Jump to content

Talk:Trump–Ukraine scandal

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 173.14.238.113 (talk) at 02:44, 1 October 2020 (→Relevant Information Declassified: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WPUS50k

Inaccurate information in the second sentence of the article.

The article is locked so it cannot be corrected, but it should be. Otherwise, more and more people will lose faith in Wikipedia articles. The problem appears to be partisan-leanings by the author. In the second line it states: "It revolves around efforts by U.S. President Donald Trump to coerce Ukraine and other foreign countries into providing damaging narratives about 2020 Democratic Party presidential primary candidate Joe Biden". The word "ALLEGED" should precede the word "efforts" as such: 'It revolves around alleged efforts by U.S. President Donald Trump to coerce Ukraine and other foreign countries'. Since there is no proof that the president attempted to or made "efforts to" coerce Ukraine of anything, this error should be corrected immediately. Many people already feel Wikipedia is a left-leaning organization. Why would you allow careless writing like this to solidify beliefs that you far-left or even alt-left. Wikipedia should attempt to be 100% unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tit4tat (talk • contribs) 20:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tit4tat, nope. we've gone over this before, so just look through the talk page archives and you'll see why we're not going to make that change. Your concern trolling about whether "more and more people will lose faith in Wikipedia articles" is noted. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to WHICH of the various archives mentions the discussion. Impeachment is an accusation, but the prosecution failed to make their case in the court of the Senate. In US law, innocent until proven guilty should apply. Whether one thinks Mr Trump should be forever castigated by the accusation, the fact remains the prosecution failed to prove their case, the accused was acquitted, and any allegation to that effect should not remain undisputed. DeknMike (talk) 00:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted palace coup

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


Three reliable sources: [1] [2] [3] Yodabyte (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


Include Wikipedia under identites

There is a mention under 'Identity' that Youtube, Twitter and Facebook censor the whistleblower's alleged name. Shouldn't we also mention that Wikipedia expunges any changes with the name and bans the account? It seems more notable than any of the other examples due to the past avoidance of censorship on Wikipedia (for example depictions of muhammad). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.236.86 (talk) 06:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should, obviously. We have direct info that accounts are banned for that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive317#Need_revdel and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1023#38.114.82.82 we have a "filter 1008" that searches for his name https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T237887 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseFilter/history/1008/item/22545 and even those who created it User:zzuuzz and User:ST47 and help maintaining it User:Martin Urbanec https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/mediawiki/extensions/AbuseFilter/+/550954/, I think we should open an Arbitration Committee investigation into this blatant and beyond reasonable doubt violation of WP:NOTCENSORED and those users should be banned and removed from Wikimedia Foundation company. 91.78.221.238 (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are removed because of the risk of legal challenge. This is nothing special. Meanwhile Muhammad's images were not illegal in any of the countries involved. Koncorde (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, Arbcom does not sanction users for upholding policy, and describing the actions of the Wikipedia community within Wikipedia articles is only possible when secondary sources document those actions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"They are removed because of the risk of legal challenge", no, it is not true, his name was always present in english wiki and on other languages of Wikipedia in impeachment of Trump article, it is a policy of those mentioned above people in enwiki: (Redacted), moreover WP:DNOLT does not apply here, there were no legal threats and even if there were it must not be in disregard with WP:NOTCENSORED because of very obvious Streisand effect. The people who did this understood it, the Arbcom thus should sanction those users for their policy, that was BRD a violation of Wikipedia rules and received wide coverage in the media. I also must say that it is very dangerous that source code maintainers did not even check for this, I doubt that qualification of those Wikimedia Foundation programmers is very high, which is very disappointing. Moreover using a filter that is not opensourced and that is an obvious mass censoring tool is also in violation not only of WP:NOTCENSORED, but also of U.S. Code. This is an obvious WP:DNOLT, moreover a president's enforced WP:DNOLT: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/ I will also remind of that identity of whistleblowers under Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act is not protected. 91.78.221.238 (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WMF programmers really don't have anything to do with this. In fact they were patching a CVE in the software unrelated to any content. However, yes I am one of those helping to enact the community's policy in this area, and consensus for this is clearly documented. WP:NOTCENSORED is often misinterpreted because it's not fully read. It doesn't mean one can write whatever one likes. It means content will not be removed in order to be acceptable to all readers. Content may be removed for many other reasons. Of course it is qualified, as free speech is also qualified. Plus, as far as I know, Wikipedia as a private site can remove whatever or whoever it wants to anyway. If you want to head over to Arbcom, knock yourself out. In reply to the original question, which the IP above has failed to address, Wikipedia relies on reliable independent sourcing for such claims. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeah. CVE-2019-18987 but the issue mentions specifically the filter 1008, that is how it was discovered, is not it? "Content may be removed for many other reasons" But it is not removed as I just showed even "in this area", on English wikisource. "Wikipedia as a private site can remove whatever or whoever it wants to anyway" yes, Wikimedia Foundation can do that. What is not allowed is to use mass censoring scripts (and apparently caring ABOUT whether they are hidden), BTW, as a creator and a programmer, do you not care that your work is used to censore and regulate Platform users (Wikipedia is not a publisher, that is under section Section 230), which is again illegal to do for a Platform? All my programmer friends I asked would never do something like that after Edward Snowden. About WP:RSPS, today's primary source from SSCI about Burisma does not even try to hide the name. Apparently no doubt in their minds. And of course there were a lot of reporting on the name (of course no WP:RSPS) and 267 000 results in google, including a lot about Wikipedia and Youtube. You and others mentioned above damaged Wikimedia foundation -- and even this did on rather low level on english wikipedia only. BTW, IMHO very real WP:DNOLT for censorship, which, if Trump will learn about it, will result in gross lawsuit as in Trump's mind and Senate's mind, this is guy is far from Snowden. 91.78.221.238 (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is an absolute word salad. Might I suggest you try this on the admin noticeboard or something where you can try your obscure and arcane legal threats of what Trump may do. Koncorde (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


What I mean here is that is what will happen on "Protecting Consumers from Social Media Abuses" sammit. 91.78.221.238 (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Include some facts that are omitted or wrong in this article

Closing conspiracy theories per WP:DENY SPECIFICO talk 01:56, 24 September 2020 (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.

1) Javelins were not aid, they were bought by Ukraine and thus there were no hold on them.

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

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

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

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

6) Javelins are just a political weapon: Zelenski could not use it against pro-russian ukranians according to Trump administration deal with Ukraine. https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/03/far-from-the-front-lines-javelin-missiles-go-unused-in-ukraine/ 91.78.221.238 (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2020

Please remove [[File:Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky telephone conversation memorandum.pdf|thumb|150px|A memorandum with a non-verbatim record of the call between Trump and Zelensky released by the White House]] below the section entitled “Communications with Ukrainian officials,” and replace the same with {{src|White House memorandum of a telephone conversation between U.S. President Trump and Ukraine President Zelensky, July 25, 2019}}. Please remove [[File:Withholding of Ukraine Security Assistance 703909.pdf|150px|thumb|GAO Report<br>Decision on the Withholding of Ukraine Security Assistance]], as it superfluous to {{wikisource|Withholding of Ukraine Security Assistance}}. Please remove [[File:Trump–Ukraine whistleblower complaint unclassified.pdf|thumb|A redacted version of the whistleblower complaint]], and replace the same with {{src|Letter to Chairman Burr and Chairman Schiff, August 12, 2019}}. Thank you.

This was originally not finished, and archived without response. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Relevant Information Declassified

This showed up yesterday. It may require significant evaluations to be made: https://ricochet.com/806823/breaking-bombshell/ 173.14.238.113 (talk) 02:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trump–Ukraine_scandal&oldid=981233856"