Talk:Trump–Ukraine scandal

Template:WPUS50k

RFC: Ukrainian President's Statement on the Trump-Ukraine Scandal in the Lede

Should the lede of the page Trump-Ukraine scandal, which deals with whether Trump pressured Ukrainian President Zelensky, include Zelensky's position on the matter? May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer - President Zelensky has repeatedly denied that he was pressured by Trump (first in September, most recently a couple days ago) and it has been covered extensively in reliable sources. [[1]] In the most recent statement, he clarified that he was unaware military aid was held up at the time he had the call with Trump. These are "important points" as per WP:LEDE and should be included. After all, this article is about whether Zelensky pressured Trump, so Zelensky's position on the matter would obviously be an "important point." In addition, as Zelensky is the mouthpiece for Ukraine, certainly his opinion merits inclusion in the lede by virtue of that role. (In an article called "Trump-Ukraine scandal", the position of Ukraine is obviously important.) May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC) Afterthought: I should note that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. The best source for what Zelensky thinks is Zelensky. Just because a contrary opinion is expressed in a reliable source does not mean that we should supplant that as per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 17:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as WP:UNDUE if placed in the lead. Can you see why Zelensky would deny being held to ransom while still desperately needing the money, and knowing that Trump has all the self-control of a two-year-old? One public statement under duress can't be used to assert parity with the mountain of evidence that the shakedown was a problem. Guy (help!) 14:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  JzG, Certainly you are entitled to believe that he was lying, but an editor's personal opinion regarding the veracity of a statement is not a reason for exclusion. Because the position would be attributed to Zelensky and not stated in Wikipedia's voice, it is appropriately couched to the reader. We could even add a "rebuttal" to Zelensky, if you have a source that claims Zelensky didn't really mean what he meant. But to completely exclude it from the lede because an editor doesn't like it? I don't think that's right as per WP:LEDE. Unless you can say that Zelensky's opinion as to whether he was pressured is somehow irrelevant in an article about whether Zelensky was pressured. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 17:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  May His Shadow Fall Upon You, It does not belong in the lead because in the lead it is robbed fo the context that we cannot assess the extent to which he was coerced, but we absolutely do know that the actions met all the elements of bribery. Guy (help!) 18:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  JzG, Is there a Wikipedia policy that suggests we should exclude verifiable information, in reliable sources, with significant coverage - because an editor is not satisfied to the extent to which that statement might or might not have been coerced? May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  May His Shadow Fall Upon You, who's suggesting we exclude it? It's fine to put it in the body with full context (e.g. the fact that while Zelenskiy says Ukraine is not corrupt, this is probably reflective of an aspiration and a still-new government, not of the reality, which still shows evidence of deep and systematic corruption, e.g. in the award of as 50 year exploration lease to a Perry donor). And because it's complicated and because his statements are at odds with independent sources in numerous significant ways, it does not belong in the lead per WP:UNDUE. Guy (help!) 14:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  JzG, How is an attributed statement providing undue weight to Zelensky's own opinion? May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 16:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Because Zelensky's opinion is irrelevant to the scandal. He doesn't need to have his opinion validated for the scandal to exist. The scandal is about what Trump did, and what he asked others to do, and the potential implications. The weight of reliable sources reflect this. The weight of reliable sources, included those that have testified, have all indicated that there was pressure to coerce domestic political gains from international allies. Koncorde (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Koncorde, He doesn't need to have his opinion validated for the scandal to exist. That's not what I'm saying, though. In an article about whether Zelensky was pressured, Zelensky's opinion is an important point that should be included as per WP:LEDE. This has substantial coverage in reliable sources. We don't pick a narrative we agree with and then exclude points accordingly. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 17:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

This isn't an article about Zelensky being pressured. You are misrepresenting both the article and the weight of reliable sources when you ask for it to be shifted to discredit the notion that Trump didn't do the thing that he is on record as saying he did, and that nobody is claiming he didn't do - which is try and leverage his position for domestic political advantage. The argument is solely about whether what he did is impeachable and the scandal around his actions and those around him. I am not sure why, or why you would think I am choosing a narrative when the article is about the scandal of Trump's actions, not Zelensky's feelings. Koncorde (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

"which is try to leverage his position for *domestic political advantage*" You just inserted your own opinion, this is not asserted fact. Trump is obligated per statue to ask information about corruption investigations. We have no idea if it would give him political advantage or not, and your accusations about his intent amount to speculation. From the transcript, it's clear Trump asks to investigate previous possible election meddling, and references a video where Biden brags about getting a prosecutor fired, and the investigations ended up going nowhere after that. You can argue his intent was to smear Biden, or you can argue that it was to fight corruption, or both. Your argument fails, just because you claim factual prove of intent, where there is none. Milanbishop (talk) 11:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support. It's very possible that Zelenskiy was pressured to deny that he was pressured, but this determination should be left to the readers. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information to the readers, not to think on their behalf. Heptor (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• Heptor, that's incorrect. An encyclopedia does not leave clues and breadcrumbs for readers to take a guess. We state in the clearest most explicit terms what the weight of RS describes. This bit has been rejected before and it's being rejected again. In fact, it's ripe for a SNOW close, in my opinion. SPECIFICO talk 22:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  SPECIFICO, Disagree. Most of the people posting in this RFC are participants from the previous discussion. (I think all of them, but I haven't checked.) The purpose of this RFC is to bring in outside voices. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

There's leaving crumbs and there's force-feeding. But anyway, this RfC looks done, let's just close it. Withdrawn per the above argument by the Shadow --Heptor (talk) 09:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose JzG's point summarizes the context that reliable sources have noted. We're not thinking on behalf of the reader; we're doing our job and reflecting what the secondary and tertiary sources have stated. In addition, there is the more procedural matter that the lede should summarize the main text, and the main text glances over this in a brief paragraph. The article needs reorganization on a significant scale, which may likely affect the lede; bringing this up now is doing things in the wrong order. XOR'easter (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean? Zelenskiy's position was certainly noted by reliable secondary sources, for example the NY Post article mentioned by MHSFUY Heptor (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I meant ... what I said. Yes, reliable sources have noted Zelensky's "position" (I might use the term "statements" instead, but that's a detail), but they've also given it a context that we can't omit [2]. (There's a lot of context for anything to do with Zelensky [3].) Part of this is what JzG noted, but it also includes, for example, Zelensky pushing back on Trump's claims that Ukraine is a corrupt country, which the NY Post skipped over but other sources covered [4][5][6]. (Parenthetically, according to WP:RSP, There is no consensus regarding the reliability of the New York Post. The New York Post is a tabloid newspaper with high circulation, and most editors prefer more reliable sources when available.) XOR'easter (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Heptor, yes, and that's a great reason for covering it in the body but not in the lead because it gives undue weight to an implausible denial. Guy (help!) 16:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@XOR'easter: why would we want to omit the context? Add it. Especially the part about Zelenskiy pushing back on Trump's claims that Ukraine is a corrupt country. If we allow us some optimism, it could well be that Zelenskiy wants to stay as far away from shady dealings as he possibly can. An honest politician would certainly ignore an offer like that. @Guy: it also would also give the reader an opportunity to decide for themselves if the denial was plausible or not. Instead, a reasonably astute reader now will ask questions like, why is Ukraine's position not mentioned, and why is Trump's position not mentioned. This is not good for the project. Heptor (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Heptor, all great reasons for including it in the body, which I don't dispute. In the lead? Not so much. Guy (help!) 14:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, but with comments - 1. the lede summarises. We should summarise that there was pressure, it is irrelevant what statements are made by individuals if the significant weight of reliable sources all identify the denial as effectively compromised. However 2. the body should ensure that it refers to the denial by Zelensky, but it should also refer to the weight of significant sources opinion of his statement. Koncorde (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  Koncorde, As per 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. Sources that speculate on Zelensky's motivations, even if they are otherwise reliable, lack the appropriate context to be considered a reliable source for that fact. Zelensky is the best authority on what he thinks. All the speculation in the world does not outweigh that as per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 17:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

That is your interpretation, which is wrong, and I am not even entertaining begging the question as a means of refuting any arguments. Man denies that he was aware of thing, while all available sources indicate that leading Ukrainians were asking questions long before it was released; attested to by witnesses privy to it that were presented. Koncorde (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Koncorde, Wikipedia cares about verifiability, not truth. An editor's opinion as to whether or not it's true or false is not a factor in whether it's included. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is. We know what Zelensky said is indeed what he said. We don't know how he truly felt at the time, or after, or his motivations - so we're not going to guess. We do however know that the significant volume of reliable sources and witness statements disagree with his assertion that he did not know, and their arguments (and indeed the argument of the whole impeachment process and scandal) is that it is irrelevant how the Ukrainian President did or did not feel, or what he claims he wasn't aware of. The significance of the scandal is the attempt to utilise foreign policy for domestic political gains. This is not only verifiable, and supported by the significant majority of reliable sources, but it is also a true and accurate representation of the significance. Few sources are going to call Zelensky a liar, but the majority have certainly suggested that all evidence so far presented points to the contrary. Koncorde (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Koncorde, right. A man walks into a bank, points a gun at the teller and asks for a million dollars. Do we care if the teller says she did not feel threatened? If the gun was fake? If the robber had a million dollars on deposit and could have just withdrawn it? If the manager was on the take? If the money was the proceeds of some other guy's bank robbery? No we do not. Guy (help!) 14:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. "Teller is cool as a cucumber when faced with a gun" sounds like a great click-bait article title, but it isn't the subject of the court case and is unlikely to be used as a valid line of defence in court. Koncorde (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Koncorde, Even if Zelensky was lying, the fact of the matter is that the President of Ukraine has weighted in on a scandal called the "Trump-Ukraine scandal" which has involved, of course, the President of the Ukraine. This has been covered extensively by reliable sources, so it's not as if this is some minor point. It appears that the main argument against inclusion is that other sources disagree, but it's not as if we are here on Wikipedia to pick the side that's "true" or "right" and then exclude verifiable points with significant coverage in reliable sources because they disagree with our opinion. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 17:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

No, the argument against inclusion IN THE LEDE is because it is undue weight being lent to a statement made that is directly contradicted by every single witness on both the US side of the aisle and the Ukrainian side of the aisle and the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources questioning his intent, sincerity, and accuracy. It is undue weight IN THE LEDE to go into the detail of what Zelensky said without that context and so it is dealt with, in context, within the main article itself quite clearly. I am done discussing this with you because you have not taken a single thing on board so far repeatedly explained a dozen times over. Get a new argument please. Koncorde (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per my previous comments on the matter.[7][8][9] - MrX 🖋 16:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per above and my previous comments. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Muboshgu and MrX Gandydancer (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comments in the prior thread and my remark to Heptor, above. SPECIFICO talk 22:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support If it has Trump's perspective, why not Zelensky's?HAL333 00:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  HAL333, because the scandal is about Trump and his actions, and Zelensky's opinion isn't relevant. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Per UNDUE and comments above. Putting in the lede, without context is not WP:N either.Casprings (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

  Casprings, What kind of context would you be looking for? May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support but with context Obviously there are reasons to doubt Zelensky's statements but that's true for pretty much anyone who was involved with this in any way. The lead is supposed to summarize the most important information in the body, and Zelensky's opinion should be part of that. That said, we should also briefly summarize skepticism about his point of view. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support, but with comments - Zelinsy is a central figure in the scandal, so I disagree that his statement (as opposed to an opinion) on the matter is undue for the lede. Referring to or quoting an individual's statement on a matter isn't an endorsement of that statement, especially when that individual is so involved in the matter. The context can come in the body, where it belongs. I'll also note that there's an abundance of other responses and facts in the lede - all pointing to corruption occurring - this provides some context in itself. However, I'm concerned that that paragraph (where I'd assume Zelinsky's reaction would go) has already become an unwieldy barrage of facts smacking the reader over the head that it was corruption. I'd suggest examining the paragraph as a whole for what the intended purpose of it is, and how to most clearly and concisely fulfil that purpose. Cjhard (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support I can't see how Zelensky views are not relevant as the president of one of the two country's involved, Trump and the USA are certainly no more reliable and their views no more due than those of Ukraine. Seems obviously due to me. Bacondrum (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Bacondrum, because we can't include it without having to also include commentary showing that such a statement made by someone under duress may well not be, you know, true. We can do that within the article easily. This question is about the lead, specifically. I don't think anyone objects to it being covered in detail in the body. Guy (help!) 23:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

JzG Made under duress? There's a lot of assumptions being made there. Zelensky is the president of a powerful nation with large economy, high standard of living and one of the largest military forces in Europe (I believe they have the largest armed forces after Russia?). Zelensky is a big boy, in charge of a big country, whatever external pressures he faces we have no reason to assume he is any less his own man than say...Trump. We don't assume that he is a weak leader, nor do we depreciate his views, they are just as relevant as those of US leaders. Bacondrum (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support Zelensky's statements are very relevant to the claims being made in the header and are reported on by reliable sources. It thus makes sense to include them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit5001 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Per JzG and XOR'easter. Not our job to selectively decide what context is useful for the lede, we go by what is being emphasized in the abundance of sources. Zelensky's statement is not encompassed in that. Not every set of claims which is "relevant" by the assessment of wikipedia editors merits inclusion in an article lede, especially if what is deemed "relevant" does not also include context which is offered by the vast majority of sources. It certainly would merit inclusion in the body if it has reliable sources to back it, as the Zelensky statements do - provided the proper context. However, the lede has to be reserved for the facts and context for those facts which are most unanimously agreed upon and reported. Flip^andFlopped ツ 04:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support. This is a perfect example of why Wikipedia is not trusted. Zelensky was on the other side of the call. Zelensky was on the other side of the transaction. That Zelensky’s response, no pressure from Trump’s administration is not in the lead of this story indicates Wikipedians really are not interested in truth. Then, the usual, Wiki editors start lawyering up. What a joke. Put Zelensky’s responses in the intro. Let the readers decide what the truth is. 10stone5 (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

That Zelensky was on the other side of the call is irrelevant; so far over a dozen witnesses have been called who have testified to the contrary. That the intent was clear. That multiple Ukrainian officials had asked repeatedly what they had to do to get the aid and state visit. That the power imbalance between the US and Ukraine by default means that there is an expectation of compliance (or else). That Zelensky is still subject to potential recriminations is clear and testified to, and multiple reliable sources have outlined the reasons why Zelensky would deny.

This has nothing to do with Wikipedia. This is to do with the desire for a certain portion of the political spectrum to deny the evidence, or interpret it in such a generous way that they would never afford to a rival, and the attempt by those groups to influence all media in their favour through threats, trial by their own echo chamber of public opinion, and dog-piling. Any source that disagrees (or to be exact; reports accurately) is immediately subject to the same hand wringing demands for fake balance. Koncorde (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@10stone5: "Let the readers decide what the truth is." - That is simply not how WP works and it's a non-starter to propose ignoring the weight of RS. SPECIFICO talk 22:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support As far as my experience as an avid Wikipedia reader, and aspiring editor can tell. It is common to have allegations accompanied by a rebuttal is there is such.

Since a trial on the matter has not taken place, the allegations should remain as such: unproven fact. Certainly, attributing motives to Zelensky's comments is an egregious overstep of common decency.

Zelensky is not on trial here, and if we can not even include his statements, even for the sake of it being an observed utterance, without attributing motives or sentiments, I have no idea why Wikipedia should :even venture into politics. Milanbishop (talk) 12:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

We rely on reliable secondary sources for context, not the primary source. Zelensky may claim he felt no pressure, but that is all we can ascribe as weight to his opinion. In contrast pretty much all other reliable sources indicate (including those that testified) indicated otherwise. Koncorde (talk) 14:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

That is completely nonsensical, and contrary per WP:USINGPRIMARY - " Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation.". We are quoting Zelensky and can easily provide multiple reliable sources such as article from Time magazine. I propose to you to provide a reliable source which claims that Zelensky did feel pressured by Trump. Generalizing, using words like "pretty much all reliable sources indicate", does not offer any verifiable objective proof of contradiction and is completel irrelevant to the notion that Zelensky did in fact deny the allegations, and is one of the two heads of state involved in the matter. Additionally to Time, I provide This FactCheckt.org article referencing Washington Post directly citing Zelensky:

“There was no pressure or blackmail from the U.S. I had no idea the military aid was held up [at the time of his July 25 call with Trump]. When I did find out, I raised it with [Vice President] Pence at a meeting in Warsaw" Milanbishop (talk) 14:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

We know what Zelensky said. It is directly attributed in the body of the article. Primary sourcing is fine for a quote. However we are not providing a quote, just as we are not providing quotes from other people in the lede, we are instead providing the weight of reliable sources and Zelensky's singular claim is refuted by not only his own Ukrainian staff involved, but also by the US witnesses directly involved, and even Mike Mulvaney who explicitly stated that there was a quid pro quo. That is pressure.

Among many others, you can just Google dozens of such articles, nevermind those that don't explicitly say the words but refer to the testimony provided by the people who were actually doing the pressuring who say that not only were they aware of what was going on and what was being held back, but also what they were being coerced to do in order to get their money and their state visit.

If you are not going to look for sources that do not support your position then you will only hear what you want to hear. That is not what we do, and it is why we cannot and do not rely upon single sources, particularly primary sources. People have a bad habit of not telling the truth. Koncorde (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

add "Pence rejects calls to declassify new impeachment testimony" ?

• Pence rejects calls to declassify new impeachment testimony; The vice president's lawyer says it “serves no purpose.” 12/11/2019 Politico.com by Andrew Desiderio, Kyle Cheney

X1\ (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

add new Office of Management and Budget claim?

White House Office of Management and Budget claims in a new memo that it withheld U.S. military aid to Ukraine as a temporary exploratory measure, not as part of a political effort to override Congress' appropriation of the money.

per

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-new-legal-memo-white-house-budget-office-defends-withholding-aid-to-ukraine/2019/12/11/0caa030e-1b95-11ea-826b-14ef38a0f45f_story.html

X1\ (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

X1\, I believe the sources show they tested a number of pretexts. Guy (help!) 23:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm interested to see what Heavily redacted OMB communications on withholding of Ukraine aid released by Trump administration say. More here. soibangla (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Soibangla: I agree the PublicIntegrity.org and Abcnews.go.com items look interesting, I only wish I could keep up with this more. Have either of you seen updates on this/these? 23:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC about requested name change at Trump–Russia dossier

Please participate:

• Talk:Trump–Russia dossier#Requested move 13 December 2019

BullRangifer (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Add mention of alternative title "Ukrainegate" to the lede (or at least to the article)

Numerous highly notabele and reputable sources have referred to the scandal as "Ukrainegate". [10], [11], [12], [13], many more easily findable by google search.

I would propose changing the first sentence of the lede to read, "The Trump–Ukraine scandal, also known as Ukrainegate, is an ongoing political scandal in the United States."

Alternatively, if there is not sufficient support for adding it to the lede, I would suggest incorporating this alternate title for the scandal somewhere else into the article. Flip^andFlopped ツ 04:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Flipandflopped: Nay. I checked out those sources. I suppose if you - along with everyone else in America - were to secretly take a vote and change the meaning of the entire English language... then yeah, I guess those sources are "notable and reputable". I mean just look at the second article. It literally has a giant, golden 'OPINION' title slapped at the top. WP: FACTS PROCEED OPINIONS StanTheMan0131 (talk) 16:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 December 2019

Change: “It revolves around efforts by U.S. President” To: “It revolves around alleged efforts by U.S. President” Yosemite747956 (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. This statement is well-sourced in the body and the addition of "alleged" will require a consensus of interested editors to endorse. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)