![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Iâm traveling, only have my phone, and canât really do research or significant additions to the article. Two things I believe I heard on news reports that could be worth adding to the article if verified:
If somebody cares to look into this, thanks! MelanieN alt ( talk) 16:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Also: the conspiracy theories section contains easily debunked material, like the claim that the Crowdstrike guy is Ukrainian when in fact he is Russian born, or that Crowdstrike is owned by a rich Ukrainian when in fact it is publicly traded. Or the attempts to drag in George Soros who AFAIK has no connection at all to this Ukraine stuff. If there is reliable source debunking of these things IMO we should use it - rather than repeating obvious nonsense without a challenge. MelanieN alt ( talk) 16:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Crowdstrike's co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch is a naturalized American citizen born in the Soviet Union.Steve Quinn ( talk) 21:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Appearing on Hannity, attorneys Joseph diGenova and his wife Victoria Toensing asserted the whistleblower is linked to Soros. Breitbart amplified the Soros narrative and extended it to include an array of other organizations.[Timberg, Craig; Harwell, Drew (September 28, 2019). "Amateur pro-Trump 'sleuths' scramble to unmask whistleblower: 'Your president has asked for your help'" â via www.washingtonpost.com.
extended the narrative to included an array of other organizations". This is not backed up by the WAPO source. All it says is
'Breitbart News said the âso-called whistleblowerâ marched to the orders of a vast operation bankrolled by George Soros, a longtime target of conservative conspiracy theories'.
racist, misogynistic and crudethan to the Soros angle. For example:
the whistleblower is not white,â one 4chan commenter asserted Thursday, probably misreading a part of the complaint in which the whistleblower calls himself or herself a ânon-White House official.âI just had to share that so other people could facepalm as hard as I did. XOR'easter ( talk) 02:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Soros was also invoked, again without evidence, by the right-wing media organization Breitbart? I think the WaPo source is adequate to support that. XOR'easter ( talk) 03:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Newsweek has some good coverage on the conspiracy theory that Soros funded the whistleblower. Seems like a classic case of string theory based on a footnote. Falling Gravity 03:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I
reverted an edit which used
this source to support the claim that Giuliani eventually released these documents [sworn affidavits from five Ukrainians] on September 29th, 2019
. The only "document" mentioned there is the affidavit from Shokin ("Google Shokin Affidavit!" per the anon from earlier today...
or don't; it's just more John Solomon). Claim not supported by source; edit reverted. Reversion
disputed by original editor, so I'm bringing the matter here for somebody else to sort out.
XOR'easter (
talk)
23:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Giuliani claimed he has sworn statements from five Ukrainians stating they were brought into the Obama White House in January 2016 and told to "go dig up dirt on Trump and Manafort", he eventually released these documents on September 29th, 2019. Neither of the cited sources support this claim. The first, CBS News, follows the quote of Giuliani saying that with the flat statement, "Giuliani has not produced evidence of that alleged collusion." The second, to RealClearPolitics, doesn't mention the supposed five Ukrainians and their sworn statements at all. It links to a statement by Shokin wherein Shokin blames Biden for getting him fired ("There were no grievances against me") and makes no mention of Manafort or the digging up of dirt thereon. (Nor, of course, would the assertion of the existence of those five sworn statements actually amount to producing them.) Someone needs to clean this up. XOR'easter ( talk) 01:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
How much should we say about John Solomon's opinion pieces, and where should we say it? I think this block of removed text has good material (though of course we might want to edit for tone and such). Right now, the one mention of Solomon reads almost like a non sequitur, making me wonder why it is included, while there is no mention of how Solomon has been credibly described as being of dubious reliability. I think we should either say more or say less; splitting the difference is remarkably awkward. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
The key point for us convey, and I think WP is doing a much better job than in the past (pizzagate, Seth Rich, etc.) is that these events have nothing to do with Biden or any other Democrat. It's about Trump's attempt to fabricate conspiracy theories to go viral with his base and the media and as many additional voters as can be roped in. So details about the Bidens and the conspiracy cast of characters must be kept to an absolute minimum. The mainstream media, analysts, and factcheckers seem to have learned from past mistakes and I we have lots of good sourcing to draw upon. SPECIFICO talk 21:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Another conspiracy theory for us to write about. XOR'easter ( talk) 13:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Here's my suggestion for how to improve the article. [2] Thoughts?
Hunter Biden's company Rosemont Seneca received $3.4 million from Burisma Holdings. [1] [2]
Because Vice President Biden played a major role in U.S. policy towards Ukraine, some Obama administration officials would later privately criticize Hunter Biden for potentially creating a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest by joining the board. [3] Hunter Bidenâs ties to Burisma Holdings was criticized as a conflict of interest in a New York Times editorial. [4] [2] The White House dismissed nepotism accusations against Biden's son. [5] [6]
References
User:SPECIFICO obviously disagrees.
[3] SPECIFICO's edit summary: "Undo poorly sourced SYNTH UNDUE BLP smear insinuations. Use talk and stop re-inserting on multiple articles." --
Tobby72 (
talk)
13:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Tobby72 has been inserting a load of UNDUE SYNTH BLP smears, many with weak sourcing, (e.g. to Fox News, PR Newswire (primary), various opinion pieces, etc.) that insinuate the Trump/Giuliani narrative that there really is some problem with the Bidens and that recent events are in fact about the Bidens rather than about an increasingly evident abuse of power in the US. Eyes are needed on a number of articles in which I have reverted these edits. SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
How much of Trump's recent rhetoric should we include? I am disturbed by the latest addition to the article, where he demands to meet the whistle blower and makes wild accusations against Adam Schiff. This kind of thing has prompted the whistle blower to fear for his/her safety. I didn't remove it because it is getting some coverage, but I would like to discuss it. Are there limits to how much we should report when someone makes comments that could create a danger to someone else? Or even which just seem beyond the pale of acceptable things to say in a civilized society? MelanieN alt ( talk) 15:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
In addition to his Schiff comment, we should also mention his tweet about a "Civil War-like fracture" if he's impeached. This could be interpreted as a threat of an armed insurrection if he is impeached. soibangla ( talk) 16:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Adam Schiff knew about the complaint days before the complaint was filed- so what? Is that treason or some other crime?
is there anything in this article on Schiffâs opening statement- there wasn't, so I added it [11] - do note that Schiff never said he was quoting from the non-verbatim memo. starship .paint ( talk) 01:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I'd find it helpful to have a timeline of the Trump-Ukraine events, similar to Timeline_of_investigations_into_Trump_and_Russia_(2019). I'd also be willing to contribute.
Where's the best place for such a timeline?
-- Lumpish Scholar ( talk) 15:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I've written new versions of the first two paragraph of the lede [14], but I haven't finished changing the later paragraphs of the lede to match. Feel free to have a look and improve it (especially the later paragraphs) starship .paint ( talk) 05:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
âBut my complaint has always been, and I'd withhold again, and I'll continue to withhold until such time as Europe and other nations contribute to Ukraine,â he continued. âBecause they're not doing it. Just the United States. We're putting up the bulk of the money. And I'm asking, why is that?âstarship .paint ( talk) 07:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
[15] - version as of this post. regarding the above, I used but later claimed it was because other nations including those from Europe were not contributing enough aid to Ukraine
. I'm confident in paragraphs 1, 2 and 5, not sure about 3 and 4. There is overlap between 2 and 4. Not sure if that former transition team adviser to Zelensky should go in the lede as per 3.
starship
.paint (
talk)
09:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I continued rewriting the lede. BullRangifer - what do you think about the current last paragraph of the lede... can it be removed... I inserted a rewritten version of it above... starship .paint ( talk) 04:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
The Trump White House confirmed that a record of that conversation was indeed stored in a highly restricted system., please see sources: Associated Press: The White House acknowledged that a record of the Trump phone call that is now at the center of the impeachment inquiry had been sealed away in a highly classified system at the direction of Trumpâs National Security Council lawyers ... At the White House, it was a senior administration official who acknowledged that the rough transcript of Trumpâs conversation with Ukraineâs Zelenskiy had been moved to a highly classified system maintained by the National Security Council. The official was granted anonymity Friday to discuss sensitive matters. and CNN The White House acknowledged Friday that administration officials directed a now-infamous Ukraine call transcript be filed in a highly classified system, confirming allegations contained in a whistleblower complaint that have roiled Washington. starship .paint ( talk) 05:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I am relatively new and cannot add to this article. The Whistleblower complaint did not meet the stict regulatory guidelines for a complaint when it was submitted. Only first-hand information could be used in the complaint and there was no firsthand info. On or about the 24th of August, the ICIG changed the regulation to allow second-hand information. Without this change he could not accept the complaint. Also, the Office of Legal Council opinion establishes that the ICIG has no jurisdiction here. I have added this material with references to the Article on Michael Atkinson. â Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddoughery ( talk ⢠contribs) 16:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC) â Ddoughery ( talk ⢠contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
falsely asserted there had been such a requirement. What does "such a requirement" refer to here? Answer: it refers to a
requirement in the ICWPA that a whistleblower must have first-hand information. The ICWPA is a law that was passed by congress and signed by President Clinton in 1998. So, according to our current wording, Sean Davis alleged that the ICIG secretly changed the 1998 law by altering an internal form. Is that what we think Davis alleged? I don't think that's what he alleged. I don't think he ever thought that the ICIG changed the ICWPA itself at all, but only that the ICIG changed their internal policies about how to determine whether a whistleblower claim was credible--something the law leaves to the ICIG to determine. That's why Davis refers to "ICIG requirements" and to an internal ICIG document stating "first-hand information required". Davis is clearly aware that these requirements came from the ICIG, not the law itself. Our wording should therefore not put the claim in his mouth that the law itself was changed--a claim that is obviously false and frankly silly. Shinealittlelight ( talk) 12:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on this article's use of The Federalist on the reliable sources noticeboard. The discussion also mentions other aspects of the "Whistleblower evidence rules" section. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § The Federalist (website). â Newslinger talk 21:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Surely the article only needs to mention Pompeo's claim about bullying the State Department once. The section "Impeachment proceedings" has it in a paragraph with context, and later, "Trump and the White House" repeats it as a disconnected factoid. I've already removed a contextless repetition once â no, actually twice! I had forgotten about the earlier example until just now. Anyway, it's a minor thing, but I think we should take care not to let a naturally sprawling article like this one get too disorganized. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's an excuse used by Trump for withholding the promised aid, but how much truth is there in his claim? We should include such facts. We currently have this content:
Here is a RS for perusal and possible use. Please examine it:
BullRangifer ( talk) 09:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
This information has been reverted, with the following edit summary: "remove BLP smear irrelevant to the subject of this article." I think it is relevant and should be included.
He was paid a varying amount, up to $50,000 a month in some months, for his services. [1]
References
-- Tobby72 ( talk) 10:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
@ XOR'easter: and that's the problem. Understanding how this whole situation came about requires more than just general knowledgeâyou'd have to go back to the Euromaidan protests to really get all of the background on it. It needs research and a lot of people don't have time for that. In light of this, "Hunter Biden earned $50,000 a month but no-one can really explain what he did" is an easily-digestible statement that can be twisted to make him look guilty. Mclarenfan17 ( talk) 06:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Furthermore
[17] There is no evidence of wrongdoing by either Joe or Hunter Biden.
. There's at least other 5 major sources saying that.
starship
.paint (
talk)
07:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I find this whole approach revolting and disgusting. In no situation and place outside of corruption-infested political circles is it normal or even possible that a nobody staff lawyer gets 50k/month or even more ( The Hill quotes 166,000 per month jointly for Biden and his buddy Devon Archer) for a no-show job in a foreign country for which he does not posses a shred of qualification. This is corruption, pure and simple. As Matt Yglesias wrote in Vox, "Hunter Bidenâs whole career is being Joe Bidenâs son", "Hunter had no apparent qualifications for the job except that his father was the vice president and involved in the Obama administrationâs Ukraine policy. He got paid up to $50,000 per month" and "an examination of the life and times of Hunter Biden does provide a reminder that most Americans thought politics as usual was corrupt long before Trump arrived". (I obviously differ with Yglesias "this is just normal DC corruption. Pass on, nothing to see here" approach). In any ethical sense, Biden is guilty as hell for that, and the pretzel logic of law and power in the US may or may not come to the same conclusion later on. In light of this it would be prudent for us to be at least silent on the matter of corruption and guilt, or let the facts speak for themselves. Saying more would be OR, which is not the way we write articles. But suppressing facts in order to make Biden look blameless, that is lying by omission. That should have no place in Wikipedia, either.
A good example of such a lie by omission is this sentence in the article "Hunter, then an attorney with Boies Schiller Flexner, was hired to help Burisma with "corporate governance best practices," ". This suggests Biden got this job as normal billable hours for Boies Schiller Flexner. Nothing could be farther from the truth - as we know he was paid via Rosemont Partners, a firm that at this point was exclusively owned by himself and Devon Archer (their third partner, Chris Heinz, had immediately withdrawn from this and all other dealings he had with the criminal duo once he learned of the Ukraine job). We should not lie, neither by statemnet nor by omission. This sentence should be corrected. Wefa ( talk) 16:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Just in case anybody is watching here but not there. Cheers, XOR'easter ( talk) 17:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Muboshgu, Neutrality, and Izno: I think the article may need semi-protection again. The recent history shows multiple instances of IP's adding POV material. I'm traveling and don't have access to my tools so could one of you take a look and see what they think? Thanks. MelanieN alt ( talk) 14:28, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
deep state leftists. Another, reverted here, said that Biden
blackmailed Ukraine(into cleaning up its act the way the entire Western bloody world wanted, presumably), downplayed Giuliani, and asserted
The Washington Post is obviously being fed this information by a deep state operative. Yet another IP, reverted here, accuses us of spreading
liberal squalor lies(which I guess are even worse than liberal clean-and-tidy lies?), and generally appears innocent of a proper education on punctuation. I support semi-protection just so we don't have to waste time cleaning up this kind of nonsense, and so people visiting this highly-trafficked page don't have to read past the graffiti. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
a claim bolstered by the fact that the whole whistleblower rule set was changed just days earlier to permit this kind of hearsayâ no, it wasn't [18] [19] [20]. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I want to change sentence:
"The whistleblower complaint was filed on August 12, 2019, reportedly by a CIA officer detailed to the White House.[21] It was based both on "direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct" and on the accounts of more than "half a dozen U.S. officials""
To this:
"The whistleblower (reportedly a CIA officer detailed to the White House) first approached a House Intelligence Committee aide [21] [22] before subsequently filing the complaint on August 12, 2019.[21] It was based both on "direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct" and on the accounts of more than "half a dozen U.S. officials"" â Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.251.210.39 ( talk ⢠contribs) â 46.251.210.39 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
"and the sources provided are dubiously reliable at best"-The Washington Post? Please confirm, you're saying it's dubiously reliable at best? â Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.112.119.54 ( talk) 18:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
[Schiff's] office acknowledged Wednesday it had been in contact with the whistleblower before the complaint over President Donald Trump's conversation with the leader of Ukraine was filed..
The whistleblower who raised concerns about President Donald Trumpâs dealings with Ukraine spoke to staffers on the House Intelligence Committee before filing a formal complaint, giving Democrats advance warning of the accusations of wrongdoing that triggered their impeachment inquiry.
The intelligence officer whose allegations of presidential wrongdoing have sparked a full-blown impeachment inquiry sought guidance from a Democratic-led congressional committee days before filing his complaint with an inspector general, according to panel aides.
Please quote. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.112.119.54 ( talk ⢠contribs) â 212.112.119.54 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The whistleblower, a CIA officer previously detailed to the White House, first approached a House Intelligence Committee aide, who directed the individual to file the complaint through the ICIGsoibangla ( talk) 18:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
I would be ok with above suggestion:
"The whistleblower (reportedly a CIA officer detailed to the White House) first approached a House Intelligence Committee aide [23] [24] before subsequently filing the complaint on August 12, 2019.[21] It was based both on "direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct" and on the accounts of more than "half a dozen U.S. officials""
It's relevant detail that could potentially be significant. Otherwise there is systematic bias. There already seems to be plenty already in wikipedia. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.112.119.54 ( talk ⢠contribs) â 212.112.119.54 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I assume this detail about the committee is in the article text. I don't think it needs to be in the lead. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Body, yes. Lede, no. starship .paint ( talk) 00:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
What is the conspiracy theory involving Romney? According to WaPo, it's that Romney âhad phone calls or meetings, whatever, with Pelosi and assured her there was Republican support to remove Trump.â
This is what WaPo says is a baseless claim that drove conspiracy theories on conservative news sites
. So when we're summing up the situation at the end,
Starship.paint, it seems like the language I used is more accurate to the source, wouldn't you agree? Also: I don't think they deny he had ties to Burisma; rather, they denied that he had "meaningful" ties.
Shinealittlelight (
talk)
11:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
In the conspiracy-obsessed echo chambers of conservative talk radio and far-right websites, Sen. Mitt Romney has some explaining to do â answering for ties to the Ukrainian gas company that put Joe Bidenâs son on its board, and accounting for conversations with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi about Republican support for impeaching President Trump. In reality, neither claim is true. No meaningful ties exist between the Utah Republican and Burisma, and he had no such conversation with Pelosi. The flood of baseless attacks and misleading innuendo buffeting Romney ...
... claimed on Sept. 25 that Romney âhad phone calls or meetings, whatever, with Pelosi and assured her that there was Republican support to remove Trump.â The baseless claim, denied by Romneyâs office and debunked by a fact check, nevertheless drove conspiracy theories ...
... But there is no sign of any connection between Romney and Burisma. ...
... Without evidence or explanation, Lifson suggested it was an âodd coincidenceâ that Romneyâs former adviser was associated with Burisma.
As a result, this sparked false theories online and on radio shows that Romney himself had suspicious ties to Burisma. starship .paint ( talk) 13:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
The comment appeared to be the fodder for a fabricated notion by Rush Limbaugh, the pro-Trump radio host who claimed on Sept. 25 that Romney âhad phone calls or meetings, whatever, with Pelosi and assured her there was Republican support to remove Trump.â The baseless claim, denied by Romney and debunked by a fact check, nevertheless drove conspiracy theories on conservative news sites, which also celebrated a video posted by Trump on Twitter mocking the senator from Utah for losing the 2012 presidential election.I still say that my wording really accurately reflects what this quote says, while you seem to be straying from it. Shinealittlelight ( talk) 21:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I just reminded you that there's no need to be mean in case you felt like being mean- thatâs either kind of insulting or I am totally not self aware. How many times have you seen me being mean to editors? Iâm pretty sure meaningful ties means suspicious ties. They clearly imply Romney is doing something wrong. Itâs up to you, if you feel meaningful is better, I will change it. starship .paint ( talk) 23:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
As a result, this sparked false theories online and on radio shows that Romney himself had meaningful ties to Burisma. However, the ex-adviser is no longer affiliated with Romney, and he joined Burisma in 2017, years after Romney's presidential campaign ended.starship .paint ( talk) 04:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Iâm traveling, only have my phone, and canât really do research or significant additions to the article. Two things I believe I heard on news reports that could be worth adding to the article if verified:
If somebody cares to look into this, thanks! MelanieN alt ( talk) 16:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Also: the conspiracy theories section contains easily debunked material, like the claim that the Crowdstrike guy is Ukrainian when in fact he is Russian born, or that Crowdstrike is owned by a rich Ukrainian when in fact it is publicly traded. Or the attempts to drag in George Soros who AFAIK has no connection at all to this Ukraine stuff. If there is reliable source debunking of these things IMO we should use it - rather than repeating obvious nonsense without a challenge. MelanieN alt ( talk) 16:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Crowdstrike's co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch is a naturalized American citizen born in the Soviet Union.Steve Quinn ( talk) 21:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Appearing on Hannity, attorneys Joseph diGenova and his wife Victoria Toensing asserted the whistleblower is linked to Soros. Breitbart amplified the Soros narrative and extended it to include an array of other organizations.[Timberg, Craig; Harwell, Drew (September 28, 2019). "Amateur pro-Trump 'sleuths' scramble to unmask whistleblower: 'Your president has asked for your help'" â via www.washingtonpost.com.
extended the narrative to included an array of other organizations". This is not backed up by the WAPO source. All it says is
'Breitbart News said the âso-called whistleblowerâ marched to the orders of a vast operation bankrolled by George Soros, a longtime target of conservative conspiracy theories'.
racist, misogynistic and crudethan to the Soros angle. For example:
the whistleblower is not white,â one 4chan commenter asserted Thursday, probably misreading a part of the complaint in which the whistleblower calls himself or herself a ânon-White House official.âI just had to share that so other people could facepalm as hard as I did. XOR'easter ( talk) 02:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Soros was also invoked, again without evidence, by the right-wing media organization Breitbart? I think the WaPo source is adequate to support that. XOR'easter ( talk) 03:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Newsweek has some good coverage on the conspiracy theory that Soros funded the whistleblower. Seems like a classic case of string theory based on a footnote. Falling Gravity 03:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I
reverted an edit which used
this source to support the claim that Giuliani eventually released these documents [sworn affidavits from five Ukrainians] on September 29th, 2019
. The only "document" mentioned there is the affidavit from Shokin ("Google Shokin Affidavit!" per the anon from earlier today...
or don't; it's just more John Solomon). Claim not supported by source; edit reverted. Reversion
disputed by original editor, so I'm bringing the matter here for somebody else to sort out.
XOR'easter (
talk)
23:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Giuliani claimed he has sworn statements from five Ukrainians stating they were brought into the Obama White House in January 2016 and told to "go dig up dirt on Trump and Manafort", he eventually released these documents on September 29th, 2019. Neither of the cited sources support this claim. The first, CBS News, follows the quote of Giuliani saying that with the flat statement, "Giuliani has not produced evidence of that alleged collusion." The second, to RealClearPolitics, doesn't mention the supposed five Ukrainians and their sworn statements at all. It links to a statement by Shokin wherein Shokin blames Biden for getting him fired ("There were no grievances against me") and makes no mention of Manafort or the digging up of dirt thereon. (Nor, of course, would the assertion of the existence of those five sworn statements actually amount to producing them.) Someone needs to clean this up. XOR'easter ( talk) 01:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
How much should we say about John Solomon's opinion pieces, and where should we say it? I think this block of removed text has good material (though of course we might want to edit for tone and such). Right now, the one mention of Solomon reads almost like a non sequitur, making me wonder why it is included, while there is no mention of how Solomon has been credibly described as being of dubious reliability. I think we should either say more or say less; splitting the difference is remarkably awkward. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
The key point for us convey, and I think WP is doing a much better job than in the past (pizzagate, Seth Rich, etc.) is that these events have nothing to do with Biden or any other Democrat. It's about Trump's attempt to fabricate conspiracy theories to go viral with his base and the media and as many additional voters as can be roped in. So details about the Bidens and the conspiracy cast of characters must be kept to an absolute minimum. The mainstream media, analysts, and factcheckers seem to have learned from past mistakes and I we have lots of good sourcing to draw upon. SPECIFICO talk 21:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Another conspiracy theory for us to write about. XOR'easter ( talk) 13:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Here's my suggestion for how to improve the article. [2] Thoughts?
Hunter Biden's company Rosemont Seneca received $3.4 million from Burisma Holdings. [1] [2]
Because Vice President Biden played a major role in U.S. policy towards Ukraine, some Obama administration officials would later privately criticize Hunter Biden for potentially creating a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest by joining the board. [3] Hunter Bidenâs ties to Burisma Holdings was criticized as a conflict of interest in a New York Times editorial. [4] [2] The White House dismissed nepotism accusations against Biden's son. [5] [6]
References
User:SPECIFICO obviously disagrees.
[3] SPECIFICO's edit summary: "Undo poorly sourced SYNTH UNDUE BLP smear insinuations. Use talk and stop re-inserting on multiple articles." --
Tobby72 (
talk)
13:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Tobby72 has been inserting a load of UNDUE SYNTH BLP smears, many with weak sourcing, (e.g. to Fox News, PR Newswire (primary), various opinion pieces, etc.) that insinuate the Trump/Giuliani narrative that there really is some problem with the Bidens and that recent events are in fact about the Bidens rather than about an increasingly evident abuse of power in the US. Eyes are needed on a number of articles in which I have reverted these edits. SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
How much of Trump's recent rhetoric should we include? I am disturbed by the latest addition to the article, where he demands to meet the whistle blower and makes wild accusations against Adam Schiff. This kind of thing has prompted the whistle blower to fear for his/her safety. I didn't remove it because it is getting some coverage, but I would like to discuss it. Are there limits to how much we should report when someone makes comments that could create a danger to someone else? Or even which just seem beyond the pale of acceptable things to say in a civilized society? MelanieN alt ( talk) 15:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
In addition to his Schiff comment, we should also mention his tweet about a "Civil War-like fracture" if he's impeached. This could be interpreted as a threat of an armed insurrection if he is impeached. soibangla ( talk) 16:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Adam Schiff knew about the complaint days before the complaint was filed- so what? Is that treason or some other crime?
is there anything in this article on Schiffâs opening statement- there wasn't, so I added it [11] - do note that Schiff never said he was quoting from the non-verbatim memo. starship .paint ( talk) 01:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I'd find it helpful to have a timeline of the Trump-Ukraine events, similar to Timeline_of_investigations_into_Trump_and_Russia_(2019). I'd also be willing to contribute.
Where's the best place for such a timeline?
-- Lumpish Scholar ( talk) 15:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I've written new versions of the first two paragraph of the lede [14], but I haven't finished changing the later paragraphs of the lede to match. Feel free to have a look and improve it (especially the later paragraphs) starship .paint ( talk) 05:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
âBut my complaint has always been, and I'd withhold again, and I'll continue to withhold until such time as Europe and other nations contribute to Ukraine,â he continued. âBecause they're not doing it. Just the United States. We're putting up the bulk of the money. And I'm asking, why is that?âstarship .paint ( talk) 07:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
[15] - version as of this post. regarding the above, I used but later claimed it was because other nations including those from Europe were not contributing enough aid to Ukraine
. I'm confident in paragraphs 1, 2 and 5, not sure about 3 and 4. There is overlap between 2 and 4. Not sure if that former transition team adviser to Zelensky should go in the lede as per 3.
starship
.paint (
talk)
09:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I continued rewriting the lede. BullRangifer - what do you think about the current last paragraph of the lede... can it be removed... I inserted a rewritten version of it above... starship .paint ( talk) 04:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
The Trump White House confirmed that a record of that conversation was indeed stored in a highly restricted system., please see sources: Associated Press: The White House acknowledged that a record of the Trump phone call that is now at the center of the impeachment inquiry had been sealed away in a highly classified system at the direction of Trumpâs National Security Council lawyers ... At the White House, it was a senior administration official who acknowledged that the rough transcript of Trumpâs conversation with Ukraineâs Zelenskiy had been moved to a highly classified system maintained by the National Security Council. The official was granted anonymity Friday to discuss sensitive matters. and CNN The White House acknowledged Friday that administration officials directed a now-infamous Ukraine call transcript be filed in a highly classified system, confirming allegations contained in a whistleblower complaint that have roiled Washington. starship .paint ( talk) 05:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I am relatively new and cannot add to this article. The Whistleblower complaint did not meet the stict regulatory guidelines for a complaint when it was submitted. Only first-hand information could be used in the complaint and there was no firsthand info. On or about the 24th of August, the ICIG changed the regulation to allow second-hand information. Without this change he could not accept the complaint. Also, the Office of Legal Council opinion establishes that the ICIG has no jurisdiction here. I have added this material with references to the Article on Michael Atkinson. â Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddoughery ( talk ⢠contribs) 16:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC) â Ddoughery ( talk ⢠contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
falsely asserted there had been such a requirement. What does "such a requirement" refer to here? Answer: it refers to a
requirement in the ICWPA that a whistleblower must have first-hand information. The ICWPA is a law that was passed by congress and signed by President Clinton in 1998. So, according to our current wording, Sean Davis alleged that the ICIG secretly changed the 1998 law by altering an internal form. Is that what we think Davis alleged? I don't think that's what he alleged. I don't think he ever thought that the ICIG changed the ICWPA itself at all, but only that the ICIG changed their internal policies about how to determine whether a whistleblower claim was credible--something the law leaves to the ICIG to determine. That's why Davis refers to "ICIG requirements" and to an internal ICIG document stating "first-hand information required". Davis is clearly aware that these requirements came from the ICIG, not the law itself. Our wording should therefore not put the claim in his mouth that the law itself was changed--a claim that is obviously false and frankly silly. Shinealittlelight ( talk) 12:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on this article's use of The Federalist on the reliable sources noticeboard. The discussion also mentions other aspects of the "Whistleblower evidence rules" section. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § The Federalist (website). â Newslinger talk 21:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Surely the article only needs to mention Pompeo's claim about bullying the State Department once. The section "Impeachment proceedings" has it in a paragraph with context, and later, "Trump and the White House" repeats it as a disconnected factoid. I've already removed a contextless repetition once â no, actually twice! I had forgotten about the earlier example until just now. Anyway, it's a minor thing, but I think we should take care not to let a naturally sprawling article like this one get too disorganized. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's an excuse used by Trump for withholding the promised aid, but how much truth is there in his claim? We should include such facts. We currently have this content:
Here is a RS for perusal and possible use. Please examine it:
BullRangifer ( talk) 09:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
This information has been reverted, with the following edit summary: "remove BLP smear irrelevant to the subject of this article." I think it is relevant and should be included.
He was paid a varying amount, up to $50,000 a month in some months, for his services. [1]
References
-- Tobby72 ( talk) 10:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
@ XOR'easter: and that's the problem. Understanding how this whole situation came about requires more than just general knowledgeâyou'd have to go back to the Euromaidan protests to really get all of the background on it. It needs research and a lot of people don't have time for that. In light of this, "Hunter Biden earned $50,000 a month but no-one can really explain what he did" is an easily-digestible statement that can be twisted to make him look guilty. Mclarenfan17 ( talk) 06:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Furthermore
[17] There is no evidence of wrongdoing by either Joe or Hunter Biden.
. There's at least other 5 major sources saying that.
starship
.paint (
talk)
07:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I find this whole approach revolting and disgusting. In no situation and place outside of corruption-infested political circles is it normal or even possible that a nobody staff lawyer gets 50k/month or even more ( The Hill quotes 166,000 per month jointly for Biden and his buddy Devon Archer) for a no-show job in a foreign country for which he does not posses a shred of qualification. This is corruption, pure and simple. As Matt Yglesias wrote in Vox, "Hunter Bidenâs whole career is being Joe Bidenâs son", "Hunter had no apparent qualifications for the job except that his father was the vice president and involved in the Obama administrationâs Ukraine policy. He got paid up to $50,000 per month" and "an examination of the life and times of Hunter Biden does provide a reminder that most Americans thought politics as usual was corrupt long before Trump arrived". (I obviously differ with Yglesias "this is just normal DC corruption. Pass on, nothing to see here" approach). In any ethical sense, Biden is guilty as hell for that, and the pretzel logic of law and power in the US may or may not come to the same conclusion later on. In light of this it would be prudent for us to be at least silent on the matter of corruption and guilt, or let the facts speak for themselves. Saying more would be OR, which is not the way we write articles. But suppressing facts in order to make Biden look blameless, that is lying by omission. That should have no place in Wikipedia, either.
A good example of such a lie by omission is this sentence in the article "Hunter, then an attorney with Boies Schiller Flexner, was hired to help Burisma with "corporate governance best practices," ". This suggests Biden got this job as normal billable hours for Boies Schiller Flexner. Nothing could be farther from the truth - as we know he was paid via Rosemont Partners, a firm that at this point was exclusively owned by himself and Devon Archer (their third partner, Chris Heinz, had immediately withdrawn from this and all other dealings he had with the criminal duo once he learned of the Ukraine job). We should not lie, neither by statemnet nor by omission. This sentence should be corrected. Wefa ( talk) 16:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Just in case anybody is watching here but not there. Cheers, XOR'easter ( talk) 17:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Muboshgu, Neutrality, and Izno: I think the article may need semi-protection again. The recent history shows multiple instances of IP's adding POV material. I'm traveling and don't have access to my tools so could one of you take a look and see what they think? Thanks. MelanieN alt ( talk) 14:28, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
deep state leftists. Another, reverted here, said that Biden
blackmailed Ukraine(into cleaning up its act the way the entire Western bloody world wanted, presumably), downplayed Giuliani, and asserted
The Washington Post is obviously being fed this information by a deep state operative. Yet another IP, reverted here, accuses us of spreading
liberal squalor lies(which I guess are even worse than liberal clean-and-tidy lies?), and generally appears innocent of a proper education on punctuation. I support semi-protection just so we don't have to waste time cleaning up this kind of nonsense, and so people visiting this highly-trafficked page don't have to read past the graffiti. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
a claim bolstered by the fact that the whole whistleblower rule set was changed just days earlier to permit this kind of hearsayâ no, it wasn't [18] [19] [20]. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I want to change sentence:
"The whistleblower complaint was filed on August 12, 2019, reportedly by a CIA officer detailed to the White House.[21] It was based both on "direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct" and on the accounts of more than "half a dozen U.S. officials""
To this:
"The whistleblower (reportedly a CIA officer detailed to the White House) first approached a House Intelligence Committee aide [21] [22] before subsequently filing the complaint on August 12, 2019.[21] It was based both on "direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct" and on the accounts of more than "half a dozen U.S. officials"" â Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.251.210.39 ( talk ⢠contribs) â 46.251.210.39 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
"and the sources provided are dubiously reliable at best"-The Washington Post? Please confirm, you're saying it's dubiously reliable at best? â Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.112.119.54 ( talk) 18:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
[Schiff's] office acknowledged Wednesday it had been in contact with the whistleblower before the complaint over President Donald Trump's conversation with the leader of Ukraine was filed..
The whistleblower who raised concerns about President Donald Trumpâs dealings with Ukraine spoke to staffers on the House Intelligence Committee before filing a formal complaint, giving Democrats advance warning of the accusations of wrongdoing that triggered their impeachment inquiry.
The intelligence officer whose allegations of presidential wrongdoing have sparked a full-blown impeachment inquiry sought guidance from a Democratic-led congressional committee days before filing his complaint with an inspector general, according to panel aides.
Please quote. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.112.119.54 ( talk ⢠contribs) â 212.112.119.54 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The whistleblower, a CIA officer previously detailed to the White House, first approached a House Intelligence Committee aide, who directed the individual to file the complaint through the ICIGsoibangla ( talk) 18:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
I would be ok with above suggestion:
"The whistleblower (reportedly a CIA officer detailed to the White House) first approached a House Intelligence Committee aide [23] [24] before subsequently filing the complaint on August 12, 2019.[21] It was based both on "direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct" and on the accounts of more than "half a dozen U.S. officials""
It's relevant detail that could potentially be significant. Otherwise there is systematic bias. There already seems to be plenty already in wikipedia. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.112.119.54 ( talk ⢠contribs) â 212.112.119.54 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I assume this detail about the committee is in the article text. I don't think it needs to be in the lead. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Body, yes. Lede, no. starship .paint ( talk) 00:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
What is the conspiracy theory involving Romney? According to WaPo, it's that Romney âhad phone calls or meetings, whatever, with Pelosi and assured her there was Republican support to remove Trump.â
This is what WaPo says is a baseless claim that drove conspiracy theories on conservative news sites
. So when we're summing up the situation at the end,
Starship.paint, it seems like the language I used is more accurate to the source, wouldn't you agree? Also: I don't think they deny he had ties to Burisma; rather, they denied that he had "meaningful" ties.
Shinealittlelight (
talk)
11:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
In the conspiracy-obsessed echo chambers of conservative talk radio and far-right websites, Sen. Mitt Romney has some explaining to do â answering for ties to the Ukrainian gas company that put Joe Bidenâs son on its board, and accounting for conversations with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi about Republican support for impeaching President Trump. In reality, neither claim is true. No meaningful ties exist between the Utah Republican and Burisma, and he had no such conversation with Pelosi. The flood of baseless attacks and misleading innuendo buffeting Romney ...
... claimed on Sept. 25 that Romney âhad phone calls or meetings, whatever, with Pelosi and assured her that there was Republican support to remove Trump.â The baseless claim, denied by Romneyâs office and debunked by a fact check, nevertheless drove conspiracy theories ...
... But there is no sign of any connection between Romney and Burisma. ...
... Without evidence or explanation, Lifson suggested it was an âodd coincidenceâ that Romneyâs former adviser was associated with Burisma.
As a result, this sparked false theories online and on radio shows that Romney himself had suspicious ties to Burisma. starship .paint ( talk) 13:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
The comment appeared to be the fodder for a fabricated notion by Rush Limbaugh, the pro-Trump radio host who claimed on Sept. 25 that Romney âhad phone calls or meetings, whatever, with Pelosi and assured her there was Republican support to remove Trump.â The baseless claim, denied by Romney and debunked by a fact check, nevertheless drove conspiracy theories on conservative news sites, which also celebrated a video posted by Trump on Twitter mocking the senator from Utah for losing the 2012 presidential election.I still say that my wording really accurately reflects what this quote says, while you seem to be straying from it. Shinealittlelight ( talk) 21:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I just reminded you that there's no need to be mean in case you felt like being mean- thatâs either kind of insulting or I am totally not self aware. How many times have you seen me being mean to editors? Iâm pretty sure meaningful ties means suspicious ties. They clearly imply Romney is doing something wrong. Itâs up to you, if you feel meaningful is better, I will change it. starship .paint ( talk) 23:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
As a result, this sparked false theories online and on radio shows that Romney himself had meaningful ties to Burisma. However, the ex-adviser is no longer affiliated with Romney, and he joined Burisma in 2017, years after Romney's presidential campaign ended.starship .paint ( talk) 04:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)