Talk:Marie Yovanovitch/Archive 1

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marie L. Yovanovitch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070702095912/http://www.yerevan.usembassy.gov/ambassador.php to http://yerevan.usembassy.gov/ambassador.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Can we get an authoritative pronunciation of her name?
I am hearing at least two pronunciations offered, stressing either the second or the third syllable. Does anyone have access to a reliable source for this? Can the information be placed in the lede? Thanks in advance. --IfYouDoIfYouDon&#39;t (talk) 05:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

BLPs and acceptable sourcing - John Solomon
We need to be exceptionally careful not to give any credence to pieces by John Solomon. Generally, opinion pieces should generally not be used in articles, except when explicitly summarizing commentary. And Solomon especially should not be cited here, as (1) he is well-known for promoting and fueling bogus conspiracy theories, and has been directly involved in the events surrounding Ukraine (including the smears against Yovanovitch); and (2) this is a BLP in which we must be even more cautious than usual.

See, e.g.:
 * Jane Mayer, The Invention of the Conspiracy Theory on Biden and Ukraine, New Yorker (October 4, 2019).
 * Jake Pearson, Mike Spies and J. David McSwane, How a Veteran Reporter Worked with Giuliani’s Associates to Launch the Ukraine Conspiracy, ProPublica (October 25, 2019).

--Neutralitytalk 21:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree completely .- MrX 🖋 11:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have the same concern for those reasons. Fettlemap (talk) 12:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

This whole piece appears to be written by leftist "tripe peddler". Filled with bias and leftist slant. Twistop (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it's useless to get into an edit war. It is very clear that Wikipedia cannot stop itself from burning itself down, or rather, having itself be flushed down the toilet when the swamp is being drained. This piece and the connected ones, "counter-narrative", "alternative narrative", all this nonsense labeling facts as "conspiracy theories" and wanting to block the only fact reporting journalist, John Solomon, is completely crazy. In the past, when you had an argument here with a single troll with a couple of sock-puppets, you'd have to just wait it out, because the very structure of the Wikipedia process is favoring the bad faith actors on the short term, those who know their Wiki-lawyering tactics, crying fowl, getting your striked out and banned with 3RR warnings, vandalism accusations, etc. In the long run, this usually levels out. But in this case it will take time for reality to play out. Wikipedia's achilles heel is crowd editing with WP:RS with WP:NOR. When the mainstream media is subject to fascist Gleichschaltung, then most so called "Reliable Sources" are lying, and the truth has no way to come out. There is no way to edit against this mass of insane people continuing to zealously push their conspiracy theories, even as the truth oozes out in Horowitz reports and everywhere else. For them, controlling the truth is a matter of power and masses. You just have to let them burn themselves down. This matter is way bigger than Wikipedia. Just leave them to jump down the cliff. Every now and then, put a fair warning in, like I do here. I expect to be censored with a bunch of projections, but that is fine. Gschadow (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Lead
"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."

^ What the hell kind of non-neutral statement is this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.20.180.158 (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Definite lack of balance.

JS (talk) 01:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * That text is impeccably supported by the sources. Neutralitytalk 23:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it is not neutral. There are many other sources on the other side which have been ignored. JS (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * There is NO proof of any smear campaign and this article should at least state alleged. I do not like Wikipedia not stating facts and not opinions biased political.Roseinfl (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no neutral source, court case, etc. to support all this writing about a "smear campaign". The source cited is WP, which was stating someones words and opinions. No one knows why she was fired (except those trying to create the bias).
 * Indeed, anyone who says that this is "neutral" is clearly lying. WP:RS and WP:NOR are ways to push mass hysteria. Nothing you can really do. If you try to edit it, you'll be knocked out by 3RR traps organized by tag-teams. It's good that people leave a fair warning here, but otherwise you have to allow all failed institutions such as mainstream journalism and crows sourcing platforms to sink deep into the swamp, dissolve themselves in it, so that on the day that the plug is finally pulled, they are all flushed out. Hunker down and wait it out. The most important thing during this time is that the public learns never again to trust what is being touted as "reliable sources" with prohibitions on original research and primary evidence. Real internet-crowd sourced truth finding of the future will be based exclusively on primary pieces of evidence and debates about their interpretation. Like in a court room. You will see that "Reliable Source" will disappear entirely from any credible epistemology of the future. Gschadow (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I just put my hand in this very same gear... What the Ukraine investigation on Joe Biden would be about ? Where is the source that say that Joe Biden would have done anything worthy of a judiciary investigation in Ukraine ? Please if there is a source i missed, put it right there beside Joe Biden's name so I don't get told to read all sources. I'll also gladly disclose that I voted for the Parti Québécois in the last election so no one get the idea that I have any strong partisan opinions about this. Iluvalar (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgKGjoIkaXU found this. Iluvalar (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

insufficient structuring of article
Roseinfl (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC) the structure of the article, especially the ukrainian part, is difficult to read and understand. a main paragraph about yovanovitch tenure in ukrain contains only one sentence, then "smear campaign" starts. can we remove that title and properly structure it so what she did and what others think she did can be better distunguished? yovanovich deserves better than such nonsense pamphlet. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 01:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure exactly what you propose to do. We reflect what reliable sources state, so we don't usually divide articles in the way you seem to suggest. Neutralitytalk 23:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I disagree, to the extent that I even understand what you wrote.- MrX 🖋 11:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

According to the WaPo article for citation 21: "Philip Reeker, the diplomat in charge of U.S. policy for Europe, told House impeachment investigators Saturday that he appealed to top State Department leaders to publicly support the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, who was the target of a conspiracy-fueled smear campaign, a person familiar with his testimony said." It's unclear whether the article asserts that the term "smear campaign" was Reeker's or the Posts' opinion, but either way, it is portrayed as fact on this page, when it is far from fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.35.235 (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the "conspiracy" biased statement should be removed. WaPo is anti Trump and their imbalance reporting should NOT be used as fact. Roncf1 (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Early Life
There are no details. Where was she born? Is she ethnically Ukrainian or Jewish? What language did he parents teach? i find it hard to believe they were both employed as Ukrainian language teachers in an American school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.45.133 (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * From the article: "She was born in Canada". If you think the other information is biographically important, you're welcome to find reliable sources and add it to the article. - MrX 🖋 14:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * According to the Ukrainian Wikipedia her father taught French and Russian, and her mother taught German. Tsf (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Dean of language studies? Spoke Russian at home? Multilingual? How many languages? How learned? When learned? MaynardClark (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, one or both of her parents are said to've "fled the Nazis." Does that mean they're Jewish? Or maybe Gypsies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.229.228 (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You didn't have to be Jewish or Roma/Sinti or "Gypsy" if you like (she obviously isn't) to flee from the Nazis. Being against nazism, fascism or any extreme -ism or being attacked by Nazis was reason enough to flee the country back in those days.--2003:EE:3F17:CF4E:1861:666D:AE44:EB7D (talk) 10:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

This article, along with easily-accessed biographies, is silent with respect to her personal life.174.48.219.148 (talk) 05:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Evidential reasoning
Should we note any possible use of evidential reasoning and belief decision matrix and multiple-criteria decision analysis in the hearings and the reportings on the hearings by news media, interested academics, organized intelligence, and other analysts? MaynardClark (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's unclear what you mean, but if you could provide a reliable source which discusses your proposed addition, that might clear things up some. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Marie Yovanovich
This is a highly biased, unsubstantiated claim, "conspiracy driven smear campaign". It should be removed Hthusky74123 (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That you disagree with the reliable sources cited in the article is interesting, but irrelevant to the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2019
I believe that the statements made about Marie Yovanovich and her being a part of Trump's smear campaign are "awfully bold" statements. This shows me that the Democratic party wants to control all sources of media; even the ones that are supposed to be objective such as "PBS" and even this website "wikipedia". It really saddens me how they are trying to control everything. It reminds me a lot of the theme in the "V for Vendetta" movie. The democratic party is appearing to be the enemy, and sadly not our idiotic brash president. The democrats are more sneaky and smearing with the routes they are taking to gain control of the American public. I'm just ashamed and am working on my expatriation from this DAMNED place Marcster44 (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please provide reliable sources for all proposed changes. Irrelevant ranting about your personal political beliefs isn't helpful. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ha. This is not a forum for griping and sharing your political opinions; besides, "The facts have a well-known liberal bias". Carlstak (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Much of this entire article is extremely biased, contains many beneficial assumptions and few factual citations. If you care talk to (or meet some) people with opposing political views, they will explain more. The true test of neutral is understanding how both both republicans and democrats see an issue. You need to find those that pay attention to the details of both sides. Of course, it is OK to be on one side or the other,but a "real" discussion is more powerful and rewarding. Maybe you can fix it by having both political sides vote on the fairness of an article?..right now this is just another source of BS. Can't see why you would want your final work product to be that?

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2019
This page has obviously been created or edited by a biased leftist. There should be no "political slants" in Wikipedia articles. 98.20.45.127 (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * ❌. No request made. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 19:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Untitled
Marie Louise "Masha" Yovanovitch is an American diplomat and member of the senior ranks of the United States Foreign Service.2602:306:8B8C:29A0:48D5:D6F1:E71F:834D (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I may be mistaken, but I think she is no longer a member of the US foreign Service. She no longer works for the US government. Be it from me to question this highly respectable and fair balanced website. 2602:306:8B8C:29A0:48D5:D6F1:E71F:834D (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You are indeed mistaken. She works for the federal government and is a member of the Foreign Service. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * She even testified to that today. S Philbrick  (Talk)  20:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2019
The link in the opening paragraph for "US Ambassador to Armenia" actually links to the list of US Ambassadors to Ukraine.

Change this: U.S. Ambassador to Armenia (2008–2011)

To this: U.S. Ambassador to Armenia (2008–2011) Matt (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅--Ymblanter (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Rules Violation
This article is extremely biased. Rule 9. Write neutrally and with due weight All articles in Wikipedia should be impartial in tone and content. When writing, do state facts and facts about notable opinions, but do not offer your opinion as fact. Many newcomers to Wikipedia gravitate to articles on controversial issues about which people hold strong opposing viewpoints. Avoid these until familiar with Wikipedia's policies (see Rule 3), and instead focus on articles that are much easier to remain dispassionate about. Many scientists who contribute to Wikipedia fail to appreciate that a neutral point of view is not the same as the mainstream scientific point of view. When writing about complex issues, try to cover all significant viewpoints and afford each with due weight, but not equal weight. For example, an article on a scientific controversy should describe both the scientific consensus and significant fringe theories, but not in the same depth or in a manner suggesting these viewpoints are equally held. Twistop (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't have numbered rules, and I think you will find that experienced editors will disagree with you that the article is "extremely biased". If you have specific edit recommendations, please feel free to make them, but this is not a place to complain about Wikipedia. - MrX 🖋 22:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , it's extremely biased towards reliable sources, so I suppose that would look a bit weird to anyone from 4chan. Guy (help!) 22:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, what a shame that our articles reflect reality. - MrX 🖋 23:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

MrX Guess you never bothered to read the recommended rules? Are you a Wiki employee and speak for them? Your last comment speaks volumes about your views. Twistop (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm more of a wiki-slave, but enough about me. If you want to make headway in your line of argument, you can start by showing how specific passages of this article do not represent what is written in the cited sources. - MrX 🖋 23:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 November 2019
article is biased, opinionated, and uncited. remove offending politically partisan lines. 50.32.230.102 (talk) 01:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

❌ - the request has to be "a complete and specific description... that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y", and should be supported by a WP:RS source. --Zefr (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Birthdate
In various places I see "11 November 1958" as the birthdate of Marie Yovanovitch. Can we find out more clearly than 1958 from a reliable source? MaynardClark (talk) 02:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 November 2019
I would suggest removing all of the material after Nov. 15, 2019! John Solomon investigated Maria Yavonovitch and the information that is written into the page regarding Nov. 19, 2019 needs to be rewritten to include the actual activities of this woman! https://www.theblaze.com/glenn-radio/yovanovitch-blocked-ukraine-investigation It is too very obvious that the article was written by a Socialist/Communist/Democrat! MaranderP (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ad hominem MaynardClark (talk) 04:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * . John Solomon is a conspiracy theorist. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

You are correct. This article is a political hatchet job, rather than anything objective. It’s a disgrace to the principles of Wikipedia. It ought to be taken off right now. The writer is obviously a hate -Trump propagandist with an axe to grind. Why is such crap allowed on Wikipedia? Any fair-minded person who reads it will be completely turned off to the site. Oregonprisoner19 (talk) 08:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 November 2019
Dear Wikipedia, I cannot believe I need to write this to wikipedia, but the description of Smear campaign against Yovanovitch -What are you doing? This is not even valid or proven. Please remove this. You are seriously misleading the public and sponsooring civicl unrest. No matter what personnel feeling this topic may have on someone you are not entitled to your own facts. This is a nation of laws where you are proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. 71.255.107.167 (talk) 04:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * - Not an actionable request. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Biased entry? Possibly. Structurally imbalanced? Definitely.
10 paragraphs comprise these 2 sections: "Smear Campaign Against Yovanovitch and Ouster" & "Congressional Testimony". Structurally imbalanced? Please consider, there are only 12 more paragraphs [generally brief] in this Wikipedia article regarding the totality of this accomplished scholar's 30 plus years of service to her country.

2 of the " Smear" & "Congress" paragraphs are approximately 200 words. Additionally, 2 others are well over 200 words. Avoiding this type of structural imbalance is a primary focus of my elementary level students' writing. Aso, the unique & consistent writing style of these two sections seems to indicate these 2 sections could be a rant composed by 1 or 2 people.

Please consider:
 * 1) 1 There are only 12 more paragraphs [generally brief] in this Wikipedia article regarding this George Washington University Professor's life. Please consider, James Comey's wikepedia entry. Simply 1 paragraph regarded his contentious situation. Albeit, his contentious dismissal was different in many ways.


 * 1) 2 Google's 1 brief paragraph VS Wikipedia's ten paragraphs regarding the aforementioned two Wikipedia sections. Wik CJ (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

"wikepedia" typo, sorry Wik CJ (talk) 13:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

This article contains biased language, siting exclusively left leaning media as its’ sources. Specific exclusion of John Solomon sourcing is most egregious as he is an award winning journalist and researcher. Levinpl (talk) 14:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 November 2019
The following paragraph is largely a political opinion, not based on facts.

"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 revelation of 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."

Therefore, the paragraph should be edited or removed entirely until such time as these allegations or opinions become a proven fact. Moreover, I would point out that Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambassadors_of_the_United_States clearly states that "Ambassadors serve "at the pleasure of the President", meaning they can be dismissed at any time. Appointments change regularly for various reasons, such as reassignment or retirement." Therefore, the President had every right to remove Yovanovitch and the reasons for her removal require no explanation. Skibumpmc (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * - Not an actionable request. Reliable sources discuss the issue. It's not up to you to decide that her removal "requires no explanation." No one is doubting that Trump had the legal authority to do so, but the reasons for using that authority are of course subject to public debate and discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. "Therefore, the President had every right to remove Yovanovitch and the reasons for her removal require no explanation"--please see WP:NOTFORUM. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 November 2019
While ambassador to Ukraine, Yovanovitch was recalled from her post by Trump who stated that she was undermining him. Yovanovitch's removal preceded a July 2019 phone call by Trump in which he was accused by Democrats he attempted to pressure Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Biden. Following the unverified whistleblower complaint, about a phone call which they were a third party and never hearing an impeachment inquiry against Trump was initiated by the House of Representatives. Yovanovitch testified in several House committee depositions in the inquiry. Yovanovitch was not a party to the phone conversation, never had a conversation with the President or had not even met him. Cls78613 (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

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

This is a completely false statement and needs to be removed from the article. It is 100% political and has absolutely no basis in fact. Both Trump and Zelensky have stated that there was no pressure whatsoever.

2600:1700:AA20:9350:79E7:D0FF:93F4:A827 (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * ❌ - This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". - MrX 🖋 15:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 November 2019
Kindly delete the entire second paragraph of the Marie Yovanovich beginning with "While ambassador to the Ukraine..." It is inflammatory partisan political rhetoric intended to misinform readers by stating as facts multiple unproven, unfounded accusations against the current president. GDENION (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

❌ - Opinion without evidence; WP:NOTFORUM. The request has to be "a complete and specific description... that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y", and should be supported by a WP:RS source --Zefr (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 November 2019
The following sentence is an editorial comment that shows obvious bias and should be removed as factually unsupported:

"While ambassador to Ukraine, Yovanovitch was subjected to a conspiracy-driven smear campaign, amplified by President Donald Trump and his allies." 72.191.248.89 (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * If you look at the sources, you will find that it is factually supported. We do not remove things just because you don't like them (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Jeppiz (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * - Please seek consensus before using making an edit request. Your claim that the sentence is factually unsupported is false. - MrX 🖋 18:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-Confirmed-Protected Edit Request 18 November 2019
I'm requesting the second paragraph, second sentence, dependent clause, be removed on account of clear political bias and inaccuracy based in opinion. The text reads, "...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." AlexEnsign (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * - Multiple reliable sources are cited to support that statement. Your personal opinion that those sources are "biased" or "inaccurate" is irrelevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

FAQ or sub-page to deal with pointless WP:IDONTLIKEIT
The number of people posting the same edit request over and over and over again because they don't like the facts is getting a bit tiresome. There used to be the same thing at the talk page of Muhammad where people also made the same request (to remove "offensive" images) over and over. The decision there was to put in the FAQ why the pictures stay, and then to simple remove those requests at sight. I wonder if it's not time to do the same here, as it looks a bit silly to have the same requests made and answered several times a day. Jeppiz (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Missing Citation: Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 November 2019
My suggestion is about this portion of the page, with the problematic portion emboldened:
 * Yes check.svg Done The requested replacement reference passes verification Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Smear campaign against Yovanovitch and ouster
As U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Yovanovitch was the target of a conspiracy-driven smear campaign.[22] Unfounded allegations against her were then made by Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, as well as conservative commentator John Solomon of The Hill and Ukraine's then-top prosecutor, Yuri Lutsenko, who accused her of being part of a conspiracy involving anti-corruption probes in Ukraine and efforts by the Trump administration to investigate ties between Ukrainian officials and the Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign.[3][23][24] Lutsenko, who has been accused by Ukrainian civil society organizations of corruption,[21] claimed that Yovanovitch, an Obama administration appointee, had interfered in Ukraine politics, had given him a "do-not-prosecute" list and was interfering in his ability to combat corruption in Ukraine.[23][20] The U.S. State Department said that Lutsenko's allegations against Yovanovitch were "an outright fabrication"[23] and indicated that they were a "classic disinformation campaign."[22] Lutsenko subsequently recanted his claims of a "do-not-prosecute" list.[23]

The above citation [23] for Lutsenko recanting his claims is not valid, as the listed article mentions nothing about his recantation. I propose instead that the following link is used for citation, or the citation is removed entirely.

https://www.unian.info/politics/10520715-ukraine-prosecutor-general-lutsenko-admits-u-s-ambassador-didn-t-give-him-a-do-not-prosecute-list.html Broketheinterweb (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Russian disinformation campaign network, add here?
Russian disinformation campaign network, add here? X1\ (talk) 01:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/12/17/russian-disinformation-network-said-have-helped-spread-smear-us-ambassador-ukraine