment inquiry, is retiring from foreign service, CBS News' Margaret Brennan confirmed. (no source cited, just the reporter.)
 * NBC: retired from the State Department on Friday (cited to “a person familiar with her plans”.)
 * The Hill Both CNN and NPR reported Friday that Yovanovitch had retired from her role sometime within the last two weeks, though the exact time of her departure was not made immediately clear. (cited to "multiple reports" by other media)

Anyone able to clear this up? -- MelanieN (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up on the issue of the time of retirement. But I have a question about your comment about BI. What type of journalism do they practice? To whom are they subordinate? And in what way are CNN, CBS, NBC, etc. independent? Independent from whom? (I'm not being combative, mind you, I'm genuinely curious in what you may know about them.) Nightscream (talk) 04:16, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, Nightscream. By "independent journalism" I meant whether they do their own reporting, with their own staff of reporters going out and getting the story. That's what CNN, CBS, NBC etc. do. With BI, lot of their reporting is derivative - echoing what other media have said, or just not saying where they got their information. I would not trust their content if what they are saying is different from what everybody else is saying. Their reputation for reliability at Wikipedia is kind of mixed - see . This is a good example of why. In this case, they lead their article with "Former US ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, a key witness in Trump's impeachment inquiry, announced Friday that she is retiring from the State Department." But that's all they say about it. Nothing more in the body of the article. No source is cited. How do they know this? Were they there, did they hear her say it? And if she "announced" it, wouldn't everybody else be reporting on her announcement too? With photos? IMO they may have exaggerated or misinterpreted what they saw reported elsewhere.


 * When I say "source" here, I mean the source of the reporter's information. Any good reporter will always say where they got their information from - either a named source, or an anonymous source described enough to explain why they are likely to know what they are talking about. ("A senior White House official", "three employees and former employees", etc.) I used to do a little journalism myself, in a small way, and now whenever I read a news article I am constantly asking "Who said so and how do they know?" -- MelanieN (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Mel. Both for the info on BI (of which I was unaware), and for letting me know about Perennial Sources, which I can now bookmark and refer to in the future. :) Nightscream (talk) 22:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Biased article
Why this article is so biased against Mr Trump. Marie Yovanovitch has clearly been disloyal to Trump from the beginning of his presidency. She never hanged his president's picture in the embassy even before the Ukraine Scandal. Why does this mean? Thiermub (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Fact-free posts about the subject of the article do nothing to help us improve the article. If you have actual suggestions backed up by citations to independent, reliable sources, then please make them. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , sources demonstrate the Trump photo thing is false. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.22.47 (talk) 05:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Yovanovitch blocking VISA's
THe Ukraine is embroiled in a battle of 3 policital factions. George Soros Obama adminstration backed efforts and various associated PAC's over there, pro Russian groups and Pro capitalism groups. Biden and the Obama adminstration went back and forth on who they would support inside the Ukraine government depending on whether they supported their agenda or not. The investigation of Burisma was first opened, then closed, then prevented from being opened by Biden demanding they fire the prosecutor who was about to reopen it. Yovanovitch blocked VISA's of Ukrainian justice department officials, who were trying to come to the US to provide their findings. Talk about cover up. Fiona Hill, in a Washington post article, basically conceded Ukraine to Russia, because in the article, she publically stated that Ukraine was not in the US's interests as much as Russia's was. What a foolish door opener to Putin. This was in concert with Obama never giving lethal aid during his entire presidency. And with Biden directing energy sector aid to Ukraine, and Burisma directly benefiting, and then sending 6 million dollars back channeled to US banks for the Bidens, there was absolutely a reason to go after Joe Biden. And Yovanovitch defied the president's policies, and in fact probably committed crimes by lying under oath,  holding back visa's for state directed affairs. And there's reason to believe that she was the one that gave the do not investiage list to the new Ukrainian investigator. Names that were on George Soro's team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C64:427F:E879:78DE:14CF:5A78:B13B (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

https://news.iheart.com/featured/glenn-beck/content/2019-10-11-glenn-beck-blog-ukraine-officials-cant-get-visas-ambassador-yovanovitch-blocks-entry-for-trump-investigation/
 * Yes, Glenn Beck and John Solomon. Paragons of sourcing. Viktor Shokin not getting a visa was absolutely the right call. Everything else in this paragraph is more right wing spin not based in reality, potentially originating from the Russian troll farm. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not the purpose of wikipedia do define what’s “right” or wrong, and certainly not yours. Article should state the facts, and let the readers reach their own conclusions. Did she denied visas, yes or no? If yes, then it should be mentioned here, as a fact. And, a person with an obvious bias, calling others trolls and deciding (on a political matter) what is “right”, instead of sticking to the facts, should not be an administrator.Andru nl (talk) 07:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, Washington Post, etc. are "paragons of sourcing" - more likely paragons of spinning. Glenn Beck & John Solomon do a lot of research before speaking out. If you are an administrator with this much bias, I think I'll stop contributing to Wikipedia. I'll definitely be checking sources in everything I read here from now on. --Jcperspective (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2020
I recently met Maria and her birthday is November 8th, not November 11th. 108.35.127.186 (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Ouster versus Ousting as noun?
I replaced "ouster" with "ousting" as the noun to describe her expulsion. Another editor reverted my edit. Perhaps it is a "horrible americanism" too (ouster) but it sounds more like the person who ousts rather than the act.Perhaps I should not jest, but the impetus to muster against this jouster (without being a fuster) has lustre.— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 08:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Canadian-American?
Considering that she was born in Montreal, she is a natural-born Canadian citizen. As there is no evidence that she ever renounced her Canadian citizenship, I changed her description as Canadian-American. Jusfiq (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Questionable Things said?
I think it is important to mention that she was making weird and wrong claims about Ukrainians being corrupt and it being their fault that she was ousted.

This made her very unpopular in Ukraine and i think it would be important to add that to her page. FleekRush (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * You're going to have to present some reliable sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)