Talk:Trump–Ukraine scandal

Template:WPUS50k

Add David Holmes to closed door hearings

On November 15, David Holmes, a US Department of State foreign service officer who works at the US embassy in Ukraine, and serves as an aide to BIll Taylor, testified in a closed door session before three house committees that he and two unnamed aides overheard a phone conversation between Ambassador Sondland and President Trump, while at a restaurant in Kiev, and immediately following a private meeting between President Zelensky and Sondland, where Trump asked Sondland about whether or not the Ukrainian President had agreed to investigate the Bidens.

References

Volker public testimony

JoeScarce added the following without prior discussion, I am not comfortable with the sourcing.

Volker and Morrison public testimony

Also on November 19, former U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker and former National Security presidential adviser on Europe and Russia Tim Morrison gave a public testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives. In his testimony, Volker recanted his deposition denial of seeing no indication of that Trump had conditioned a White House meeting and military assistance for Ukraine on a promise from the country's president to investigate Trump's political rivals. Asked why he recanted, Volker stated "I have learned many things" since the previous closed-door hearing on October 3, 2019. During his testimony, Morrison stated that Sondland confirmed to him that there was indeed a quid pro quo for US aid to Ukraine and that Sondland informed Morrison of this following a September 1 conversation he had and Ukraine official Andriy Yermak.

References

In fact I think there is a fair bit more about the testimony that could be written about the day's testimonies (though I hope we can avoid anything about Vindman schooling Nunes on forms of address, or any of the personal attacks from Republicans), but this could be read as accusing a witness of perjury in violation of WP:BLP so it needs some discussion I think. Guy (help!) 09:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The Politico article is an analysis of Volker's prepared opening statement and does not cover the actual testimony so it is not an optimal source about Volker's testimony. We should more recent sources, but if we say "Volker said X in a closed setting and later revised the statement saying Y", and X and Y are robustly sourced – and the content adheres to V, NOR, NPOV, and so on – there is no BLP violation.

The Vox piece is what mainstream publications would call an editorial or analysis and should not be used for stating facts in Wikipedia's voice. What do major newspapers and other mainstream sources say?

On the process issues, you have both breached 1RR and it was probably not a good to idea to use rollback. Politrukki (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Politrukki, What RS have said so far is largely nothing, which is why I brought it here rather than simply fixing the source (I tried several different searches this morning). I agree it would be fine if supported in these terms by RS, but, as you note, it isn't, in fact, as phrased it's WP:SYN. We need to be super conservative with BLPs, especially these ones. I will confess that I find edit summaries like "make me go to the noticeboard" needlessly aggressive. The source actually says:

{{quotation:In perhaps one of the most glaring updates to his earlier testimony, Volker said that during a July 10 meeting at the White House with top Ukrainian officials, he now recalled that Sondland made a "generic comment about investigations" and that "all of us thought it was inappropriate."

In fact, Volker told lawmakers flatly during his closed-door deposition on Oct. 3 that investigations were not discussed at that meeting — testimony that was contradicted by other officials in the room. Rather, Volker said the meeting went poorly because the Ukrainians delivered a dry, bureaucratic presentation that didn't help give their American counterparts a clear picture of the political dynamic in Ukraine facing its new president, Volodymyr Zelensky.}}

I think it's reasonable to challenge the representation of this text in the edit. I have no objection to its inclusion in more NPOV terms and with additional sourcing (but not the video, I am not a fan of sourcing things to "watch the damn video"). Guy (help!) 15:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't dispute your claim that there was improper synthesis included and I'd say starting a conversation on the talk page was reasonable.

JoeScarce added this back into the article: During his testimony, Tim Morrison stated that Sondland confirmed to him that there was indeed a quid pro quo for US aid to Ukraine and that Sondland told him this following the September 1 telephone conversation with Ukranian official Andriy Yermak.

Rather than reporting what Morrison said – Morrison said Sondland had mentioned telling to Yermak prosecutor general that Ukraine would have to announce investigations for the aid to be lifted – we are only including a claim that there was a quid pro quo, and falsely implying that Sondland use the term. Well, quid pro quo means "something for something" and we only have one of those somethings, "US aid to Ukraine". The same problem we currently have with the lead. Politrukki (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Not a claim, but an encyclopedia fact backed by secondary sources.JoeScarce (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

You specifically asked on the other talk page to include a more robust source. Here it is.[1]v] Please note that Volker made this perfectly clear in his own words.JoeScarce (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

We have a good neutral summary with multiple RS references at the Volker article. Why not just copy it here? Or if people prefer, there is wording that I proposed, extensively quoting him, at the Volker talk page. And JoeScarce, we will not be using the video as a source. Our rule is to use WP:secondary sources, not WP:primary sources - and not to add any interpretation beyond what is done by neutral secondary sources. Of which we now have plenty, half a dozen at least. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd be happy with either the wording at Kurt Volker or the suggestion at Talk:Kurt Volker. And I generally dislike pointing to videos as sources, for accessibility and bandwidth reasons. XOR'easter (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I've added the material from the talk page. And I reorganized the article so that public testimony has its own subsection. It may need to be cleaned up a little. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I am very satisfied with the page's new editing and wouldn't have included, or even mentioned, the CBS News Youtube video if the Volker and Morrison testimony was kept in the article in the first place. Thank you.JoeScarce (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

JoeScarce, the lesson here is as per my comment on your talk page. Stick close to the sources, and use the best sources you can get. If all you have is Politico then exclude it. Multiple sources are preferred for controversial content. Guy (help!) 01:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I strongly back multiple sources as well.JoeScarce (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

President Zelensky's Position in the Lede

I added the following to the lede: "However, President Zelensky denied that he was pressured by Trump." [[2]]. This is cited elsewhere in the body of the article.

It was reverted by XOR'easter (talk · contribs) with the edit summary: "obvious politician temporizing is obvious; not lede-worthy"

However, as per WP:LEDE, The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish the context, and explain why the topic is notable, all of which should be established in the first sentences. It should summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. Clearly, President Zelensky's opinion on whether he was pressured is absolutely an important point in an article which deals with whether President Zelensky was pressured. XOR'easter's inferences/assumptions about Zelensky's motivations are not pertinent. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Including it in the body is adequate. I have yet to see a reliable source saying that his "everything is fine, we're all fine here, how are you" statement (paraphrased) should be taken at face value. Inserting it into the lede would push the POV that it should be. XOR'easter (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no "POV" being pushed by stating that this is what Zelensky said. There is no "point of view" to a simple, factual reporting that Zelensky denied being pressured. The fact that you, as an individual editor, do not believe that Zelensky was truthful does not mean that it shouldn't be included. President Zelensky's opinion on whether he was pressured, in an article about whether he was pressured, is unquestionably important and relevant. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 15:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

In addition to what I wrote above, I also wanted to recall WP:TRUTH. Specifically, Wikipedia's core sourcing policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, previously defined the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia as "verifiability, not truth". "Verifiability" was used in this context to mean that material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them. Believing that Zelensky was "temporizing" is not a reason to remove a verifiable statement from an article. It is not necessary that you believe he's telling the truth, but rather that it's a verifiable statement made in reliable sources. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 15:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no "point of view" to a simple, factual reporting that Zelensky denied being pressured. Which is why there's no problem including it in the article body. But the selection and presentation of items of simple, factual reporting can indeed be POV-pushing. XOR'easter (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@XOR'easter: Can you explain how it's "POV Pushing" to include Zelensky's statement on whether Trump pressured him in the lede of an article about Trump pressuring Zelensky? Please cite to the part of WP:NPOV that you're referring to specifically. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 18:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

RS and now witnesses discuss Zelensky's public statements, including that one, as the calculated actions of a head of state under duress who was attempting to defuse a threat from Trump. Do you think he was voluntarily going to make a public announcement to pursue Giuliani's "investigatons" of his own free accord? RS do not present the matter anything like that way. The juxtaposition of your proposed "no pressure" -- out of its own context but in the surrounding lead content -- is SYNTH. SPECIFICO talk 18:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS - The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. The best source for a statement is the person who made it. Speculation about what Zelensky "really" meant, even if made in an otherwise reliable source, is not an appropriate source for trumping (no pun intended) what Zelensky said. It's a fact that Zelensky said what he said and speculation that he may not have meant it is not enough to nix that from the lede. In any event, WP:SYNTH does not apply. As per WP:SYNTH: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. There is only one source that I added, which was Zelensky himself. Therefore, it's not synthesis. Really, there's no policy-based argument for keeping this out of the lede. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 18:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, if you're claiming that a primary source, "what he really said" trumps RS contextualization, that's incorrect. And it's always going to be a single additional sentence/source that triggers SYNTH. It doesn't need to be one editor concatenating and adding both parts of the SYNTH. So your second point is incorrect as well. I suggest you try to flesh out and balance the article text about Zelensky's reactions and then see what is lead-worthy. SPECIFICO talk 20:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

No, what I'm saying is that it's an objective fact that Zelensky made this statement. It's an "important point" as per WP:LEDE because this article concerns whether Zelensky was pressured and Zelensky said that he was not, in fact, pressured. People have speculated that Zelensky was not telling the truth. My point is that this speculation is just that -- speculation -- and is not a reason to exclude Zelensky's statement as per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Speculation is not contextualization, and as CONTEXTMATTERS indicates, just because a source is generally reliable does not necessarily mean that it's reliable on this particular point - or at the very least, that it is somehow more reliable than Zelensky's own statements. I'm frankly confused as to your WP:SYNTH claim. What do you claim is being synthesized? May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 22:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat myself. See whether you can garner any support for your view. I provided a suggestion that would improve the article and might end up addressing the events you wish to describe in the lead. SPECIFICO talk 23:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with SPECIFICO - it should not go into the lead. She gives you some good advice about how to handle this and you should follow it IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll probably open up an RFC on it. I think it's surreal that Zelensky's position on whether he was pressured is being kept out of the lede on an article about Zelensky being pressured but here we go I suppose. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 11:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I support inclusion of this in the lead. His position had never changed and he’s reiterated it several times. It’s important in an article called Trump Ukraine controversy to include the Ukrainian (ie the President of Ukraine) position. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, I know, right? You'd think it would be self-evident that the Ukrainian President's position in an article called "Trump-Ukraine Scandal" would be important as per WP:LEDE. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 11:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you review the dozen witnesses' testimony and RS reporting of it for prospective article text on how the Ukranians viewed the US' failure to deliver the legally mandated military assistance. SPECIFICO talk 15:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, Yes. Don't listen to the Ukrainians on the topic of how the Ukrainians viewed it. Clearly, these sources which have not communicated with the President of Ukraine are a far better source than the President of Ukraine when it comes to how the President of Ukraine saw the interaction. (Do you see how bizarre this sounds?) May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 19:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

What I see is a rude and unresponsive reply and a failed attempt at irony, humour, or some other unhelpful rhetorical affectation. Read the testimony and RS summaries and comments on it. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I’m not sure that potentially partisan US press outlets know better than the President of Ukraine about his position. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, The standard set in WP:LEDE is that "important points" should be contained in the lede. In an article called "Trump-Ukraine Scandal", certainly the position of Ukraine as articulated by its President should be contained in the lede as an "important point." Especially given that the entire issue here, as we describe in the first couple sentences of the article, is whether Trump pressured Zelensky. There's no way to say that Zelensky's statement on this is unimportant. Therefore, it should be in the lede.

Your argument is perhaps better suited for something like Facebook than Wikipedia. I understand that you believe, in your opinion as an individual, that perhaps Zelensky is lying or is not credible on this point. Okay, I respect that, but your personal POV on this does not render Zelensky's comment unimportant or not worthy of inclusion in the lede.

I still have not seen a policy-based argument that this should not be in the lede. WP:IDONTLIKEIT (or WP:IDONTBELIEVEIT) is not a good reason. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 01:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I gave you a mild rebuke for being snide. I'm not going to respond to you any more in this thread. If you'll give a close read to what I said you may discover its meaning. SPECIFICO talk 01:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, that's fine. I'm not here to "discover meaning" in anyone's post. I just want policy based points and if you don't have any then your time is probably better spent elsewhere. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 02:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not a significant point, so it doesn't belong in the lead. It also lacks credibility, so it would be a violation of WP:NPOV to include in the lead without explaining that Zelensky had to say that because he was put on the spot and depends on continued assistance from this administration.[3] - MrX 🖋 13:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

MrX, can you explain why Zelensky's opinion as to whether or not he was pressured is not a significant point in an article that's about whether Zelensky was pressured?

Anyway, if you really want to have a sentence like "anonymous sources claimed that he was pressured" or something, then fine. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Because the reporting about that single comment has been minuscule in comparison to the overall coverage of the subject, including the extensive coverage of each closed door and public deposition. Is it really possible that your don't already know this, or are you trying to apply a WP:FALSEBALANCE? - MrX 🖋 15:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

MrX, Please WP:AGF. I'm trying to work this out. As a part of that, I'm trying to figure out what kind of policy rationale that the exclusions are relying upon so I can respond to that. The question is not whether the reporting about that comment is smaller than the overall coverage of the subject (which is true for any comment - unless that comment appears in every single news article about Trump-Ukraine scandal.) The question is whether Zelensky's comment, in the words of WP:FALSEBALANCE, "should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship." There is no "accepted academic scholarship" on the subject of Zelensky's opinion as to whether or not he was pressured, so this obviously does not apply. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC) Afterthought: I shouldn't have to state this, but I thought it would perhaps be a good idea given the conversation thus far - an anonymous source contradicting Zelensky does not render Zelensky's opinion about his own feelings a hoax on par with flat earth theory, as WP:FALSEBALANCE uses for an example. There is no POV problem with stating Zelensky's opinion with attribution as per WP:NPOV. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@May His Shadow Fall Upon You: I am assuming good faith. However, you don't seem to be able to properly weigh the relative importance of this piece of information against of the other information in the article. This makes me wonder if you have absorbed a propaganda talking point from a fringe source like Breitbart, The Daily Wire, Rush Limbaugh, or Rudy Giuliani such that you think this information represents a valid point of view that Trump did not pressure the Ukraine government to investigate Biden. Notice I did not link to any policy shortcuts because good editorial judgement is what builds articles, not Wikilawyering. - MrX 🖋 16:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

MrX, It's not a "propaganda talking point" to state that Zelensky denied that Trump pressured him. It's a simple statement of verifiable fact with substantial coverage in reliable sources like AP, CNN, etc. It's also attributed to Zelensky and not stated in Wikipedia's voice, which is entirely appropriate. This is exactly the kind of factual reporting that Wikipedia should engage in. Notice I did not link to any policy shortcuts, because good editorial judgement is what builds articles, not Wikilawyering. It's not wikilawyering to suggest that editorial decisions should be made on something more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Policy is on the side of inclusion here. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 16:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Only the word "however", is problematic. I don't know whether any source has used "however" in this context, but if we remove the word, claims of improper synthesis are without merit. I.e. including "President Zelensky denied that he was pressured by Trump" seems reasonable. It is a significant point of view and has been widely reported. One short sentence would be DUE. Claims of false balance or POV pushing are without merit. Politrukki (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

How many articles have been written by reliable sources expounding the importance or plausibility of Zelensky's comment? Then we can talk about significance.- MrX 🖋 16:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Other stuff I don't see in the lead: "the call was perfect" "no quid pro quo" "I want nothing" All widely reported by RS media. SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The two comments just above by MrX and SPECIFICO said what I was going to say. XOR'easter (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 November 2019

When discussing "alternative narratives" of "false narratives" (conspiracy theories) in Wikipedia articles I think it would be useful to clearly state that concerns exist over the "facts" stated and, whenever possible, reference should be made to the source of these "narratives". For example, the article mentions conspiracy theories without providing information about their source. Some of the sources (from immediate to less obvious) include Sean Hannity, Yuriy Lutsenko, and Russian State Agencies.

I also have and EDIT REQUEST affecting the BACKGROUND heading:

The article reads, "… to investigate Joe Biden, Trump's political opponent in the 2020 presidential election, as well as his son Hunter Biden and the company CrowdStrike, and to discuss these matters with Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr"

This is a complicated list that would be more clear either as a series of subordinate clauses separated by semi-colons (you left out Burisma in your list / I include it in mine) or as a series of bullets (each representing a subordinate clause). For example: "… to investigate: Burisma Holdings, the holding company for a group of energy exploration and production companies based in Kyiv; Joe Biden, Trump's political opponent in the 2020 presidential election, as well as his son Hunter Biden who was on the Board of Burisma; and, CrowdStrike, the cyber-security technology company engaged to investigate the hack of DNC servers. He also asked President Zelensky to discuss these matters with Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr" Agondontor (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. OhKayeSierra (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

It's likely there will be an update of the lead section language you reference, so I suggest you keep an eye on the page and participate in the discussion. SPECIFICO talk 17:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

This page violates basic Wikipedia Policies

Content policies violated include: Neutral point of view/ WP:NPOV, No original research/ WP:OR, and Verifiability/ WP:V. The unrelated kinsman (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Specific examples, please? soibangla (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Numerous examples, but we can start with the first. Example 1). The second sentence in lead paragraph: “It revolves around (alleged) efforts by U.S. President Donald Trump to coerce Ukraine and other foreign countries...” I’d edit it myself but Wiki won’t let me, being locked up and all. The unrelated kinsman (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The unrelated kinsman, Curious: do you have a TV at all? Or an internet connection? Oh wait: maybe you stick with conservative sources so don't realise what happened over the last month. Guy (help!) 23:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Guy, please don’t try to derail this conversation. I’ll wait for a response from soibangla. Thanks, The unrelated kinsman (talk) 00:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The unrelated kinsman, taking the piss out of admins is not a good look, my friend. Guy (help!) 11:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Guy, implying that I’m a troglodyte is not a good look for someone who is supposed to be an experienced admin, my friend. You’re comments added nothing constructive to this discussion. You should know better. The unrelated kinsman (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The unrelated kinsman, Ah, so you mean "do you think I'm a troglodyte?" No I don't, but your question does make it appear that you are several weeks out of date with the facts, and that's only possible if you have either not been watching TV or have consumed only right-wing media. Guy (help!) 23:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Again, you add nothing useful to this conversation. Please stop. The unrelated kinsman (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

No it doesn't, and The unrelated kinsman, you should make sure that you're following our policies before dispensing advice to far more experienced editors.[4] - MrX 🖋 20:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

What policies am I not following? It’s apparent by any standard that the lead paragraph is biased. Doesn’t the second sentence deserve an ‘allegedly’ or an ‘alleged’ or some other way of denoting that the charges have yet to be proven? The lead as written implies unquestionable guilt, which constitutes original research which violates WP:OR, and is unverifiable because formal proceedings have yet to prove or disprove the charges, which violates WP:V. I expect better from ‘far more experienced editors’. The unrelated kinsman (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

It's not alleged when he himself admitted to it on the lawn in front of the press and then doubled down on it by suggesting other countries might help too? Then was admitted to by Mulvaney? Koncorde (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Koncorde, I googled ‘Trump admits coercion’ and didn’t find anything. It might be implied, in which case the second sentence in the lead should read “It revolves around (alleged) efforts by U.S. President Donald Trump to coerce Ukraine and other foreign countries...” Now, please don’t try to derail this conversation. I’ll wait for a response from MrX. Thanks, The unrelated kinsman (talk) 00:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

There's no derailment, all reliable sources recognise his statements, and Mulvaneys, and the witnesses have stated their observations and knowledge of what they were being asked to do and take part in also, including Trump appointees. There is no "alleged" when everyone working for him knows it was happening and has admitted as such, other than those that have been barred from testifying. Koncorde (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The unrelated kinsman, After two weeks of testimony by serious professionals in front of HPSCI, we now know:

1. Trump withheld aid and a White House visit.
2. He demanded in return for these things an announcement of investigations into the Bidens (named) and the Kremin-sourced Crowdstrike conspiracy theory.
3. He did not inform the Congress of the hold on Congressionally appropriated aid, which is a violation of Federal law.
4. At least two officials resigned because of demands that they find a legal fig-leaf to cover this withholding of aid.
5. He released the aid only after he knew that a whistleblower had come forward.
6. The White House withheld the whistleblower complaint from Congress, also a violation fo Federal law.
7. The White House obstructed all efforts by Congress to understand the background of the issue (also a violation of Federal law).
8. While the President has the authority to withhold a WH visit, he does not have the authority to withhold Congressionally appropriated aid, and he does not have the right to withhold WH visits in return for political favours.
9. Sondland was working not on US policy but on a private political errand. So was Rudy Giuliani.
10. All applicable agencies had cleared the aid.
11. All applicable agencies had informed the WH that the Crowdstrike conspiracy theory is bullshit. The President has the right to request investigations, even of batshit insane conspiracy theories, but the route for these is via Justice and does not include any right to withhold Congressionally mandated aid or official visits in return.
12. The WH also recalled Marie Yovanovich in response to conspiracy theories and disinformation supplied through a devious route including Parnas and Fruman, and driven by (among others) Viktor Shokin, the corrupt former prosecutor general of Ukraine. The President has authority to recall ambassadors, but not with corrupt intent and not in response to lies and disinformation.

I could go on but later today we'll have a condensed summary of which speciifc laws have been broken. And no, it's not "alleged" - Trump has always committed his crimes in plain sight and then defied anyone to do anything about them. Guy (help!) 12:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@JzG and Guy: do you figure it's possible to get all of this from reading the lead? Heptor (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Heptor, I think the section headings from the HPSCI report could be used to summarise the thing.

I. The President Conditioned a White House Meeting and Military Aid to Ukraine on a Public Announcement of Investigations Beneficial to his Reelection Campaign

The President’s Request for a Political Favor

The President Removed Anti-Corruption Champion Ambassador Yovanovitch

The President’s Hand-picked Agents Begin the Scheme

President Trump Froze Vital Military Assistance

The President Conditioned a White House Meeting on Investigations

The President’s Agents Pursued a “Drug Deal”

The President Pressed Zelensky to Do a Political Favor

The President’s Representatives Ratcheted up Pressure on the Ukrainian President

Ukrainians Inquired about the President’s Hold on Security Assistance

The President’s Security Assistance Hold Became Public

The President’s Scheme Unraveled

The President’s Chief of Staff Confirmed Aid was Conditioned on Investigations

Guided by that chronology it should be relatively easy to summarise the body. What do you think? Guy (help!) 21:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't look easy to me 🤨

You inserted unsourced content into an article, and then when you added a source, you inserted original research and editorialized.[5] Please don't do that!- MrX 🖋 22:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

MrX, I think this was meant as a response to a different discussion. I have not edited the ‘Trump-Ukraine scandal’ article at all. Thanks, The unrelated kinsman (talk) 00:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The lead looks biased to me too. I haven’t been following this case at all. I just read this Wikipedia article. The sentence taken up by The unrelated kinsman is very bold and assertive, but poorly supported by the rest of the lead. If Trump said that he indeed tried to pressure Zelenskiy to investigate Biden (as Koncorde says here), then this should be clearly stated in the lead. Heptor (talk) 07:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The lede is supported by the dozens of sources quoted within the main body of the article. If we want to run with the supporting quotes from innumerable sources:

BBC; "In July, he urged his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate one of the frontrunners to take him on in next year's presidential election. This matters, opposition Democrats say, because it is illegal to ask foreign entities for help in winning a US election."

BBC #2 "US President Donald Trump, already facing an impeachment inquiry after urging Ukraine to investigate his political rival Joe Biden, has now urged China to do likewise."

BBC #2 "When asked what Mr Trump sought as a "favour" from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in this summer's phone call, Mr Trump responded: "Well, I would think that if they were honest about it, they'd start a major investigation into the Bidens. It's a very simple answer. "They should investigate the Bidens," he said, speaking to reporters on the lawn of the White House."

CNBC; "Trump, speaking outside the White House before departing for Florida, mentioned China after pressing his call for Ukraine to launch a probe into Biden and his son — a request he made in a July 25 phone call with Ukraine’s president that led Democrats to launch an impeachment inquiry. “If they were honest about it, they would start a major investigation into the Bidens,” Trump said when asked what he wanted Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky to do about the former veep and his son. “They should investigate the Bidens,” Trump said. “Likewise, China should start an investigation into the Bidens, because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine.”

AP News "There was no hinting around, it was a straight-out trade, two key White House officials told impeachment investigators. If Ukraine’s new leader wanted an Oval Office welcome from Donald Trump — and he did — he would have to open a public probe into the president’s Democratic foe Joe Biden and his son."

None of these articles say that what he did, or has admitted to freely and provided a transcript for, or is has been corroborated by multiple senior officials, is "alleged". What is "alleged" is that this is impeachable, and a criminal act. Koncorde (talk) 07:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Those things should be in the lead, not in the sources quoted within the main body. The position of the president (and other involved parties) should be presented. Heptor (talk) 08:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

They are in the lede, in paragraph two with inline sourcing (something that isn't technically required, but is being done here for the sole purpose of waving a white flag to people who claim stuff is unsourced). They are then fully documented in the main article, and associated article.

As for Trumps position, and 'other parties': none of them have testified to hold a different position, nor have they denied the substance of the events, and have actually stood on the lawn saying "Yeah, I did it - by the way, can some other countries help us do more of the same? Ok cool.". Koncorde (talk) 09:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Where does it say that Trump supports the allegations that he attempted to coerce, and that it was into providing damaging narratives? Heptor (talk) 11:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Which alternative excuses do you want listing? What weight is there in reliable sources to reflect on claiming "the call was perfect", repeating his calls for an investigation to multiple other countries, spreading conspiracy theories, and complaining about the process by talking about unrelated issues. A sentence saying "Trump denies this" would require him to actually deny his actions took place, and to provide an alternative reason for his actions. So far these have been not forthcoming, or hidden behind executive privilege. So, what is Trumps alternative position? Is it the same as Mulvaneys? What about Sondland? Koncorde (talk) 11:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Heptor, here we have a difficult position: how to fairly represent, per WP:NPOV, the claims of a stranger to truth? Put bluntly, Trump lies. All the time. He lies so freely that some sources wonder if he is mentally ill. Not one of the serious professionals who have testified, claims the call was "perfect", even including the Republicans' own witnesses. So to give this any weight would violate WP:UNDUE. Yes he denies it. Well he would say that, wouldn't he?. Guy (help!) 12:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

“Trump lies. All the time.” Guy, you are obviously a biased partisan. You should remove yourself from this conversation. The unrelated kinsman (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

There is literally more than 1 website dedicated to counting the number of mistruths and lies. Multiple independent sources have decided that pretty much anything he says is probably the opposite of the truth, and more often than not a wilful perversion of the truth to aggrandise himself. This is one of the most basic observable facts on the internet. Koncorde (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I’m surprised that you’d think a google search for ‘Trump lies’ proves anything because, and I hate to break this to you, but a fundamental fact of life is ‘Politicians lie’! And you can’t seriously believe that because politicians lie it’s Ok to violate WP:NPOV, and/or WP:OR and/or WP:V in any wiki article. Again, if it’s implied that Trump ‘coerced’ then the second sentence in the lead should read “It revolves around (alleged) efforts by U.S. President Donald Trump to coerce Ukraine and other foreign countries...”. And again, have you googled ‘Trump admits coercion‘? Because, you know, he doesn’t. AND again, the lead as written implies unquestionable guilt, which constitutes original research which violates WP:OR, and is unverifiable because formal proceedings have yet to prove or disprove the charges, which violates WP:V. The unrelated kinsman (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Trump, literally, said the call "was largely [about] fact that we don't want our people like Vice President Biden and his son creating to the corruption already in the Ukraine" while at the same time a gang of his employees were exerting political pressure in Ukraine, and he personally instructed millions in aid to be with-held. He doesn't need to admit to coercion, he has openly admitted to steering the discussion in that direction and then has been skewered by every single material witness so far for what his tactics where to achieve it.

Meanwhile a google search that brings up dozens upon dozens of reliable sources all discussing innumerable lies definitely meets the criteria of proving he is a liar par excellence. And the presence of other liars does not preclude us from reporting what the majority (and in reality all but the most sycophantic or utterly corrupt and likely tangibly linked to the President or his supporters) of reliable sources state is the situation at hand.

I would suggest you learn what WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WPV actually mean before throwing them around. Koncorde (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Koncorde, And the "anti-corruption" President sent Rick Perry to Ukraine with a list of donors in his pocket to pitch for oil and gas deals.

Nice country you have here, be a shame if something happened to it. My friend would like a 50 year gas extraction lease. Guy (help!) 23:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The unrelated kinsman, That Trump lies is actually the charitable interpretation. The uncharitable interpretation is that he does not know or care what the truth is when he makes statements that are obviously and verifiably false. Guy (help!) 23:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Why not put what Koncorde said here in the lead? That is, a phone call had been placed. It was interpreted by (credible sources) to be an effort to coerce [...]. Trump confirmed the contents of the phone call, did not provide an alternative reason for it, and described the conversation as "perfect". Heptor (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Because that would give WP:UNDUE weight to Trump's interpretation, and would not accurately reflect the facts. When reliable sources state something as a fact, so do we. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: “Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.”

It doesn’t matter if Trump is a great liar or if many reliable sources say he’s guilty of coercion. I can find reliable sources that say he didn’t coerce. Here is one example Experienced, unbiased admin shouldn’t allow these obvious violations of basic Wikipedia policies to continue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The unrelated kinsman (talk • contribs) 00:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you think it's possible Zelensky calculated the risks of a severe backlash from Trump by publicly implicating him in a quid pro quo? soibangla (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Occam’s razor. Sure, Zelensky could be afraid to speak the truth, but it’s also possible that he’s telling the truth. But that’s not the point. We should be following basic Wikipedia policies. We should ‘avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts’, as stated in WP:NPOV. The unrelated kinsman (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The point is: we can't know what Zelensky thinks, so "he said there was no pressure" is pretty much worthless as a defense, given the evident US-Ukraine power imbalance that Trump could exploit. soibangla (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

soibangla, it doesn’t matter if you believe my reliable sources or not. I could provide a lot more reliable sources for you to argue about, and I’m sure you’d have no problem refuting all of them. That’s not the point. The point is these are ‘seriously contested assertions’, and we should ‘treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts’, according to WP:NPOV. The unrelated kinsman (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The main thrust is who contests such statements, and whether it’s a generally held view among reliable sources. The NYP is a bit of a mixed bag per our sourcing requirements, mainly per fact-checking and lack of retractions when they get the story wrong. The main issue here is whether this has been generally reflected in reliable sources. And the short answer is that it’s mainly been asserted in an ideological echo chamber, with a few exceptions. If this changes, I’m happy to support that. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 05:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Symmachus Auxiliarus. Odd that an experienced admin would find time for this sideline and not bother to address the thrust of my argument. The unrelated kinsman (talk) 05:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The thrust of your argument is more a stab on the dark, wildly aiming for some wiki guideline that you can hang your hat on. If multiple experienced editors, and admins at that, are saying "I don't think so"; is the reason that we are all liberal shills, or is it that you just don't have a case at all and are wasting your efforts? Koncorde (talk) 09:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Koncorde, you’ve pretty much already proven you’re unwilling to have a civil discussion with me. I think you’re just trying to derail this conversation. Please stop. And please allow the people I address in my remarks to answer for themselves. I’m sure they’re more than capable. Thanks The unrelated kinsman (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Adding name of alleged whistleblower

This is settled and we're not going to publish more of the same. Read the talk page archives if you are interested. SPECIFICO talk 21:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I noticed that the alleged whistleblower's name wasn't listed in the article. I'm not on Trump's side (which, if I was, would be a bad reason to make the edit anyway) but I support Wikipedia's goal of providing an objective, uncensored source of relevant facts, so I thought I'd "be bold" and fix that omission. It got caught by the Biography of Living Persons policy filter though, so it didn't go through. I think the name in question is absolutely a relevant fact (the fact being what the whistleblower's name is alleged to be) as it's the entire topic of the Identity section, so shouldn't we have it? flarn2006 [u t c] time: 21:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC) If you don't know who it is, and the name has not been released, and has not been reported on in reliable sources, why would you add it? There is a section under BLP for this sort of thing? Why would knowing the WB "alleged" name be relevant? Koncorde (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC) Because it's a section that directly concerns those allegations. If the allegations are worth documenting, and that name is what forms the entire substance of the allegation, how is it not relevant to post the name? flarn2006 [u t c] time: 21:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)