Talk:Trump–Ukraine scandal/Archive 6

WP:LEDE small amendment should be made.
"It revolves around efforts " Should be "It revolves around alleged efforts".

Any Wiki editor opinion of what the presented evidence amounts to is irrelevant. No trial has been conducted, POTUS can still be acquitted. "Presumption of guilt is a denial of an international human right under Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milanbishop (talk • contribs) 10:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not our opinion. The opinion of the sources. Reflection of the weight of reliable sources. Koncorde (talk) 11:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * well, I think this shows again that this article does not even attempt to be NPOV any more. There are plenty of different views on the matter, but since all conservative sources have been labeled as "unreliable", Wikipedia does not give conservative editors a chance to create a solid representation of the debate's other side. We only present the Democratic party view here, and we declare it the truth. Wefa (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur with Wefa, except I would replace his words "conservative sources" with "non-liberal sources". NPOV is dead here.Jsniessen (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please present your sources. Any of them. Koncorde (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Why waste energy? It always ends the same way. You can not, for instance, seriously discuss conservative thought without bringing up Breitbart in some capacity, and that alone will reliably get your contribution deleted. Given the merciless Gleichschaltung anti-Trump liberals have exerted on the mainstream press, most conservative debate - especially the pro-Trump sort - these days happens in obscure blogs and think tank publications, nearly all of which will be contested in Wikipedia. The same applies to British politics, where you are essentially limited to The Times because Wikipedia has wiped all other conservative papers from its cognitive existence. When it comes to conservative thought, Wikpedia is essentially left with a limited range of Fox News articles. And please don't feign ignorance here, this page is a prime example of this practice in action. Just look at the archives. Wefa (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I take it then you admit that there are absolutely no sources to back up your point of view or stance taken, and that for some collective reason every single reliable source in the world has universally decided not to agree with your personal opinion because of "liberalism" or something? Because that is what you are asking everyone else to believe. That somehow every middle of the road, centrist paper doesn't have an opinion, that not a single paper or news media corporation is willing to dissent, that the left wing papers are inherently inaccurate in their analysis to be distrusted and that conservative papers have been eliminated (as opposed to tabloids which are generally just contrarian, the Daily Mail hilariously running pro and anti against each other due to their split editorial policies for the last decade under Dacre). I certainly don't question The Times, Financial Times, or any number of other print papers (The Telegraph for most instances) to provide their own take on events. However I don't see any of them dissenting. In fact, we're watching even Fox news sitting on the fence during their actual news portions to perform damage limitatio with only their known talking-heads-for-Trump maintaining their public stance.
 * You might like YouTube, Blogspot and whatever else for your news and opinion. However I think even you can see how that is utter shit produced by shills whose sole objective is to provide cover, misinformation and / or push their own fringe theories. If you can't see that, then the problem is not Wikipedia's policies. Koncorde (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * you are now playing the exact playbook I have described. I've been reading the "Guardian" for years, and certainly more often than I read Breitbart, but one thing I've learned over time is that they both lie when it suits their agenda. Yet you will happily let me source the Guardian, or even more leftwing tendency rags like Mother Jones or Rolling Stone on an article, but imediateley balk when I quote Breitbart, the Daily Caller or dailywire.com. Sorry, for now, I refuse to play that game. It is your game, you will win, and and until Wikipedia as a whole starts to recognize how badly it loses in this game, there is no point in trying. Plus, even in cases that are, in my opinion, covered under WP rules, like Voldemort's name, you have shown that you have progressive admins at hand who interpret the guidelines wholly your way and who answer even to the slightest attempt to act differently with clear threats of maximum force. Thanks, I have no need for that.
 * and lastly, the very case of Voldemort's name shows exactly the synchronization of content in the main stream media you called a conspiracy theory. 30 years ago, such an explosive fact would never have been hidden by the press - at least some would have printed it. Today, not a whisper. There is an unnamed CIA string puller possibly orchestrating the ouster of the sitting president, and the whole darned press doesn't even dare to print his name. John Nolte of Breitbart explained why this ban holds now (because Facebook threats blocking every paper which prints Voldemort's name, and no paper can afford such a block, as usual I am not allowed to link to source), but initially this was not the case, and they all kept up the ban voluntarily. So please kindly refrain from claims of conspiracy theory, when there is such alignment unfolding openly in front of your eyes right now.
 * And while we are at that, based on all this I can not even ask you to correct an obvious errors in the article. For instance, it was widely reported in conservative sources that Voldemort went to a congressional staffer (not to Schiff personally) BEFORE he filed his report with the CIA Inspector General, and he did so in fact because the staffer suggested that to him. But then, who needs facts. The narrative sounds much better the way you have it in the article now. Wefa (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comparing The Guardian with Breitbart / Daily Caller etc is pretty much where any point you might have had falls apart. This "because Facebook threats blocking every paper which prints Voldemort's name, and no paper can afford such a block, as usual I am not allowed to link to source" meanwhile is probably one of the finest works of fiction I have ever read.
 * If publishing the alleged individuals name is so critical, why are Fox not saying it in every single interview - they don't print? Why is every Breitbart article not presenting it as fact - they used alleged, they report it as speculation, occasionally referring to it as "open secret", they even refer to RealClearPolitics before taking ownership themselves. So are they party to this conspiracy? Despite the close to 15+ articles they have published dropping the name? Koncorde (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Is there anybody who enforces some degree of civility here? How often are we supposed be to badmouthed and shut up by other editors? Even if I agree with this closure (the thread went off topic), the blanket "nonsense" claim as reason for closure is rude, self-centered and arrogant. Wefa (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please do not respond to closed discussions. --WMSR (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Spare us. You accuse dozens of editors of not even attempting NPOV and then go on to call them names after the discussion's closed? Got it.  SPECIFICO talk 20:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Giuliani letter to Ukraine President.jpg
 * User:Coffeeandcrumbs, I’ll be honest; I was a bit surprised to see that you nominated this. I’ve never seen this rationale used for a Congressionally-released document. It was submitted to the custody of Congress, and thus they are the “owners”, per chain of custody. I know this is up for deletion on Commons, but could you give a rationale here? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , that is not how copyright works AFAIK. Just because Congress received a copy does not make the copyright void. It is still copyrighted by Rudy Giuliani who wrote the letter. If all congressional evidence was public domain, I cannot imagine how many works would become public domain would lose their copyright only because they were entered as evidence in congressional hearings. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:57, 21 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. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Giuliani letter to Ukraine President.jpg

"without sending a required special message to Congress"
I would like to attempt to justify inclusion of a clause similar to the one that was removed (above in title).

Basis for removal:

"UNDUE POV use of primary source against emphasis and significance reported in countless Reliable Source presentations and the GAO primary source"

Basis for inclusion:

"At the core of the GAO's report, is that the law prohibits the President from witholding money approved by Congress and not alerting Congress that it's doing so."

Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I have attempted to reword the phrase in such a way that it adheres very closely to the CNN report and hence could not be removed on the basis of an allegation of UNDUE POV as far as I am aware. Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:WEIGHT. I suggest you self revert pending consensus among editors here based on stronger sourcing. SPECIFICO talk 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The allegation that adding the new form of the clause ("and not alerting Congress that it was doing so") falls under undue weight as part of WP:WEIGHT seems to be the underlying rationale for UNDUE POV. But I would contend that just because the NYT author didn't explain every detail of the GAO report doesn't mean that detail is not relevant to Wikipedia's coverage of this report- that detail is clearly part of the report (as acknowledged in the original revert), is clearly part of the ICA, and is reported on and discussed in other news media. This is only undue weight if NYT is God. Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all, I would like to invite you to go to Wikisource and help me with the curating of the transcribed form of this report that I created yesterday.
 * As to the question of this clause, The DEPUTY EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR of the LA Times references this information in his opinion piece. The WSJ has an opinion piece that mentions this fact in passing. CNN alludes to it. The report itself mentions this. I don't see it as undue weight- it's just a fact that is sometimes omitted. Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I asked you to read the policy page regarding WEIGHT. Your opinions are beside the point. You need to stick to WP policy.  SPECIFICO talk 23:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to revert for the purpose of maintaining a friendly atmosphere on the page of a contentious subject. But from my perspective, SPECIFICO's mere reference to an alleged violation of WEIGHT left unspecified does not actually serve to overwhelm the fact that this information is mentioned in media reports on the subject and can be sourced to the primary document. I want to game it out a little more before caving: hence, I temporarily reject SPECIFICO's invitation to self revert and will await further clarification from the editor and the community at large. Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , the administration is not allowed, by law, to withhold Congressionally appropriated funds. The law doesn't make any exception for "special messages", it makes an exception for circumstances where the appropriation cannot be disbursed (e.g. funding to support qualifying organisations where no such organisations claim the money). As far as I can tell the context was that even a delay has to be explained, and wasn't, but ultimately Trump appears to have been holding out the threat of the clock running out, and this appears to have ended only after the circumstances became public.
 * The administration can't send a "one weird trick" letter and choose to withhold any appropriation - that would be so open to abuse that it would effectively nullify the law, and the proposed text makes it appear as if actually they can, so it falls somewhere between WP:SYN, WP:UNDUE and WP:WEASEL. Guy (help!) 13:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ( Thanks for your clarifying remarks and response. This is an article about a contentious subject, so we have to edit with caution, compassion and care. I probably went over the line really. Now, in order to make 100% I am protecting my account from any potential allegations of edit warring that could lead to a block, I wish to no longer participate in the editing of this page. ) I don't want to cause or get caught up in disputes about things I don't know anything about. I think the page is fine as it stands. Thanks for your time and work. Sorry for the problems.) Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , no problem, there is so much disinformation out there that it's hardly a surprise to find people are confused if they have not studied the entire mess in detail. Guy (help!) 13:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

His text is still in the article and he has declined to undo his additions..  SPECIFICO talk 17:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have restored the stable version and undone the DS violation/edit-war. Case closed, I believe.  SPECIFICO talk 20:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Fact check: 65 ways Trump has been dishonest about Ukraine and impeachment
Fact check: 65 ways Trump has been dishonest about Ukraine and impeachment

BullRangifer (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * How would you suggest to include this in this article? Obviously it’s quite due in the Veracity article, but where would you place it here? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Does it make sense to include an arbitrary list of alleged dishonesties that are collected and designed to push a specific narrative? This would only make sense if each 'fact' was paired with contradicting evidence as it exists for most points specified on the referenced article and would be the only way to keep the page impartial. EwnaVilae (talk) 10:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a balance fallacy. However, "most" points cannot have contradicting evidence when there has been no evidence presented to support the claim so far (and any evidence that could be presented to dosprove it, has been withheld by the President). Almost no single source would tackle each individual claim, and this would then create an issue of WP:SYNTH. Koncorde (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Great point, there is no summary list already presented to negate said points. It still seems reasonable not to include this in the article based on the appearance that it just picking on Trump's words to give an inflated sense of him lying, but I'd just be moving the goalpost by arguing that.EwnaVilae (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, using Trumps own words against him to prove he is lying would not be reasonable... In the end, the article comes from a reliable source (CNN). Whether we wish to use it in the context of the article is another thing entirely. However it does provide a relatively concise summary of the significant issues with Trumps claims of innocence, and the probable lengths that they have gone through to firstly structure their attempts, and then subsequently cover them up. Koncorde (talk) 09:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Koncorde, I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic when you write "using Trumps own words against him to prove he is lying would not be reasonable." It would be the most reasonable thing in the world to do that, but we can't do it on our own as an OR or SYNTH violation, but we should do it if RS do it, and they often do. Fact-checkers often rely on Trump's own statements to prove he's lying.
 * He's his own worst enemy, as he contradicts himself so much of the time, and not just through inconsistency, but actually lies about and denies what he's just said or done in front of millions of viewers. He also has some "tells" that give away his thought processes. They are an unfortunate (for him, but not for us) remnant of what he was taught by Roy Cohn:
 * One is to never admit, but deny immediately, and then accuse your accuser of the action/motive/thoughts which they have attributed to you, and do it immediately without time for reflection. So his first reaction to confrontation is to tell a bold lie, and we immediately know he's probably lying.
 * A by-product of this is that he frequently reveals "the location of the body" without us having known anybody was "dead". He's like a 3-year old who greets his parents at the door and immediately and loudly proclaims that he has not eaten any chocolate. That tells the parents that a "crime" has been committed, and it involves chocolate, and their child knows about the "crime" and has a guilty conscience. In law enforcement, the unforced telling of unnecessary lies is known as "consciousness of guilt". An example of that is when Trump repeatedly lied to James Comey about the infamous "pee tape" allegation. Comey had been a disbeliever in that allegation. He didn't think it was true, but after talking with Trump several times, he became a "maybe pee-liever", thinking it might well be true, and that was because of Trump's own actions.
 * A current example for this article is when Trump told his subordinates "no quid pro quo". He had discovered that some people were uncovering what he was doing, so he started putting out that denial, but his denial actually proved he knew exactly what crime he was performing, his denial told us that he knew it, and yet he continued actually performing the actions of a quid pro quo while denying he was doing it. In such a situation, we are to ignore the denial and focus on the actual actions. Not everyone is dumb enough to be fooled by his denials. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes it was sarcasm, sorry if I was too close to the knuckle and Poe'd myself! :D And otherwise agree with everything you said. RS fact checking or producing such bullet point lists are ideal fodder for summarising issues, the problem comes when trying to use multiple sources to disprove such lists as Ewna would have had to resort to. Koncorde (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , the "narrative" they are "designed" to push is factual accuracy. That's what fact checks do. Some people think it's a problem that one of the most powerful men on earth is a prolific liar. Guy (help!) 10:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree Odrg (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Introduction text should be amended to reduce bias and increase impartiality
While going through the article to try and spot appearance of bias, I had to go no further than the first paragraph to find a piece of text that had a gross display of it:

"It revolves around efforts by U.S. President Donald Trump to coerce Ukraine and other foreign countries into providing damaging narratives about 2020 Democratic Party presidential primary candidate Joe Biden"

This is a skewed perception that violates WP:NPOV

The reason why this is a clear display of favouritism is because it plays into a narrative which isn't fully supported by the facts. As has been previously stated by the leader of Ukraine, there was no pressure or coercion involved. If anything, it was a simple negotiation. The current evidence doesn't and cannot display the intent of the President was to obtain damaging narratives. This is another display of bias and picking narratives as there could only be damaging narratives if crimes was actually committed by the supposed targets of these investigations, in which case the investigations would make sense. In the event that no crimes were committed, the investigations would not be a problem either.

The text should be updated to:

"It revolves around alleged efforts by U.S. President Donald Trump to request help from Ukraine and other foreign countries into investigating 2020 Democratic Party presidential primary candidate Joe Biden"

Or words to this effect.

EwnaVilae (talk) 10:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Why has this been closed? This is a clear example of one-sided and unsupported partisanship. Any fair-minded article would begin by listing the allegations as such rather than as fact, and proceed to present arguments for and against. This article would not survive a neutral point of view fact check and that is a very bad mark from the outset on matter of critical importance and national interest. Pygosceles (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Re-ordering the article
Having watched a fair bit of the trial, I get the sense that parts of the article need to be rewritten. As it is, the article is written chronologically in the order evidence and testimony emerged, starting with the whistleblower report. However, I think the smear campaign against Yovanovitch needs to be mentioned sooner&mdash;getting her out of the way is what allowed Giuliani to approach Zelensky in the first place, which paved the way for the phone call. It might also be worth mentioning Lev Parnas much sooner because the article presents him as a bit player, but he seems to have played a much bigger role.

However, I will say that because of the time difference, I do miss a lot of the early proceedings, so I could be wrong. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree that the chronology should follow the events not their discovery. Guy (help!) 10:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * thought it best to post here first because it would require a major rewrite (and there are still parts I don't fully understand). Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Mclarenfan17, just a thought. To make sure that there are no misunderstandings of your intent during the process (We know what you're doing, but one never knows who will fleetingly drive-by and notice it and assume the worst.), you may want to do it in small steps and repeatedly save your work as you progress. Good luck. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree. Or better yet, post an outline or summary of a limited number of reorderings.  SPECIFICO talk 17:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

here is a list of some of the changes I think might be needed: I'll post more if/when I think of them. I'm hoping others can pitch in if we agree following events chronologically (rather than revelations) is the right way forward since a) it's a big job and b) I miss the nuances of American politics since I'm Australian. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Introduce the smear campaign against Yovanovitch as its own section, probably between "Background" and "Communucation with Ukrainian officials". Based on the case presented by the Democrats, it seems Giuliani needed to undermine Yovanovitch so that he could approach Zelensky.
 * 2) Introduce Lev Parnas to the article sooner. It sounds like he was not just an associate of Giuliani, but Giuliani's man on the ground in Kiev. The tape of Parnas' dinner with Trump apparently took place before Parnas met Giuliani (still waiting for that to be verified).
 * 3) Rewrite the section on Naftogaz to focus more on the Ukrainian energy sector as a whole (and maybe merge it with the section on Firtash). Right now it focuses on Republicans trying to get their feet in the door, but this hasn't really gone anywhere. Matt Bevan's Russia, If You're Listening podcast has some great stuff in it, especially this episode.
 * 4) Cut down the section on contact with other governments. China is the most notable one, but nothing has come of Britain and Italy. And the Australian government likes to hide everything behind national security, so we'll never know.
 * 5) I don't really know what to do with the section on Kashyap Patel. I missed the early hours of the first three days and tuned in and out of it throughout the day, so I might have missed it entirely, but as far as I can tell, he was a bit player or someone who got caught up in the fringes of it. I don't think the Democrats named him at all.


 * Also, this is not the time to do any deleting. Try to keep all content. Any trimming should be done later and separately. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If it is a significant rewrite / restructure I would suggest a Sandbox effort first so that there is some stability here during the process. Koncorde (talk) 07:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It might be worth waiting a little bit, just to see how things play out. I think there are a lot of unanswered questions around the campaign against Yovanovitch and I suspect more is going to come out one way or another. I cannot imagine that Parnas' tape being released when it was amounts to a coincidence&mdash;that evidence and testimony is going to come out one way or another. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't think that's necessary - there's always going to be more content, it can be fitted in as needed. Guy (help!) 10:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Mclarenfan17, I agree with Guy that you can proceed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree.  SPECIFICO talk 16:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I was going to upload a draft here, but having read the "smear campaign" section of Yovanovich's article, it might just be worth lifting sections of that, re-writing them slightly and including it here because I think it's done quite well.

However, I know there is a procedural thing that I have to do to acknowledge that content from one article is being carried over to another. Does anyone know what this is called and how to go about doing it? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , all you have to do is include an edit summary that says something along the lines of "Content copied from XXXXX, see that page's article history for attribution". – Muboshgu (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I just added a new sub-section based on Bolton's manuscript, which I copied from another article. Did I do it right? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Whistleblower
How come there is still a filter on his name? This is the worst kept secret in human history. 47.137.185.72 (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Because there is absolutely no reason to bring up the whistleblower's name. He is not a public figure, therefore he isn't notable, and he has made it abundantly clear that he doesn't want it publicized, which we respect per WP:BLP. Most people trying to insert it anywhere are doing so maliciously, hence the filter. This has already been discussed and consensus has been reached. --WMSR (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The President of the United States has been impeached as a result of the whistleblowers actions. A trial may take place. Only two other Presidents have been impeached. I'd say that makes the whistleblower a public figure, certainly more than many obscure persons who have Wikipedia articles. 47.137.185.72 (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * His complaint was held anonymously. Speculating whether the person being accused of being the whistleblower does not change that his intent, and the intent of his lawyers, has been to protect his right (and indeed everyone's rights in government institutes) to raise concerns anonymously without fear of reprisal, or recriminations. Koncorde (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * and are correct. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, they are not. There is no legal right to anonymity for whistleblowers, the whistleblower statutes protect a whistleblower from reprisal or recrimination only. On the other hand, the 6th amendment of the US constitution very prominently enshrines the legal right of an accused to confront his accusers, and only a judge can afford limited anonymity to such witnesses. Wefa (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , the right to confront your accuser is for criminal trials and is not relevant in impeachment. (Also, that's in the sixth amendment, not fifth.) – Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a basic legal right, and that of course applies to impeachment as well. What do you think impeachment is - a tv show? The US constitution, as well as most other robust legal systems, has codified that this is a basic element to reach a just verdict. This is also the goal of the impeachment trial. (As for the amendment number, thanks, corrected). Wefa (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , impeachment is not a criminal legal proceeding. It's a constitutional process. There's a difference. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The Inspector General shall not, after receipt of a complaint or information from an employee, disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of the employee, unless the Inspector General determines such disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation."
 * The intent is clear and has been attested to by Adam Shiff and is unchallenged by the IG (and largely adhered to by the other parties). Further information is held by independent organisations built to report on how whistleblowing is working that list several other potential legal standings and precedents that can be used to protect the anonymity of a government employee. Koncorde (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Wikipedia is not a court of law. The filter exists because of activism in the right wing media, seeking to intimidate not only this but also potential future whistleblowers, despite the Federal protections they enjoy. Wikipedia is not going to be part of that.
 * When the name is in feature stories in the Washington Post, it'll be here too.
 * Part of the problem is exactly the assertion that the whistleblower is the "accuser". He's not. All he did was report a concern. The accusers are the Congressional Democratic Party. The witnesses are people like Hill, Sondland, Yovanovich, and of course the collection of goons that Trump won't allow to testify, in defiance of the constitution.
 * Imagine standing in the wreckage of a burnt-out house, surrounded by jerry cans and match books with the arsonist's prints all over them, and complaining that the real scandal is that the guy who called 911 was working with the fire department. Imagine if the friends of the arsonist vilified the guy who called 911 and published his identity to a group of toxic trolls with a history of, o, I don;'t know, turning up at a pizza parlor to shoot up the pedophile ring that meet in its nonexistent basement. Guy (help!) 17:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Disagreements aside, thanks for the above comments that put your personal biases out there on display for all to see. I suggest the next logical step is to step aside and allow those less emotionally involved to fix this flawed article.Jsniessen (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Disagreeing with the weight of reliable sources because they do not agree with your perspective is evidence of bias, not summarising the situation for comedic effect to highlight the utterly contemptible approach to post-truth politics is just kind of appropriate. Reality matters. Koncorde (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I protest the seemingly apodictic closure of this discussion. There is no consensus. Koncorde has spoken and then immediately closed the thread. This is a bad habit on this talk page. I wont reopen it, though, because I think our energy is better spent elsewhere at the moment. I prefer to wait until the dust of the impeachment process has settled and it is clear whether Lord Voldermort of the CIA (aka "He Who Must Not Be Named") will actually be called as a witness. Wefa (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Wasn't me that closed it. I am more than happy for you to waste your time failing to present any evidence or make any argument of policy or procedure to back up your claims. However, let's be clear, Specifico who closed the talk was correct. This is already established, and has been for months now, as it has also been established in pretty much every reliable source out there, and also quite a lot of unreliable ones. The only people so far willing to take a guess at the name of the person seem to be those who potentially gain the most through witness intimidation. Koncorde (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Witness intimidation is a very serious threat indeed, but if the potential witness is someone with clear hostility towards who they are accusing and with a lot to gain from both keeping his identity a secret and the increased credibility that gives to their deposition, is witness intimidation the only motivation for being interested in ascertaining their identity? Is it believed that the witness could be in physical, financial or psychological danger from having their identity released in such a high profile crime?EwnaVilae (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "Yes" to all of those dangers. Their identity is known to the right people, and that's all that's necessary. We do not need to know, and neither does the public, or (especially) the one(s) they are witnessing against. The danger is greatest from the latter.
 * As to "increased credibility", you must know that many people think that "anonymous" source means non-existent source, so in their eyes the anonymity of the source lessens their credibility. OTOH, to normal people, it plays no role. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Are only democratic senators and congressmen aware of the identity of the whistleblower, or are there any republicans who know? It hardly seems like everyone who must know the identity does, specially taking into consideration the real threat that the witness might be biased or an operative. It will probably be included if that comes to light as a fact, otherwise I concede it doesn't make sense to have them identified here EwnaVilae (talk) 14:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It does not matter whether the whistleblower is biased or an operative. Their claims were verified by the call summary and subsequent testimony, and they are not suspected of any wrongdoing. --WMSR (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I fully agree that the intention of the whistleblower becomes irrelevant if an actual crime or impeachable offense was committed. What in the call summary or transcript (the original version, not Adam Schiff's edited version) confirms these allegations? And from what I understand, the testimony of people who assume the president's intentions falls short of hearsay which is further invalidated by the fact the people testifying are presumed to be biased against the president and is not considered material evidence to verify these claims. EwnaVilae (talk) 14:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There is nothing presumed about employees of the government testifying. Any suggestion Volker or Sondland opposed Trump is hilarious, and the others were diligent long term servants of the US under multiple presidents of both political parties.
 * And the suggestion Volker and Sondland or the others testified to hearsay is utter codswallop. Fiona Hill is very clear with what she heard, and what it referred to. That isn't hearsay, that is a first hand witness despite the claims to the contrary. Koncorde (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Where is the source where she claims firsthand and word for word account of this? Fiona Hill left the White House on July 19th. There is zero chance she was present during the phone call six days later. Claiming she was present during the phone call on July 25th in light of this is clearly attempting to gaslight at best, and outright lie at worst to people part of this discussion. Her assertions would also be secondhand at best, if not further removed. In regards to Sondland, he repeatedly used the terms "presumed" "assumed" and similar language to describe his initial conclusions of wrongdoing (that could easily fall under "weasel words" by Wikipedia standards) in his testimony. All of which were clarified when followed up by the minority party asking if he had directly or indirectly had information that any such thing you are trying to assert occurred. He did not, Volker did not either. This is very misleading and inaccurate of you to claim. I would urge you to cease any attempts to make such outlandish claims without at least a microscopic parcel of proof. -- Weissveldt (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I never said she was present for the call, the call is not all the evidence, and it is gaslighting to suggest that somehow because she was not on that call that her testimony is not 100% accurate, nor hiding behind "assumed" and "presumed" when referring to Sondland and Volker. Koncorde (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Congress. It is not conducting the trial of President Trump. It is not Wikipedia's job to decide whether the whistleblower's name is relevant to the Senate trial. It is not Wikipedia's job to decide whether Trump is attempting to intimidate the whistleblower. Rather, it is Wikipedia's job to decide whether the whistleblower's name is relevant to an article about the Trump-Ukraine scandal. --B (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * True. As with the media, Wikipedia is by no means bound to withhold an individual's name once unmasked, intentionally or not to the public, especially when government officials themselves have openly stated it. Does Wikipedia still mask and cover up the name of the CIA employee whose identity was leaked in the mid 2000s? Of course not. Precedent dictates that if that name is out there, then Wikipedia should not be seeking to stick it's oar in partisan politics, and present the information as it is factually known. Thus the name should be stated as it is extremely relevant to the topic at hand. Furthermore, the individual in question is no longer either a government employee and even more concerning allegedly coordinated their report, and its own release directly with one of the key House Representatives directly involved with the impeachment process. Both of those bits of information being omitted is showing a clear partisan slant that runs contrary to Wikipedia's own stated mission. -- Weissveldt (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, I doubt you have any knowledge or understanding of Wikipedia policy other than to push POV politics, or else you would understand why the weight of reliable evidence is against you despite your claims to the contrary, in addition Wikipedia itself took a stance on the anonymity recognising the inherent risk involved.
 * Your presumption of their identity, and speculation, is entirely why it is relevant. As for other anonymous sources dating back to the 90's, many were publicly outed long before Wikipedia existed, and then often outed themselves. I am not aware of Wikipedia in any instance purposely outing an anonymous witness. I might be wrong, but I am not aware of it (and it would be something of a big thing). Koncorde (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Does WP:BLP actually say something about preserving anonymity? In any case, now that Rand Paul has put it on the Senate floor for everyone to see, available now at the YouTube channel of C-SPAN, does WP:Notcensored not take precedence? I mean, at this point, is this filter not like censoring pictures of Barbara Streisand's house? 117.249.134.155 (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Only if your idea of Barbara Streisand a house is pointing at a random house and then declaring it to be Barbara Streisands in the hope of being correct? Koncorde (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay. Maybe there isn't overwhelming evidence to assert that the name that is censored is the whistleblower. My issue is with the use of an edit filter and of revision deletion. Trying to write about Rand Paul's speech in the Senate, either in the article, or in talk pages, triggers an edit filter. Neither U.S. law nor the policy at WP:BLP explicitly says that the identity of a living person should be protected. Does what is being done on Wikipedia right now not amount to censorship? 117.249.221.109 (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Next question. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Who do you think you are? You clearly know the name. Why is it that I can't find out just by reading Wikipedia? Why do I have to rely on a YouTube video of Rand Paul? 117.249.178.38 (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok Warcok (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The whistleblower law doesn't protect the identity of the person it only protects them from being fired.

With that said the whole article on Trump-Ukraine is filled with tons of misinformation and half truths. Get you shit together. On forms like IGN you get mocked if you source wiki when discussing politics or political charged subjects like global warming Warcok (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * IGN? I mean if your threshold for accuracy is IGN forums then we I am not sure what could ever truly measure up. Koncorde (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's guidelines are, is it notable, and in this case, yes, it is, especially because Schiff was hiding the witness and not having the witness testify and there was speculation on who it was. Now that RS is reporting on who it is, it is notable and worthy of inclusion. It is always worthy on who a whistleblower is, that's the person who causes an investigation. To claim that it's not worthy of inclusion is ludicrous. It doesn't need a whole paragraph, but a mere mention is most certainly enough. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * (a) Notability is about whether an article should exist on a topic, not what goes into an article. (b) Everything the original whistleblower said has long ago been confirmed by other sources, up to and including the White House. The only reason their identity matters is the campaign of retribution against them, a campaign in which we are not participants. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Editors 20 years from now can deal with it and create a list like Deepthroat used to have speculating on who it was:
 * Or anyone can Google and find it.
 * And yes, given the loose use of attribution allowed across American politics and the BLP content many subjects would rather the world forgot, it's insane that the individual who nearly triggered the removal of a president isn't deemed noteworthy for an encyclopedia with a no censorship policy. Slywriter (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The arsonist is noteworthy. The person who happened to be the one who called 911, much less so. Accusations of "censorship" are orthogonal to the issue here. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 03:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yet, Deepthroat was notable enough to allow numerous rumored names to be included?
 * Ultimately, I am content to leave it to future editors to decide because I hate the newspaper/current events coverage that Wikipedia has adopted for American politics. Those living in the moment are poor judges of what's historical.
 * On a more serious note, can someone direct me to the community conversation that enabled that filter? Or at least where I should be searching? Slywriter (talk) 03:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * They seem to have suppressed all the discussion leading to the filter as well. 117.249.178.38 (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you can't find something on Wikipedia, it doesn't mean it's true: Principally, Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1023. For the record, in my opinion the sourcing requirements specified in that thread have not been met at this time. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Deepthroat was an informant, and a leaker - not a formal whistleblower. In the future, as with all things, stuff will change, information will come out, the whistleblower may go public, write a book, a movie may be made etc. You know, the stuff that lends itself to the general idea that a person is themselves notable, and that the idea that their right to anonymity has passed. As it currently stands, in several months Trump may be out of a job, and when he is there is still the potential for the witness to be called in criminal proceedings. While this is WP:CRYSTALBALL it is still valid that until such point that the whistleblower breaks his own cover we are not likely to break our standpoint. Koncorde (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I read the discussion. There now is a new source at Not enough to assert that he is the whistleblower, but definitely enough to stop censoring his name. 117.219.220.183 (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "Definitely" seems to be based on your opinion and not a reliable source? Koncorde (talk) 13:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether he is the whistleblower, the fact that Rand Paul asked a question about him and mentioned him in a speech makes him noteworthy. Reporting Rand Paul's statement uncensored goes neither against U.S. law nor against WP:BLP. The article about Mark Fuhrman for instance includes several quotes of him referring to living persons as "niggers". Most mainstream media would not print or say the word "nigger" in those quotes because it would offend the persons. But Wikipedia does use the word because it is WP:Notcensored. WP:BLP applies no more here than it does there. All I want to do is quote Rand Paul. 117.249.178.38 (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the mention of someones name does not by default make them notable, nor does speculation about the named individual mean that he is or isn't the whistleblower. By all means we might quote Rand Paul by saying "Rand Paul said the alleged whisteblowers name" but we do not say the name. Koncorde (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Rand Paul didn't merely mention him. He had a display and everything. Here if you haven't seen it. Does that make him notable enough to have his own article? No. Enough that his name should be mentioned? Definitely yes. Your argument seems to be solely political rather than on the basis of U.S. law (which was never true anyway) or WP:BLP. 117.219.220.183 (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't matter if he burnt an effigy. The outcome of the discussion was very clear and we are following that principle. We have discussed situations, suggested alternatives, and explained thoroughly multiple times now. That you attribute "political" as an argument to me is cute, but a bit pointless - I am not American - and I don't care whether or not the whisteblower is outed or not, and your laws are largely irrelevant side issues. However I do care that wikipedia observes consensus in order to constructively build an encyclopedia. Koncorde (talk) 13:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Kellogg on the Trump/Zelensky call
Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg, a decorated veteran of the U.S. Army who served from 1967 to 2003, was one of 12-15 people (can't seem to find the exact number) who listened to the July 25 phone call. His opinion is highly relevant and should be added into this article. Kellogg stated "I was on the much-reported July 25 call between President Donald Trump and President Zelensky...I heard nothing wrong or improper on the call. I had and have no concerns".Circulair (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Here is a reliable source (there are others if necessary): — Preceding unsigned comment added by Circulair (talk • contribs) 23:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The call, by itself, was only part of the picture. Those who knew more and saw the broader picture, understood what Trump was really trying to do with that call. The background and perspective of the witness will then affect how they judge the call, but the call is only one part of the whole picture. Trump is not being judged solely on the basis of the call. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 January 2020
"It revolves around alleged efforts by U.S. President Donald Trump to coerce Ukraine and other foreign countries into providing damaging narratives about 2020 Democratic Party presidential primary candidate Joe Biden as well as information relating to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections."

Claiming that the Trump-Ukraine scandal is matter of fact instead of "alleged" makes the page come off as partisan and political. As many of the opinions regarding this scandal are in fact opinion-based and not fact-based as of yet, it should not be stated as a matter of fact. Pascalgoz (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please provide examples. soibangla (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. This has already been discussed on the talk page and consensus has been reached. WMSR (talk) 01:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * While going through the article to try and spot appearance of bias, I had to go no further than the first paragraph to find a piece of text that had a gross display of it:


 * "It revolves around efforts by U.S. President Donald Trump to coerce Ukraine and other foreign countries into providing damaging narratives about 2020 Democratic Party presidential primary candidate Joe Biden"


 * This is a skewed perception that violates WP:NPOV


 * The reason why this is a clear display of favouritism is because it plays into a narrative which isn't fully supported by the facts. As has been previously stated by the leader of Ukraine, there was no pressure or coercion involved. If anything, it was a simple negotiation. The current evidence doesn't and cannot display the intent of the President was to obtain damaging narratives. This is another display of bias and picking sides as there could only be damaging narratives if crimes were actually committed by the supposed targets of these investigations, in which case the investigations couldn't even be considered political. In the event that no crimes were committed, the investigations would not be a problem either.


 * The text should be updated to:


 * "It revolves around alleged efforts by U.S. President Donald Trump to request help from Ukraine and other foreign countries into investigating 2020 Democratic Party presidential primary candidate Joe Biden"


 * Or words to this effect.
 * I have included this from another thread as SPECIFICO mentioned I should as it furthers supports the claims of this thread's author — Preceding unsigned comment added by EwnaVilae (talk • contribs) 18:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * As has been previously stated by the leader of Ukraine, there was no pressure or coercion involved. Consider this: given the extreme disparity in global power between the United States and Ukraine, do you think it would be wise of Zelensky to publicly state he was being coerced by an American president who is known for his volatility, unpredictability and vindictiveness, while one-third of his country is occupied by an adversary and he desperately needs Western aid? soibangla (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I believe the adjectives you used to describe the person in question are a matter of opinion but I perfectly understand your point. In spite of that it isn't the Wiki's place to favour one assumption over the other and currently many sources indicate there is coercion while many others do not. In light of the evidence currently available, it's unclear whether coercion happened and as such the article text should reflect the uncertainty, not state it as a proven fact fully supported by evidence.EwnaVilae (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

EwnaVilae, I told you no such thing. I said that you should see this thread for why your "request" is Dead on Arrival. Drop it, and don't misrepresent other editors around here.  SPECIFICO talk 20:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I regret the appearance that I might have misrepresented you. Since you referred "previous thread" but this thread did not provide any information as to why my "request" was "Dead on Arrival", I instead assumed in good faith you meant I should contribute my input here. I am trying very hard not to assume editorial bias, can you please provide some actual information to refute my claim that the edits I proposed are to the best interest of the article's quality instead of telling me to drop it? Thank you and best regards EwnaVilae (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * He did it. That's what first-person witnesses and RS tell us. The only question left is if he'll be forced from office for doing it. There is no consensus to make this change. The template can only be used after a consensus has been established. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Half the world appears to disagree, but I concede that that half of the world has no weight here. I still think it doesn't make sense not to include that credible sources point to the opposite being true. I have spent the whole time paying close attention to the impeachment process, specifically this scandal, in most cable and online sources, and it appears that a consensus does not yet exist, so shouldn't this article reflect that absence of consensus? EwnaVilae (talk) 10:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , which "credible sources"? Please present some examples. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The white house, official communications by the president himself and all non left-leaning media e.g. Fox News. Are these not "credible sources" by Wikipedia's standards for inclusion?EwnaVilae (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Donald Trump and the White House are not reliable sources for this as they are directly involved and have reason to be biased. Fox News could be okay, in certain circumstances, certainly not their editorials. Do you have any specific articles to bring to consideration? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The same could be argued for sources pushing the other side, but disregarding that, I will take some time in the weekend to find links to appropriate examples and then update this thread. If I can not I'll mention it here for future record in case it helps preventing similar suggestions. Thanks for your feedback! EwnaVilae (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I suggest you do as Trump suggests almost daily on Twitter and read the transcript. That removes all doubt. Guy (help!) 23:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I just did, don't know how I passed on it for so long given my keen interest on the current state of American politics, thank you for the suggestion! It does appear to not reveal any kind of pressure or coercion but as was mentioned before him and the white house aren't reliable sources for this so I'll still look up media references unless the other authors agree that is enough.EwnaVilae (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , what? "I would  like you to  do  us  a  favor though because our country has been through a  lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.  I  would like you to  find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say  Crowdstrike ...  I  guess you have one of  your weal thy people...  The server, they say Ukraine has it. There-are a  lot.  of  things that went on, the·:whole situation. I  think you're _surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to  have the Attorney General call you or  your people and I  would like you to ·get to  the bottom of  it. As  you say yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a  very poor performance by  a  man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a  lot of  it  started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important  that· you do  it if  that's possible."
 * Leaving aside the hysterical attacks against Mueller, probably the calmest dude in Washington, this is the president of the United States pushing Kremlin conspiracy theories to the president of a country currently under active invasion by his crush Vladimir Putin. Guy (help!) 00:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Politely leaving aside the left-wing perspective you included in the end of your update, would you not agree that the quote you have provided appears polite/well-mannered and formatted as a request, possibly as part of a negotation? Try reading it and imagining someone else but Trump said it, I think that might help my point. Otherwise maybe there's just a language barrier stopping me from interpreting those words as coercive or negative. EwnaVilae (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, please revert this closure, kindly cease randomly closing ongoing discussions, and using the language you did for "justifying" said change without contributing any valuable material, it reflects poorly on your image as an editor, on the overall quality of the talk page and may require further arbitration. EwnaVilae (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This should have been closed as soon as you OP inappropriately used . You  They clearly did not have consensus. --WMSR (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

EwnaVilae, above you mentioned the "appearance of bias". You may not know this yet, but the only bias we are concerned with here is the bias of editors, not bias in sources, or bias in content, when that bias comes from the source. Our duty is to document that bias without getting in the way. NPOV is primarily about editorial bias, not source or content bias.

So the next time you go "through the article to try and spot appearance of bias," keep that in mind. You will have to check the source to see if that is the bias of the source/author. If not, then you might want to civilly, without accusations, ask about it on this talk page. You can read more about this in my essay: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * @WMSR That was the original poster and the whole thread isn't closed. I merely attempted to contribute relevant information to support their case. I still believe that the closure was done innapropriately as instead of providing the reason the user simply used vile language. The timing was also off as we were discussing a valid relevant source that provided support to this request.
 * @BullRangifer Thanks for the information about the rules, I'm fairly new as such am still trying to navigate the complexities of contributing to this beautiful knowledge enterprise (thank you all for the contributions). I regret the appearance that I might have not been civil or accused someone.
 * Is the official transcript from the white house not considered valid in this case? Because if it is I still hold that the word "coerce" should be changed to something the likes of "request" or "influence into" as coerce is indeed not fully adequate. EwnaVilae (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * When there is an imbalance of power, and several representatives of a country are saying to anothercountry "yeah, you wont get this unless you do this for us first" - that is coercion. The phone call transcript is merely the tip of an iceberg corroborated by multiple other reliable sources now (and more importantly, they have not denied that it happened, just that it's totally fine for them to do it). Koncorde (talk) 09:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I honestly thought that requiring something in exchange for providing something else fell under the category of negotiation. By that definition, isn't everything a country requests from another with less power considered coercion? From where is that definition? EwnaVilae (talk) 14:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , no, that's when you offer something in return for something. When you withhold something unless the other party delivers a thing of value, that's extortion. Guy (help!) 14:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Understood, so in this case, the trade was the investigations for the white house meeting? From what I understand the financial aid wasn't withheld but was undergoing standard bureaucratic procedures.

Is the following an adequate example of coercion?

"While visiting Kiev in December 2015, then-U.S. Vice President Joe Biden warned Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko that, if he did not fire Shokin, the Obama administration was prepared to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees. Biden later said: "I looked at them and said, 'I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money.' [...] He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time."[35][36] Shokin was dismissed by Parliament in late March 2016." EwnaVilae (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC).
 * No. The money pending was already contingent on corruption reform. The prosecutor was directly linked at that time to the collapse of an investigation into Zlochevsky. The UK Govermnent, EU, IMF and the US Government were all in agreement about Shokin, Biden was just the lead mouth-piece. Koncorde (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So because an even bigger international apparatus believes that to be the right decision, Ukraine just has to comply and your definition of coercion no longer applies? There are also valid sources which point to Biden's motivations not being fully aligned to what you just mentioned. This is a clear double standard, the money in the current case was also allegedly pending validation regarding corruption issues. It appears more and more evident that the article introduction should not use the word "coerce" but "allegedly coerce" or "pressure". EwnaVilae (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please present those "valid sources". There is no double standard here. Ukraine's international aid is conditioned on fighting corruption, which is why Biden levied that threat. Ukrainian corruption has nothing to do with the reasons the Trump administration withheld aid in July 2019. I "read the transcript"; corruption is never mentioned. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Why are editors engaging here? You're either being trolled or you're chatting with somebody so ill-informed and closed-minded that there's no constructive purpose here. Please stop and somebody hat or archive this. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * @Muboshgu Regarding the valid sources, here is an example: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ukraine-prosecutor-biden-burisma-back-off-state-department-files
 * Corruption is clearly mentioned in the transcript: "I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it."
 * @SPECIFICO Please abstain from commenting if you have nothing but censorship and ad hominem to contribute. I thank you for your service to wikipedia but you are adopting an inadequate behavior in this talk page. EwnaVilae (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I will clarify; the "No" was in response to the obvious attempt to suggest that the two actions (Trump and Biden) were coming from the same moral and ethical position. I am happy for Bidens position to be taken as one of coercion, in the same was any economic sanction would be, but I object to the false equivalence of the motives, and the aspersions of personal gain.
 * There is a fundamental difference in the legitimacy of his request. His is a use of leverage politically to achieve the goals of national and international interest (across multiple agencies, and multiple countries which already had prior aid tied up in Ukraine - including the largest Aid package ever raised by the EU, for which there were serious concerns over endemic corruption in Ukraine), and is fundamentally tied to the idea of Ukraine already committing to take action. Biden was not asking them to do something that they had not already committed to, he was identifying were they were failing to meet those objectives in explicit terms.
 * In contrast Trump was asking for a personal favour for his own gain and advantage - with the threat of sanctions and his own favour being used as the stick to go with the carrot. No witness, no document, and no source has presented any evidence of that Trump's concerns reflected any domestic or international policy, nor any legal action being undertaken by the US. In fact, I am not sure it has even been suggested by his defence counsel as yet, they have focused on the legitimacy of the process, rather than whether or not what he admittedly did was actually related to some crazy conspiracy theory and not a simple attempt to smear Biden and any other opponent he thought he could be attacking the DNC / Server hack / Russia collusion strain. Koncorde (talk) 08:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Taking into account the premises regarding Biden's motives on which you base your arguments, your point is completely sound and there is no moral equivalence. Given the fact that the sources from which I read my news make it appear as a given that Biden's intent was to have his son avoid prosecution, and these and other sources also push the narrative that Trump committed no impeachable offense and there is no proven link between withholding the aid and the investigations, I am not able to agree. In the end, it doesn't matter much because I am not an American, but what I see is that this is what is causing the polarization in American society and politics: two bubbles each pushing their narrative and the country almost perfectly split in half, each to their bubble, each believing the other side is ill-informed or lying. It feels like a macroscopic gold-white/black-blue dress situation. Do you disagree? Do you feel like any side has more truth to it and the other side is more mislead? I think both sides are guilty of lying and pushing their own political interests in the end. I deeply believe Wikipedia shouldn't take sides, which is the case unless the truth is I have been getting my information from the side of the bubble that is absolutely factually incorrect. EwnaVilae (talk) 11:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not American either. However I don't just rely on one set of sources but also their reliability, and ability to accurately report events over decades, if not centuries. I am not aware of even a single source that supports Trump's narrative that isn't intrinsically invested in Trump (such as Fox, Breitbart), suspiciously intertwined with individuals in his entourage (Solomon of The Hill), or overtly pushing disruptive Russian talking points (RT etc).
 * There is no equal bubbles here when it comes to the facts. We are not going to teach the controversy and support misinformation of niche sources who are notoriously partisan. The accusation of partisanship against NBC, MSNBC, NYT, WAPO etc is 100% based on the utterly intellectually bankrupt idea that if something doesn't agree with you it must be because of ideological reasons.
 * The facts do not agree with the claims. Nobody has argued against the facts. Attempts to pull whataboutism is just a horse of a different color. Koncorde (talk) 10:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So the assertion made by the "pro-Trump" sources you mentioned that the other sources are inherently biased, left leaning and consequently pushing a favourable narrative for the democrats is an outright lie? EwnaVilae (talk) 11:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The assertion made by pro-Trump sources don't even begin to touch on the relative merits of their own accuracy in reporting, because they don't even pretend to have an editorial stance that isn't biased, or intentionally blurs the line between independent objective reporting, journalism and opinion. Just because a newspaper is reporting facts that paint one side in a bad light does not mean that they are pushing a Democratic narrative. That is like arguing science is pushing a gravity narrative.
 * Let's be clear; objections to coverage by alleged "left leaning" papers does not explain the coverage by right leaning papers across Europe all echoing the same things. There is almost universal coverage in any source that isn't partisan for Trump, in all types of media, that reflects the position made by the evidence. The claims made by the Democrats are fundamentally irrelevant, just as they were during Watergate - the observable reported facts align only with the interpretation provided by reliable sources.
 * As Stephen Colbert once said "Reality has a well known liberal bias". He was only half joking. Koncorde (talk) 12:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I understand the comparison you are trying to make regarding gravity but I'm not sure that it is completely applicable regarding these allegations, they are a lot more open to interpretation regarding intent and motivation than a scientific observable fact.
 * When it comes to these facts, I watched almost the whole of the congressional hearings and left under the impression that there was no factual basis for most of the premises at the root of the impeachment articles, merely hearsay and allegations from people who were already predisposed to dislike and negatively misinterpret the intentions of the President.
 * Given the fact I do like the man, find him funny and believe in most of his policies (mostly economically, except regarding everything to do with social progression) I am inherently biased towards believing him and his good intentions. This paired up with the fact I mostly expose myself to right-wing media, I find myself unable to believe that these are the observable facts, specifically that there was coercion with the exclusive intent of political gain, but if that is the consensus then I concede.
 * Thank you for the great arguments you have provided! EwnaVilae (talk) 13:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , if you watched the hearings and were left with the impression that there is no factual basis to the allegations then you are probably not competent to edit in this area. Even Trump's lawyers have abandoned that line of argument. Guy (help!) 23:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have already explained why I reached that conclusion. Thank you for your contribution to this discussion, a statement regarding my competence (which I guess is a compliment according to your page about your political views) was clearly missing to make it complete, in accordance to the rules at the top of the page: assume bad faith and indulge in personal attacks. I was curious if there was editorial bias against Trump or someone acting in defense of his claims and I have my answer. EwnaVilae (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

perhaps I can help with this:
 * ''I find myself unable to believe that these are the observable facts, specifically that there was coercion with the exclusive intent of political gain

In 2014, a series of protests&mdash;the Euromaidan&mdash;started in Ukraine. This eventually led to the revolution that removed Viktor Yanukovych from power. One of the causes of the protest was that Yanukovych was moving to form closer ties with Russia at a time when most Ukrainian people wanted the country to move towards the European Union. Petro Poroshenko was elected in his place. Vladimir Putin claimed that this was illegitimate because Yanukovych had been democratically elected. He used this, in part, to justify the annexation of Crimea. Shortly thereafter, the War in Donbass began in eastern Ukraine and Russia has backed separatist forces in the region ever since (in terms of ethnicity, eastern Ukraine has always had a large Russian population). Putin denies it, but western intelligence agencies are in agreement that the separatists are being armed and trained by Russia. It is the biggest conflict in Europe in the end of World War II, and it was during this time that Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down.

Now, skip ahead to 2019. The War in Donbass is still going, and Volodymyr Zelensky wins the presidency from Poroshenko. Zelensky runs on an anti-corruption platform because Ukraine is notoriously corrupt and Poroshenko hasn't been able to clean the country up. But the war cannot be overlooked, and to continue fighting it, he needs aid from the United States. The aid has been earmarked for the purchase of FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank missiles, one of the most effective things in the fight against the Russian-backed separatists (especially Russian armoured personnel carriers). Trump suspended that aid, which meant that the Ukrainians could not buy Javelins. Without the Javelins, they become vulnerable to the Russians. Trump made the aid conditional on an investigation into the Bidens (or at least the announcement of one), which is a problem for Zelensky because he swore to stamp out politically-motivated investigations. Zelensky had only taken office in May of 2019, so within three months Trump was putting him in an impossible position: either break your promise and announce the investigation to get the aid or take your chances with the Russians. That's where the coercion comes in&mdash;this wasn't humanitarian aid like food drops or vaccine supplies; it was military hardware specifically intended to counter Putin and Russia. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this detailed description, but I still find myself doubtful of your statements: yesterday, I was watching the ongoing debate in the senate trial (now that the opening statements are over) and I heard three things I'd like to get your thoughts on:
 * It was said that the aid was "future aid", which means it's not all used up immediately and is made available over 5 years.
 * It was said that there was no significant pause in the aid (48-55 days is normal in the release of similar amounts of money).
 * The Ukrainians or the Russians weren't aware of any pause until it was reported by American press, at which point Kiev started to panic. In response to this, the administration accelerated the bureaucratic process and released the aid.
 * I apologise I don't have sources but I was watching on live television. EwnaVilae (talk) 09:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ''It was said that the aid was "future aid", which means it's not all used up immediately and is made available over 5 years.
 * The Russians have had a foothold in Donbass for the best part of five years now, and they're not showing any signs of leaving. The Americans aren't just going to write Zelensky a cheque for $391 million and be on his merry way&mdash;they'll portion it out as needed to ensure Ukraine's long-term stability.
 * ''It was said that there was no significant pause in the aid (48-55 days is normal in the release of similar amounts of money).
 * Trump released the hold on the aid after the whistleblower report came to light. That's doesn't change the fact that he tried to withhold it, using the threat of Russia to pressure Zelensky into giving him what he wanted. As Adam Sciff said, if you take a hostage and demand a ransom, but then release the hostage before you get the ransom, that doesn't make what you did okay.
 * ''The Ukrainians or the Russians weren't aware of any pause until it was reported by American press, at which point Kiev started to panic.
 * Both of them have a reason to lie. The Ukrainians need that aid and in order to get it, they need a good relationship with Trump. They're going to say whatever they have to in order to keep getting aid.
 * Both of them have a reason to lie. The Ukrainians need that aid and in order to get it, they need a good relationship with Trump. They're going to say whatever they have to in order to keep getting aid.


 * As for the Russians, of course they're going to play dumb. They haven't even admitted that they're in Donbass (it would mean a bigger war). Remember, Vladimir Putin is an ex-KGB agent. If he found out Trump cut off aid to Ukraine, he's not going to announce it to the world. He's going to whisper in the ear of any nearby country to try and keep them in line. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your detailed responses. I guess the bottom line I can reach is that if you assume the aid was withheld solely with corrupt intent you can call the President's actions coercive, otherwise it still feels like politics as usual and 'pressure' might be a better, more accurate word. Another related reasoning that was brought up yesterday is that presidents always have mixed intentions when approaching most of their policy/foreign policy decisions and political impact is one of them. I am under the impression that there isn't enough evidence to document that the sole reason why the aid wasn't released sooner was Trump using it as leverage because he wanted Ukraine to publicly announce politically-motivated investigations into Burisma. I heard that the public announcement worked as insurance that said investigations would happen as Ukraine has been known not to honour privately-made commitments. EwnaVilae (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , you're arguing for replacement of the consensus view of multiple reliable independent sources with an undated primary sourced selective video clip from Radio Free Europe, a literal propaganda station. No. Please just stop this or you'll end up topic banned. Guy (help!) 20:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't know John Bolton's statements were invalidated by being aired on a 'propaganda station'. It's been interesting to learn what is considered a reliable source and what isn't. In response to that threat of censorship I have nothing left to do but rest my case, thanks everyone for the discussion. EwnaVilae (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Going back further to the point of this thread, John Bolton further suggests there was no coercive behaviour specifically in the call that sparked the whole scandal. EwnaVilae (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No he didn't. He's talking in diplomacy-speak for public consumption. soibangla (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ''Thank you for your detailed responses. I guess the bottom line I can reach is that if you assume the aid was withheld solely with corrupt intent you can call the President's actions coercive, otherwise it still feels like politics as usual and 'pressure' might be a better, more accurate word.
 * The question that you have to ask is "who benefits?"
 * The question that you have to ask is "who benefits?"


 * Assume Trump's scheme worked and none of us were any the wiser to it. Zelensky announces that Ukraine is opening an investigation into the Bidens and the origins of the Russia probe. Who benefits from this? Donald Trump. Trump would spend the campaign raising the spectre of an investigation, damaging Biden's standing in the eyes of the public. Biden would be forced to spend that time defending himself, a task made all the more difficult by the way the intricacies of the case&mdash;the history of corruption in the Ukrainian energy sector, the context of the war in Donbass and so on&mdash;are so far removed from the lives of everyday Americans. Trump could undermine Biden in fifteen seconds; Biden would need fifteen minutes explaining the background before he could even address the accusstion directly.


 * Where is the benefit to America in all of this? No solid evidence has been presented of any wrongdoing by the Bidens. It seems the most Hunter Biden is guilty of is taking a job he wasn't qualified for (he was probably there because of his name, to reassure potential Burisma investors that the company was trustworthy). And if that's a crime, then I can name one president and one hundred senators who should be out of a job. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * @Mclarenfan17 would you not agree that whoever benefits is the one who hasn't committed wrongdoing? If Biden is innocent, then it would be a great opportunity to expose Trump's corrupt intent starting a phony investigation with foreign help. I disagree it would be hard to prove his innocence if he really were innocent: he'd just have to say why the prosecutor was really fired and what his son was doing there. If Biden is guilty, it would be a great opportunity to expose him as an inadequate candidate for presidency and further root out corruption in both the United States and Ukraine. Either way the American people would benefit most from that investigation and partially the Ukrainians as well. Trump would only directly benefit if he was correct regarding his suspicions. I think this is pretty reasonable...
 * Like I said before, I could obviously be reading the whole situation incorrectly, but seeing it this way I cannot phantom that "the president coerced foreign entities to obtain political dirt on his opponent"...EwnaVilae (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

This thread shouldn't have been closed as per WP:NOTFORUM: Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article, nor are they a help desk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines. If you wish to ask a specific question on a topic, Wikipedia has a Reference desk; questions should be asked there rather than on talk pages. We are discussing the fact there are multiple valid sources supporting evidence that gives weight to the claim that the word 'coerced' should be changed to 'pressured', 'allegedly pressured', or 'allegedly coerced' and the validity of the sources claiming otherwise. As an alternative, I would accept an explicit statement that it has been decided the wording is correct and no change will be made, regardless of whether the evidence contradicts that decision. EwnaVilae (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You have not presented a single valid source. So the answer is obviously "no" and given you repeated misrepresentation of the facts at hand, I don't think people have much patience to AGF when it is unclear that you are actually here to be constructive. Koncorde (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clearing it up and to all who replied in good faith. I apologise if my intent wasn't clear which might be an inherent factor of attempting to represent the position I did, and if the sources I presented aren't considered valid. Keep up the great contributions everyone!EwnaVilae (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

add Trump administration is delaying $30 million in arms transfers to Ukraine?
X1\ (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/christopherm51/ukraine-us-arms-sales BuzzFeed News
 * https://thehill.com/policy/international/foreign-aid/481871-trump-administration-delaying-arms-transfers-worth-30m-to TheHill.com


 * I have added a section called "aftermath" in light of the Vindman and Sondland firings. These articles might fit in there, but I'd be conscious of using BuzzFeed as a source. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * thank you for your concern regarding wp:GREL. You will find BuzzFeed and BuzzFeed News to be very different at RSPSOURCES.  I put a corresponding wlinks by the refs.  X1\ (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for pointing that out. I wasn't aware that Wikipedia made a distinction between BuzzFeed and BuzzFeed News.


 * Having said that, I think we would need more to go on before adding these. They don't specifically link the delay to anything to do with the scandal. I think it would be a bit premature to include it here without anything more concrete. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Whistleblower identity
For the avoidance of doubt, Wikipedia will not include the name of the whistleblower until it is the subject of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources (RS). Inclusion in RS is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for inclusion. To understand what Wikipedia means by reliable in this context, please review the list of perennially discussed sources. Note that partisan websites - left or right - are not acceptable for contentious claims about living people. Guy (help!) 14:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , hear, hear. Maybe the talk page needs an FAQ for this? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Or put it in the editonotice. Guy (help!) 15:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Excuse my pedantry, but let's be clear, this (also) refers to name of any alleged whistleblower. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Editnotices/Page/Talk:Trump–Ukraine scandal, feel free to adjust. Guy (help!) 15:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , also I don't know how edit filters work, but we need to add to it to prevent what that IP sock just did twice. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I suspect is on it. We already have a filter (1008), it just needs a tweak. This boring person is not going away any time soon. Guy (help!) 16:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , this edit didn't get filtered. – Muboshgu (talk) 07:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, and people, please don't feed the freakin' trolls! I guarantee they are not here to help build an encyclopedia. Deny them the lulz. - MrX 🖋 18:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Muboshgu, the edit above it should also be revdel. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ian.thomson (talk) 08:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Investigation by a French journalist
This series of videos (dubbed in english) bring a lot of information about this affair. Adding a link might be useful. This investigation has also been referenced, for instance, in ConsortiumNews. To the person who previously removed this section claiming "conspiracist's BS": watch the videos and describe which statements are factually incorrect: the author of these videos is mostly providing explicit references to media covering (including NYT, for instance, and many Ukrainian medias). He also interviewed people closely connected to the case. The fact that the resulting picture does not conform to your ideological (and misinformed) point of view does not make these statements wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.213.243 (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Consortiumnews (which redirects to Robert Parry (journalist), who died in 2018 at the age of 68) doesn't not have a good reputation; search the Archives of Reliable sources/Noticeboard (such as here, from October 2019). If it were listed on RSPSOURCES, it would likely be a QUESTIONABLE (or even DEPS).  X1\ (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ukrainegate.info site appears to be questionable also. X1\ (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Can it be semi now?
The impeachment is over,scandal was mostly in April 2019,so can it be reduced? 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:91 (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Full-protection-shackle-no-text.svg Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. Can ask for reduction from on his talk page or see if he sees a ping here.  <b style="color:#000080; font-family:Tahoma">WikiVirus</b><u style="font-family: Tahoma">C <b style="color:#008000">(talk)</b> 19:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The impeachment ended (and in roughly the way anticipated, give or take a Manchin and/or Romney vote). But the scandal rolls on, and we have no real reason to think that trolls will be less of a pest to deal with now. I'd say that the protection should stay at its current level. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Richard Donoghue and the EDNY, update needed?
An updated is need needed regarding Richard Donoghue of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and Scott Brady (lawyer) of United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Some RS leads can be found in the yt above. X1\ (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * published Feb 19, 2020 The Rachel Maddow Show

"Ongoing political scandal"
Now that Trump has been acquitted, can we really still call this an "ongoing political scandal"? Barring some enormous revelation, I'd say this has largely run its course.

I'm also wondering as to whether or not we should include content on the announcement over the weekend that a mechanism for Giuliani's "findings" to be passed on to the Justice Department has been put in place. No doubt these are just going to be more conspiracy theories&mdash;Giuliani is already claiming that Obama and Biden put pressure on Ukraine to dig up dirt on Paul Manafort&mdash;and wouldn't be worth giving it the time of day ... however, this seems to be stuff that Giuliani "found" in Ukraine, so Ukraine is still relevant, and Barr's announcement means that the Justice Department is taking it seriously. I also recall reading somewhere that Barr is requiring that any investigation into foreign interference gets his approval. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on Lindsey Graham's statements this morning, I would say this is very much ongoing. It's still on Trump's mind, given his recent angry tweeting, and the Justice Dept. and Republican senators are actively working on it. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 03:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's definitely ongoing. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * not being American, I don't get comprehensive media coverage. We get FOX, which I originally thought was satire; and CNN, but I get distracted waiting for Wolf Blitzer to pull his face mask off and reveal that he's really Simon Pegg. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , hell yes. Barr has just demanded that all investigations related to any election campaign are personally approved by him, and has also put in place a back-channel for Ukraine-related dirt from Giuliani. This is not only ongoing, it's likely to get even more toxic. I subscribe to the New York Times, Washington Post and New Yorker, and listen to the Mueller She Wrote / Daily Beans podcasts, Crooked Media pods, Preet Bharara, KCRW's Left, Right and Center, including Ken White's All The President's Lawyers, and Opening Arguments pod to keep informed from over here in Brexitstan. Guy (help!) 09:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those. We usually only get a 90-second spot to cover American politics fifteen minutes into the evening news. Planet America is usually good, but right now they're focused on the election. The Russia, If You're Listening podcast is also good, but they're on the end-of-season break.


 * My main concern is that the article could easily drift too far from its topic. It's already enormous, with over 500 sources. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I've started a new subsection under "aftermath" (but should be renamed "subsequent developments" once we can think of a new name for the existing "subsequent developments" section), but it needs more references. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There seem to be enough RS to justify Cover-up of the Trump–Ukraine scandal. We're watching it happen before our eyes. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * if we do that, we're going to run into the same problem as as the 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike article&mdash;there was a push to rename it "Assassination of Qasem Soleimani", but it was felt that calling it an assassination in Wikipedia's voice was too provocative. Calling it a cover-up implies wrongdoing (which it is, but bear with me here), but as I understand it, there was no legal wrongdoing in or by the Senate when they acquitted Trump. A moral wrongdoing, sure&mdash;as an international onlooker, I get the distinct impression that the GOP think it's more important to have a Republican president than a president who obeys the law&mdash;but where is the case for the Senate having been involved in some criminal conspiracy? If we were to create an article called "Cover-up of the Trump–Ukraine scandal", we'd have to discount or downplay the acquittal, so is there enough substance to sustain such an article? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Senate acquittal is seen as a cover-up which aided Trump's cover-up, but, as was explained on CNN a few minutes ago (in the context of Barr's actions), Barr is a symptom, but Trump is the problem.
 * Trump has been impeached for abuse of power (230/197) and obstruction of Congress (229/198). That guilty verdict stands forever. The House of Representatives found him guilty, and what happened in the Senate does not "undo" that verdict. The Senate acquitted him, and that's their vote. That also stands, but it does not undo the House impeachment. He has joined the short list of impeached Presidents. He hates that, and his actions are those of a man trying to whitewash and cover-up all the evidence of his misdeeds. The obstruction continues and is succeeding with his followers in their filter bubble of lies from unreliable sources, but the majority of voters, and the world, can still see what's happening and recognize it for what it is, a blatant cover-up. RS describe it.
 * This is indeed an ongoing situation, and now that the Senate acquitted Trump, he feels empowered to perform his cover-up right out in the open for all to see. Now four Justice Dept. prosecutors have resigned in protest over the actions to soften Stone's punishment. The obstruction isn't just of Congress, but of justice itself. What should happen to those who have aided Trump is being blocked (and there is talk of pardons), and those patriots who have exposed the wrongdoing are being threatened, punished, and fired.
 * We should describe what's happening in the terms used by RS, and "cover-up" is increasingly used by them. We should not be afraid to use the term and attribute it, so we should start thinking in those terms and work toward creating content that uses those terms. Wikipedia must not become part of the cover-up by not using the term. We should not be shy. We should document the efforts by RS to #EndTheCoverUp, -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ''He has joined the short list of impeached Presidents. He hates that, and his actions are those of a man trying to whitewash and cover-up all the evidence of his misdeeds.
 * I disagree with that, but only slightly. I don't think he's just trying to cover things up, but rather that he's trying to do it in such a way that completely exonerates him. That's why he brought CrowdStrike into it&mdash;not only was he trying to "prove" that Joe Biden is corrupt, but that the Democrats were behind the election hack, "proving" that the Mueller report was fraudulent and exonerating him. I'm surprised that he hasn't tried to bring Operation Gladio or SPECTRE into it. And that's where my concern about article creep emerges: so much of this is tied up in conspiracy theories that it would be very easy to fall down a rabbit hole without realising it.
 * ''This is indeed an ongoing situation, and now that the Senate acquitted Trump, he feels empowered to perform his cover-up right out in the open for all to see. Now four Justice Dept. prosecutors have resigned in protestover the actions to soften Stone's punishment. The obstruction isn't just of Congress, but of justice itself.
 * How does the Stone case tie to Ukraine? Trump's acquittal might have emboldened him, but Stone was arrested before the Ukraine scandal happened. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * He was arrested before? Okay. I guess I mentioned that because it was current news, and because this is all tied to the Russian interference and the role of Trump and cohorts in inviting, welcoming, facilitating, co-operating with it, and benefiting from it, hence their need to cover-up. If they hadn't been involved, they would never have felt a need to be secretive and lie about their involvement. Stone and others were convicted because of lying, among other crimes. That's all. It's all tied together, but since Stone isn't directly involved in this Ukraine business, we won't bring him into this article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * He was arrested before? Okay. I guess I mentioned that because it was current news, and because this is all tied to the Russian interference and the role of Trump and cohorts in inviting, welcoming, facilitating, co-operating with it, and benefiting from it, hence their need to cover-up. If they hadn't been involved, they would never have felt a need to be secretive and lie about their involvement. Stone and others were convicted because of lying, among other crimes. That's all. It's all tied together, but since Stone isn't directly involved in this Ukraine business, we won't bring him into this article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * ''this is all tied to the Russian interference and the role of Trump and cohorts in inviting, welcoming, facilitating, co-operating with it, and benefiting from it, hence their need to cover-up

I think you give them too much credit. I think the Russians view them as useful idiots and that their objective is to undermine public confidence in democratic institutions. They only really benefit from the Ukraine scandal by destabilising the relationship between America and Ukraine, and I cannot find anything that directly links them to it aside from Trump swallowing their stories about interference in 2016. This seems to be something that has taken on a life of its own. There is a place for it on Wikipedia, but I think it shoehorning it in here would be the wrong place to put it. Again, it comes down to article creep. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Mclarenfan17, I largely agree. Ukraine seems to figure in the interference as a scapegoat story pushed by Putin's agents on Trump and associates. Trump finds it convenient to believe that story, although we know he knows better, because that diverts the attention of his supporters from the proven role of Russia, and that's where his proven co-operation with Russia comes into the picture.
 * His pushing of a "Ukraine did it" version makes it look like his accusers and U.S. intelligence agencies were wrong all along, since there is no evidence that Trump ever co-operated with Ukraine to help him win the election. He then appears to his supporters as a falsely accused victim, a role he loves to play.
 * In reality, and that's what we document here, this whole Ukraine scandal is about Trump, Giuliani, Parnas, et al trying to create an alibi backstory (part of a classic cover-up) which did not exist, and they got busted, literally "caught in the act". (Smart criminals create the alibi before they commit the crime.) His defense story (which he hasn't articulated clearly yet, but give him time...) can then be that he truly believed Putin when Putin told him that it was Ukraine, and not Russia, that interfered in the election. (All they can come up with is how Manafort's crimes were uncovered, and how a few Ukrainians didn't like Trump, for obvious reasons.)
 * It then comes down to proving that he actually did know it was Russia, but chose to ignore and deny that fact and believe Putin instead. That defense fails. It will be better for him to appear as a useful idiot than a willing recipient and facilitator of Russian help. Both appear to be true. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * the New York Times is reporting that, according to unnamed sources, prosecutors are trying to find a pretext for prosecuting John Brennan over tampering with evidence in the Russia probe. If true, that seems like something that would fit into the "aftermath" section. It doesn't seem to be fully fleshed-ouy just yet&mdash;they're looking for a pretext, but they either haven't found one or pushed ahead with it&mdash;so I'm not rushing to include it just yet. More importantly, NYT is relying on unnamed sources in their reporting. I come from a few WikiProjects where unnamed sources are frowned up (usually because they're used to justify publishing stories that the author cannot confirm), but they might be more acceptable here. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * We would need several RS for that, but they may shed more light on it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This just might have something to do with why Trump's goons are "investigating the investigators".
 * The Durham inquiry has been described as an "inquiry into its own Russia investigation", "investigating the investigators" of the Russian meddling in the 2016 elections, and a cover-up to protect Trump.  Mick Mulvaney has tied the Durham investigation to the Ukraine scandal, as Durham has sought help from Ukraine and interviewed Ukrainian citizens. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd start with that last source, since it directly ties the Durham investigation to Ukraine. I'd still want something more concrete, though&mdash;right now it seems that Durham is on the fringes. If I'm reading this right, he hasn't really done anything yet, but is poised to.


 * I'm still worried about article creep, though. This is shaping up as a spin-off from the Ukraine scandal, so including it here might distract from the actual article. Especially if there is detail. My guess is that this is intended to do the same thing as the CrowdStrike angle of the Ukraine scandal&mdash;"prove" that Trump was not involved in the 2016 electoral interference whilst giving him ammunition to fight whoever wins the Democratic nomination. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * this whole mess is a scandal because it is a conspiracy theory in search of evidence, and even trying to manufacture fake evidence after-the-fact: "Giuliani says he's exposing legitimate corruption in Ukraine, even though his claims about former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden have been widely debunked." (Bolding added)
 * That's why the concern about Trump's continuing and increasing abuses of power to bury this, which was the first charge in his impeachment. He is misusing the powers of the DOJ (investigations by Barr and Durham) for personal cover-up purposes.
 * That's why Conspiracy theories related to the Trump–Ukraine scandal is a sub-article that is worthy of being the main article, with this as the sub-article. In fact, I have casually suggested the "conspiracy" article be renamed Cover-up of the Trump–Ukraine scandal. Maybe we should do it.
 * We all know the idiom the "truth will out" ("be sure your sin will find you out" Numbers 32:23). One way or another, in spite of all efforts to conceal it, the truth will come to be known. Well, that is the story of Trump. He undermines the very idea of truth and constantly lies at every turn (see Veracity of statements by Donald Trump‎), but the truth inconveniently (for him) keeps tripping him up.
 * Even Barr just complained that Trump's constant tweeting makes it hard for him to do his job of covering Trump's ass. Trump's tweets expose the real reasons for Barr's actions, including regarding Ukraine. (Giuliani's loose lips do the same thing to Trump all the time.) Barr's actions are not innocent or acceptable. The Attorney General is not supposed to work for Trump. Barr has taken an oath to uphold the law, not undermine it. Now Trump responds to Barr and disputes that he shouldn't be allowed to interfere in ongoing investigations. SMH!
 * Now Trump admits what he has denied about all this: "Trump contradicts past denials, admits sending Giuliani to Ukraine". This wasn't some rogue action by his subordinates, in this case Giuliani. Trump ordered it, just as we've learned about the massive and proven co-operation between the Trump campaign and the Russians when they were interfering in the election. Trump knew the Russians would help him cheat all along (at least as early as 2013, according to Russian tweets at the time and hacking in 2014), and in February 2019, Michael Cohen implicated Trump before the U.S. Congress, writing that Trump had knowledge that Roger Stone was communicating with WikiLeaks about releasing emails stolen from the DNC in 2016. Trump knew about the WikiLeaks plot, as alleged in the Steele dossier.
 * So Giuliani was sent to Ukraine by Trump, and Trump has lied about that. Has that been added yet? -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have added a brief statement. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * ''this whole mess is a scandal because it is a conspiracy theory in search of evidence, and even trying to manufacture fake evidence after-the-fact

I get that. I'm not denying any of it. But I'm seeing a whole lot of stuff that is not directly connected to the Ukraine scandal, which is why I'm hesitant to expand the scope of the article. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. We should stick to the Trump/Ukraine scope. Have I suggested or implied an expansion? -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * no, it's just that some of the articles you have been linking to make my head spin a bit as I try to process them. Mostly because whatever connection they have to Ukraine tends to only reveal itself right at the end rather than be up-front. Also, the way Americans produce and consume news is a little baffling to me since the medium is the message, right down to the individual presenter. Who you get your news from really shapes what the message is and that's quite foreign to me. I can't help but feel like it's being presented through the lens of a personality, so sifting through that takes time because I don't know the personalities or the brands they have tried to build. It has shown me why Americans have so many issues with trusting the media, though. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand. It's actually impossible to talk about this without mentioning the main subjects in other articles, because it's all related, and the edges where they overlap each other should be mentioned in each article, but without going into great depth. That's where wikilinks serve a nice purpose. We mention it and send people "that-a-way". -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Mclarenfan17, we literally need a new article which collects all this under one umbrella, with these articles serving as SPINOFF sub-articles, per this reality: "Trump's quest to rewrite history of the Russia probe". This WaPo article outlines a new main article Trump's cover-up of Russia probe findings. It describes how he emulates Putin and other authoritarian leaders who misuse their power (the "winner writes history") to rewrite history to hide their misdeeds. RS will not let him succeed, so he attacks RS as "fake news", and some editors help him. Since policies are not on their side, there is nothing to forbid that such an article gets started in private userspace and later "goes public". -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * When reality doesn't agree with the perspective of one man it's an uphill battle to try and create as many articles to cover his flights of fancy on any given day of the week. This is why wikipedia is doing a thankless task trying to document it. For posterity nobody is really going to care about these intricacies and this all really heavily reflects a dose of recentism infused with what is perceived as desperation / bias from outside. I don't know what the answer is because we have never had to deal with it previously. Koncorde (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * the closest thing I can think of is Wikipedia's stance on alternative medicine, where editors have to walk a fine line between detailing the subject without appearing to give it credibility. It's one of the only places on Wikipedia where WP:NPOV is (somewhat) relaxed because "if alternative medicine worked, it would not be called 'alternative' medicine&mdash;it would be called 'medicine'". I think we're in the same predicament here: how do we document the subject without giving it legitimacy? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

do you think that Maguire's departure from and Grennell's appointment to Acting DNI should be included under the firings and resignation sub-section? I don't have the full range of sources that you do and two versions of events are emerging: in one, Maguire was replaced because he backed the whistleblower; in the other, he was replaced because of the briefing about Russian interference in 2020. I'm having trouble telling if this is relevant to the article. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Mclarenfan17, I haven't closely examined that situation. It could be added if it is clearly related to the Ukraine situation. Otherwise, it's definitely related to Trump's cover-up of the Russian interference. He keeps trying to deny, downplay, and shift blame from Russia, himself, and the GOP to Ukraine and the Democrats. RS won't allow him to easily do that, which is why he tries to undermine confidence in RS by calling them "fake news". It's an authoritarian technique à la Nineteen Eighty-Four. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * this article (from our side of the Pacific) states Maguire was sent packing because of the Russia briefing. Backing the whistleblower was probably enough to put his head on the chopping block, but the article does not make the connection.


 * I have to say that I disagree with the Nineteen Eighty-Four analogy, though. While the Ministry of Truth does try to rewrite history, it's for a different purpose. Big Brother is trying to create a state of perpetual now; the argument is that you can't trust your memory to be objective because people remember things differently, and you can't anticipate the future, so all you can trust is what is right in front of you in this moment. Big Brother wants to extend this moment to last forever. Part of that is rewriting history to be whatever is convenient, but part of it is the "freedom is slavery" mantra&mdash;by deferring their moral decision-making to the government, people are finally free of their consciences. But I digress. I don't really have a point here. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I hadn't heard the one about Maguire backing the whistleblower, do you have RSs? (post a good one here please)
 * To continue the digression; presumably Nineteen Eighty-Four's mantra "Ignorance is Strength" is more relevant. As to undermine confidence in RS for wannabe dictators is to unmoor potential future followers from reality, so they seek solace in authoritarian order; since then, only might makes right.   X1\ (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ''I hadn't heard the one about Maguire "backing the whistleblower, do you have RSs? (post a good one here please)
 * A lot of the analysis that we got this side of the Pacific suggested that Maguire's actions in withholding the whistleblower complaint and forcing Congress to subpoena him were designed to create a paper trail to demonstrate his legal obligation to forward the complaint onto Congress. But I should stress that the coverage we get of American politics is usually compressed into a short segment, so this analysis could be misleading. Our commentators seem to have interpreted Maguire forwarding the complaint on as a sign of support.
 * ''To continue the digression; presumably Nineteen Eighty-Four's mantra "Ignorance is Strength" is more relevant.
 * It all bleeds together. It's a case of taking comfort in what you objectively know (remembering that they are suggesting that you cannot trust your memory or anticipate the future), insulating yourself from anything that contradicts (and thus threatens) that. It's a way of tricking you into thinking that you are smart enough to separate fact from fiction when in reality you're swallowing the propaganda hook, line and sinker.
 * It all bleeds together. It's a case of taking comfort in what you objectively know (remembering that they are suggesting that you cannot trust your memory or anticipate the future), insulating yourself from anything that contradicts (and thus threatens) that. It's a way of tricking you into thinking that you are smart enough to separate fact from fiction when in reality you're swallowing the propaganda hook, line and sinker.


 * That's why I think WH Auden's "September 1, 1939" is far more apt for this day and age. You could probably rename it "January 20, 2017", make one or two minor tweaks and people would swear it was written for the here and now. I won't post the full thing here because of WP:NOTFORUM, but if you're interested I can break it down on your talk page. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for posting your thoughts,, I hadn't read September 1, 1939 in a long time. No need to break it down; you communicated a feeling of ominous foreboding.  X1\ (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

well, it's nice to know poetry isn't a dead artform. I used to be an English teacher&mdash;hence the "breaking it down" line&mdash;and most people would look at me askance when I mentioned poetry. Change "Linz" to "Queens" (because that's where Trump was born) and "Luther" to "Washington" (for the American context) and you could swear it was written yesterday. Every time I see one of his rallies on the evening news, I immediately think of the lines The windiest militant trash / Important Persons shout and Not universal love / But to be loved alone. We can only hope the Just are out there somewhere. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * just revisiting Maguire's support for the whistleblower, he clearly testified that he thought the whistleblower did the right thing in coming forward and that the content of the complaint matched the transcript. Trump has repeatedly claimed that the whistleblower was "fake" because the complaint did not match the transcript&mdash;a lie&mdash;and given his behaviour would likely see Maguire's opinion of the whistleblower's actions as a sign of disloyalty. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

add post-acquittal purge?
X1\ (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Trump’s Efforts to Remove the Disloyal Heightens Unease Across His Administration NYT Peter Baker Feb. 22, 2020
 * Exclusive: Trump's "Deep State" hit list Feb 23, 2020 Axios


 * there is already a sub-section on firings and resignations, so maybe it could go there. I'd be hesitant to go too far with it, though&mdash;the acquittal emboldened Trump, but with each passing day we get further and further away from the acquittal itself, which means dismissals that would not have happened before the acquittal but unrelated to Ukraine could happen. We've already seen it with Maguire, who was apparently let go because of the Russia briefing. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * After I posted the above, I noticed Impeachment trial of Donald Trump, Talk:Donald Trump, and Talk:Richard Grenell, ... so I will leave it to editors with more time than I can devote, . X1\ (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I have added the sources in, but have tried to avoid going into too much detail&mdash;especially since the deep state came up. Are all the leaks evidence of a far-reaching conspiracy against Trump, or just the product of administration members frustrated by a dysfunctional and incoherent administration? Ockham's razor says it's the latter, but conservatives are running with the former because it's more convenient than facing up to the fact that people aren't buying what they're selling anymore and they need to change. The largely-begin arrogance of their "born to rule" mentality has undergone a metamorphasis to become "we're right because we're the ones saying it", which doesn't allow them to think critically and instead embrace fanciful conspiracy theories ... and I really don't want to turn to far into that skid by acknowledging it in the article any more that I have to. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Inaccurate information in the second sentence of the article.
The article is locked so it cannot be corrected, but it should be. Otherwise, more and more people will lose faith in Wikipedia articles. The problem appears to be partisan-leanings by the author. In the second line it states: "It revolves around efforts by U.S. President Donald Trump to coerce Ukraine and other foreign countries into providing damaging narratives about 2020 Democratic Party presidential primary candidate Joe Biden". The word "ALLEGED" should precede the word "efforts" as such: 'It revolves around alleged efforts by U.S. President Donald Trump to coerce Ukraine and other foreign countries'. Since there is no proof that the president attempted to or made "efforts to" coerce Ukraine of anything, this error should be corrected immediately. Many people already feel Wikipedia is a left-leaning organization. Why would you allow careless writing like this to solidify beliefs that you far-left or even alt-left. Wikipedia should attempt to be 100% unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tit4tat (talk • contribs) 20:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , nope. we've gone over this before, so just look through the talk page archives and you'll see why we're not going to make that change. Your concern trolling about whether "more and more people will lose faith in Wikipedia articles" is noted. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you point to WHICH of the various archives mentions the discussion. Impeachment is an accusation, but the prosecution failed to make their case in the court of the Senate. In US law, innocent until proven guilty should apply.  Whether one thinks Mr Trump should be forever castigated by the accusation, the fact remains the prosecution failed to prove their case, the accused was acquitted, and any allegation to that effect should not remain undisputed. DeknMike (talk) 00:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Attempted palace coup
Can the opinion of former CIA operative and CNN intelligence and security analyst opinion Robert Baer be added to the reactions section? I wanted to ask here first because I know it is controversial. The exact quote is from a CNN interview where Baer states "You know, my guess, it's a palace coup against Trump". He also claimed the plot involved several people, not just one whistleblower: "This is a couple people. It just isn't one".

Three reliable sources:   Yodabyte (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Out of all the thousands of people who offered opinions that are documented in reliable sources, what makes this one particularly significant and worth including in an article (that is already overstuffed)? The two secondary sources actually downplay its significance, arguing that the motivation of a whistleblower don't legally matter and that everything about the original whistleblower's identity falls beside the way because independent reporting backed up their claims. Moreover, emphasizing the "palace coup" language strikes me as unduly sensationalist for an encyclopedia article, especially given that (per the WaPo item) Baer supported impeachment and was simply suggesting that the whistleblower complaint was so well put together that they must have had help. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I basically agree with what XOR&#39;easter wrote above. I thought that since Baer is a former CIA operative who is knowledgeable on these issues it was potentially relevant to include his statement in the "reactions" section. Yodabyte (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Include some facts that are omitted or wrong in this article
1) Javelins were not aid, they were bought by Ukraine and thus there were no hold on them.

2) Trump asked investigation into Croudstrike and a server for Javelins favor, not Biden's son.

3) Shokin rearrested Burisma assets after UK arrest of its money in Cyprus after that he was fired. He sued Biden. https://web.archive.org/web/20160205092116/http://www.gp.gov.ua/ua/news.html?_m=publications&_c=view&_t=rec&id=168807

4) Aid was unblocked on 11 September 2019 because of obligating event of raiding Privatbank by Zelenski. Aid was not withhold; Trump put a hold on it, aid was released in the end of fiscal year as it was planned before that (30 September).

5) Investigations from Zelensky were done. With OANN and Giuliani.

6) Javelins are just a political weapon: Zelenski could not use it against pro-russian ukranians according to Trump administration deal with Ukraine. https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/03/far-from-the-front-lines-javelin-missiles-go-unused-in-ukraine/ 91.78.221.238 (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1. Money was withheld that was to be used, at least partially for the Javelins purchase. By withholding the money, by the sworn testimony of every witness, this compromised both Ukranian self defence and was tied to them compromising their own independence.
 * 2. No. He said they will get their Javelins if they do him a favour. Which he then immediately mentions the Bidens.
 * 3. I'll take your word for it as your only evidence is in Ukrainian. However that does not change any material facts in the case.
 * 4. That is not what any witness said.
 * 5. Not sure what you are referring to here.
 * 6. Javelins functionality is basically irrelevant. Koncorde (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1. That is an obvious lie, because Ukraine bought Javelins with their money (twice). Moreover as it turned out today the FGM-148 Javelins are inoperable.
 * 2. He mentioned Biden by name only twice (not three times as were said in House Judiciary committee) in the transcript and the first time it was Biden's son. He asked for Croudstrike investigation that is obvious from reading the transcript and is mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_inquiry_against_Donald_Trump#Withholding_of_military_aid_and_July_25_phone_call. That was something of a catch.
 * 3. There is this little fact that Burisma is Cyprus offshore and UK courts arrested the company before its assets in Ukraine were arrested by Shokin. Not mentioned here too.
 * 4. No, witnesses did say that. "Future aid", what do you think it means?? How do you think https://www.factcheck.org/2020/01/false-claim-ukraine-got-aid-before-schedule/ get their info, that is 0.2% of the $250 millions Ukraine did not get? This is a strange factcheck, but whatever. It was what was written in the infamous OMB report.
 * 5. Here you are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn4weTY-2zE, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BK2coiDHLZ4 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRFtijtoV6I from OANN and of course Giuliani YouTube channel.
 * 6. Did you try to read the article? Moreover they were cleared to actually use it against Russia (or pro-russian Ukrainians, that is a more accurate statement) in July 2020 https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/34638/ukraine-cleared-to-move-javelin-missiles-to-front-lines-to-blow-up-russian-tanks-defensively and it failed today https://www.rbc.ru/rbcfreenews/5f6b49cb9a7947eb450c5fc5 91.78.221.238 (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1. Unclear what you are trying to say. Ukraine bought Javelins therefore the money Trump admitted holding up and was testified about in his impeachment and corroborated by all available sources doesn't matter?
 * 2. Why does it matter how many times it is mentioned? Do we mention it in our article and it needs clarifying?
 * 3. What significance does Burisma's status hold for this article? I have no issue mentioning it was an offshore fund - but where should it be in this article and why?
 * 4. Still not following this line of thought. The aid was with-held. The threat was made. They asked for "favors", the witnesses testified to the fact the aid was predicated on the investigation into Biden. And FactCheck got their info from the Pentagon as a follow up to the LATimes article stating money STILL had not been paid that was due in January 2020 - 4 months later than it should have been.
 * 5. OANN are, approximately, the most obvious propaganda channel deprecated on wikipedia for their basic unreliability. Not sure what you want mentioned about this?
 * 6. You said they couldn't be used. Now you are saying they could be used from July 2020. And now one failed to fire. And?
 * I appreciate English may not be your first language, but you are really struggling to convey coherent arguments here. If you have changes you want to recommend making to the article I suggest you highlight where in the article you think there is an issue and what you would like to see changed, as this laundry list appears very much like a fishing expedition. Koncorde (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This was only 0.2% that was not payed in January 2020 and they were hold up for a reason, apparently. OANN is not RS, but saying that Giuliani and OANN did not do any investigations or that nothing was found is a blatant lie. I said Javelins could not be used while impeachment procedings were happening and republicans were lying about that. Aid was not withhold, the money can be only payed on 30th of September, in the end of fiscal year, so he just put a hold on it, in sync with IMF and unblocking also happened in sync with IMF. This is a fishing expedition, because the article needs complete rewriting. I do not edit political articles from my real account, especially if they have E level protection. Too many crazy people. 91.78.221.238 (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is conspiracy level rubbish unfortunately, both factually innaccurate and intentionally, by my estimate, attempting to introduce both unreliable sources and original research. Bring reliable sources. Make concrete suggestions. Use your proper account. There is nothing "crazy" about any of the editors here. Koncorde (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)