Jump to content

Talk:Impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Subzerox (talk | contribs) at 22:20, 2 October 2019 (→Bias). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WPUS50k

Reconciliation needed, naming

This should be reconciled or merged with the already existing Efforts to impeach Donald Trump- and we may want to consider renaming this (or whatever article results) to Impeachment process against Donald Trump, a la Impeachment process against Richard Nixon. 331dot (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not merged. We need this article. I agree with your title, however.Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose merging. Trump actually has impeachment proceedings going ahead against him. This is more than just the word impeachment being chucked around which is what that other article is for. I do agree with the name being changed, though; that discussion is below.  Nixinova  T  C  03:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 September 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Reasoning: Immediate and obvious support of a move; fast and greater than 2:1 consensus for Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump. Taking all supports without elaboration on title as a support for "Impeachment inquiry", there are 10 votes for that. There are 4 votes for "Impeachment process". There's 1 that is ambivalent between the two. There are three opposes, but two of those can be struck for faulty reasoning (namely, "no President has ever been impeached" and "But he will be impeached"). Note that because the proposed title existed as a redirect, this is subject to a technical move.(non-admin closure) Kingsif (talk) 03:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Impeachment of Donald Trump → Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump – An overwhelming majority of sources use the word inquiry. This article should also use that term. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It should be Impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump, or Impeachment process of Donald Trump, to conform to other articles. Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I support this as better than the current title but I feel consistency with the article about the Nixon impeachment is helpful. There is also another article to consider as I note above. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I support change to the title "Impeachment process...". We ought to have continuity. Inspector Semenych (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support "impeachment inquiry", moving to "impeachment preceedings" once it's actually fully underway; this current title is not accurate since Trump hasn't actually been impeached.  Nixinova  T  C  03:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Late comments

Semi protect page request

I think it would be wise to semi protect or extended confirm protect this page due to the hot influx and news and updates about this subject. If the main Trump page is extended confirm protected, why shouldn't this page. Trump is a very searched and googled person. Any one else agree?--Proudpakistani11 (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can create a request that this page be protected over at WP:RFPP.  Nixinova  T  C  03:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lawfare article

[4] This is informative. I saw the impeachment inquiry announced on TV today and it looked like do-nothing theatrics, but the Lawfare article and a few similar things said it might help the House committees pry a few more documents loose from the executive branch. Everyone seems to agree there is no chance of actually removing the president. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 06:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

!I vote delete the article!--Jack Upland (talk) 10:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"President Trump...pressed the Ukrainian government to investigate Hunter Biden"

That's an outright false statement. The New York Times article in the citation lied about it too. The whistleblower report is their basis for this claim, and no one has access to that. The transcript released today doesn't show any threats or coercion to make them investigate someone on Trump's behalf.
Amaroq64 (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sources for your claim The New York Times article in the citation lied about it too? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree that "pressed" may not be the most accurate word, based on what the transcript shows. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 23:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We can say "asked". That much has been admitted by Trump. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. I attempted to correct for the falsehood, but this is not possible, evidently. Wikipedia has locked the page against "vandalism". Sensiblereaction (talk) 11:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately for Wikipedia, there is so much false and distorted news from all major news agencies that almost all current political topics/entries are going to be highly speculative and skewed to liberal favor. Journalists are getting away from fact bad reporting and have become opinion commentators. Stanleyshere (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stanleyshere Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias; this is why sources are required and provided, so readers can see them and decide for themselves. If you wish to challenge the reliability or accuracy of a source, you may do so at the reliable sources noticeboard, but just saying it's "too liberal" will not work. You would need to demonstrate that a particular outlet no longer has a reputation of editorial control and fact checking. 331dot (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hearings started in Sept or July?

This article states that formal impeachment inquiry started in Sept, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Donald_Trump#Start_of_formal_impeachment_proceedings states that "In July 2019, The House leadership agreed to quietly start formal impeachment proceedings without a formal vote on the matter. This was first revealed to the public in a court filing dated July 26.", followed by a lot more sourcing than in this article. So unless there is some technical difference between an "inquiry" and "proceedings", with proceedings being a step before inquiry, this article would seem to be wrong at the moment. IANAL so I don't feel comfortable actually editing the article, but from a layman's perspective, the media certainly seems to use the two words interchangeably. So I hope someone who is knowledgeable on the technical details of legislative procedure etc. will read this, and hopefully cite the actual legal documents that make this distinction :-) Djbclark (talk) 23:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What you have to understand is that there are very few written laws and procedures for the impeachment "process". The constitution is very light on detail. They are making it up as they go and following the few precedents available. You will find no concrete definitions of what "inquiry" or "proceedings" or "process" actually mean at all. The whole thing is not clearly defined. All we know now is that we are now in an "inquiry". What does that mean? god only knows. Without a time machine, I cannot tell you. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amash as Independent or Republican?

The article currently states "An increasing number of House Democrats and one independent, Representative Justin Amash (Michigan),[note 1] were requesting such an inquiry.[27]" User:SelfieCity changed the descriptor of Amash from Republican -> Independent with the explanation "the note within the article, Justin Amash, and https://amash.house.gov/ all describe him as currently being an independent — therefore, we shouldn't say he's a Republican"

I don't know what the general practice is for politicians who change parties, but Amash was definitely a Republican at the time he first supported impeachment [and was reported on as such.] So I looked for examples of how other party-switching politicians were described in Wikipedia.

In Civil Rights Act of 1957, Strom Thurmond (Democrat until 1964, Republican afterwards) is described as "Then-Democratic Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina." In Civil Rights Act of 1964, Thurmond is simply "Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC)" (he switched parties several months after the events in the article.)

In American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Arlen Specter was described as such: "only three Republicans voted in favor (Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Specter).[21] Specter switched to the Democratic Party later in the year"

I don't want an edit war and am not the most familiar with Wikipedia procedures - based on these other examples, I don't think there's any precedent for inaccurately describing Amash as an Independent when he began supporting impeachment. Could we change the text to e.g. "and one Republican, Representative Justin Amash (Michigan) were requesting such an inquiry. Amash left the Republican Party and declared himself an independent later in the year" [moving the note descriptor to the main body to avoid confusion]?

Reyne2 (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reyne2, I have revert the change and placed a hidden note to hopefully prevent future changes. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reyne2 Amash is an Independent, though formerly Republican. He has offically left the party, and should not be listed as affiliated with it. Mgasparin (talk) 06:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Should it just say "then-Republican" and have the note removed?  Nixinova  T  C  08:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the note. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like Nixinova's idea. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 20:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

REVERTED
Vandalism was removed, nothing more to see here --DannyS712 (talk) 02:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Hi,

There's vandalism here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Impeachment_inquiry_against_Donald_Trump&type=revision&diff=918250875&oldid=918250571

I would undo it myself, but I've already reverted vandalism in the last 24 hours on this article. Can someone take care of it?

Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@David O. Johnson: I undid it. An admin wouldn't consider reverting obvious vandalism (like massive blanking without explanation, as this was) as a violation of the 1RR restriction on this article. 1RR is intended to ward off edit warring due to content disputes in contentious articles. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate it. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anachronist is correct - obvious vandalism is exempt from 3RR and 1RR. Acroterion (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Polling

Based on the polling data we have, the most accurate one is the poll done by "Politico/Morning Consult". It should be noted somewhere in the polling section that the sample size and the margin of error matter. Ideally you want to have a MoE between 2.5 and 3.0% with a sample size of 1,500 - 2,500 people for a 95% confidence level. [5], [6] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest not to add colors to the table. These colors suggest some interpretation that is not stated by the sources. For instance, the NPR poll has 49% vs 46% with margin of error of 4.6%. Can we conclude that the first number is really higher than the second? The difference is smaller than the margin of error. So the conclusion must be that the numbers are about the same. Now let us look at the HuffPost poll: 47% vs 39% +-3.2%. That means between 43.8% and 50.2% support, and between 35.8% and 42.2% oppose. These intervals do not overlap, so we might conclude that the support is higher, but this is getting close to original research. Retimuko (talk) 02:47, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think some poll data makes the article more interesting, and somewhat more informative. I don't think we should include every poll though. We should probably establish a guideline, like only including polls with a low margin of error as suggested by Knowledgekid87.- MrX 🖋 11:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article in NYTimes has some interesting opinion on polling so far: A caution: These polls were conducted in a rapidly developing news environment, sometimes over only a single day of interviews. This poses challenges for pollsters, who have fewer opportunities to call back hard-to-reach respondents. It could also mean that the surveys were conducted at a moment when Democrats or Republicans were particularly eager to participate in polling. Many pollsters refuse to conduct one-day surveys altogether. And these particular pollsters have tended to show more support for impeachment than others over the Trump presidency; they may continue to do so today.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Semi-protected article 1 month due to POV and unsourced additions from IP and unconfirmed editors. Any admin should feel free to modify this protection as necessary without any need to consult me first. –Darkwind (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recentism tag on congressional approval section

I have been making a few changes and will now move on. However, the section on congressional support is worded in wp:recentism manner. If someone could have a play with it to make it more encyclopedic, that would be fantastic.Mozzie (talk) 05:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Color for polling

For one reason or another the coloring I have been adding for the polling is being removed. Is there a difference between these polls and the ones at Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum? Per MOS:COLOR, colors assist accessibility when it comes to the color blind. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowledgekid87: The reasons have been given in the edit summaries and the "Polling" section above. Pointing to another article and asking "why it is fine there?" is usually not helpful - there are all sorts of wrong and questionable things all over Wikipedia. Briefly looking at that article, I would say the same thing: coloring the numbers suggests a particular conclusion about the significance of the difference that is not stated by the sources. Regarding MOS:COLOR, you seem to suggest that adding color would help accessibility, but the manual says something entirely different: if you rely on color to convey some meaning, then don't forget that some people are color-blind, so you should better make the point understandable without colors. Retimuko (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Last sentence in the first paragraph in the lead

This is the last sentence:

In the case of Ukraine, according to the statements of former Ukrainian presidential advisor Serhiy Leshchenko and an anonymous lawmaker, this involved a threat to withdraw foreign aid and cease communication with the nation if they did not discuss a future investigation of Trump's political opponent Joe Biden and his son Hunter.[4][5][6]

It was created by ZiplineWhy as part of a larger edit here. But I don't see "a threat to withdraw foreign aid and cease communication" in the two citations and the tweet that ZiplineWhy provides. Leshchenko said "As I remember, it was a clear fact that Trump wants to meet only if Biden case will be included". And then he backtracks on that.

I don't think this sentence deserves half of the space in the lead's first paragraph. In the first case, its sources are questionable. Second, even if true, it merely details one individual's memory of why officials in the Ukraine were upset. The start of the second paragraph in the lead, about Pelosi initiating the inquiry in the wake of a whistleblower report, is much more important. The sentence further down in the second paragraph about Leshchenko ("stated that it was made a "clear fact" to the Ukrainian government") is much better at following the same source (ABC News), although it could use trimming.

I would recommend that this sentence be deleted or, at least, transferred to the body of the article. Maybe in a new subsection under Responses called, perhaps, "Ukrainian officials"? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Both parts of the sentence are true, but were said by different people. But I can see how it might be misinterpreted. It should be improved now as I split their independent statements into two different sections. ZiplineWhy (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Date details

Apparently I haven't done enough edits to fill this in myself with the current restrictions. So here is the info in case someone else wants to... In the second paragraph there is "Trump placed a hold on military aid to Ukraine at the same time.[further explanation needed]" which asks "Does anyone know the exact date that Trump held up the aid?". Per a Wall Street Journal article the decision was communicated on July 18th. Thus my suggested edit would be to move the sentence mentioned here and place it after the following sentence which talks about the call and then change it "Trump placed a hold on military aid to Ukraine a week before the call." and reference the Sept 24th WSJ article. Truistic (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter citations

Twitter links (citations #102, #103, and #108) do not go directly to cited tweets and generate a 404 on Twitter. Halyonix (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed those and removed some irrelevant ones.  Nixinova  T  C  02:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

Most of the text under "Trump and the White House", in the "Responses" section of this article, seems to be strongly biased against President Donald J. Trump, and should be rewritten with a more neutral point of view (or at least tagged as needing such a rewrite). I would like to particularly highlight the language used when referring to his responses, as an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.178.19 (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What specific text are you claiming is biased? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I usually stay out of Wikipedia edits and I don't want to directly edit this page, but under the section for RESPONSES, the first section titled "Trump and the White House", 2nd Paragraph, 3rd sentence: "One aspect of the campaign focused on attacking Joe Biden and his son for their alleged, but largely baseless involvement with Ukraine." I have italicized the part of the sentence that is opinion without any supporting evidence, considering Joe Biden actually bragged about what he did on Television. Because it is an opinion, I would suggest it be removed and the sentence left at: "One aspect of the campaign focused on attacking Joe Biden and his son for their alleged involvement with Ukraine." This statement is factually correct, more neutral, and allows for interpretation by the reader instead of trying to convince them of one side or the other. This is why I put it here under "Bias." Please discuss. - Subzerox (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a failed verification tag to the sentence. The sentence is awkwardly worded, but the gist of it is verifiable in numerous sources. The Bidens have been involved with Ukraine, but the conspiracy theory about the nature of their involvement is baseless (based on what is currently publicly known).- MrX 🖋 19:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The allegation of involvement isn't baseless, so we shouldn't say it is.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The nature of the involvement is what's baseless. In fact, it's a conspiracy theory.[7]

"Trump urged Ukraine to investigate Biden over baseless allegations regarding the former vice president's role in seeing a prosecutor ousted and Hunter serving on the board of a Ukrainian gas company, Burisma Holdings. There's no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of either Biden.
— [8]

- MrX 🖋 20:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- By that logic, the accusations against President Trump would also be baseless, as there's no "evidence" of wrongdoing on the part of President Trump either, yet we're having a massive discussion about it and even threatening an impeachment. So, how about we leave out the opinions that haven't been proven either way and just let the statement that the accusation is what the Republicans and the White House are saying stand? - Subzerox (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Name of lawyer

I added the name of the whistleblower's lawyer, Mark Zaid, which is in the source and is not secret. FWIW, I went to law school with Zaid and know him personally. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Impeachment_inquiry_into_Donald_Trump&oldid=919291713"