This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Donald Trump, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Donald Trump on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Donald TrumpWikipedia:WikiProject Donald TrumpTemplate:WikiProject Donald TrumpDonald Trump articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in
limited circumstances)
Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page
Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the
arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are
aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be
sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all
edit-warring restrictions.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to
the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your
edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been
designated as a contentious topic.
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Biden-Ukraine scandal
Given the burgeoning volume of evidence pointing to a possible Joe Biden-Ukraine scandal, I believe this subtopic warrants its own article. 鈥斅燩receding
unsigned comment added by
50.217.91.34 (
talk) 04:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)reply
What purpose do you think that would serve? I think we already have too many related articles that have duplicate content. What content would be included in the "Joe Biden鈥揢kraine scandal" article that is not already included in other articles (this, impeachment article, etc.)?
Politrukki (
talk) 23:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Randomly making articles about things that have
Fox News as their main source, which isn't considered a reliable source politically per
WP:RSP, doesn't seem meaningful. Why would we make an article and call it "scandal" when the lead investigator is
Tucker Carlson?
Nythar (
talk) 19:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)reply
I think this topic should be deleted from the talk page 鈥 I'm not sure when it was created but as of now there is a "Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory" article, and it would therefore be an irrelevant section to add, as they are completely unrelated.
JackSitilides (
talk) 18:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Accuracy of opening statement.
This article would be more accurate if you said it was an 鈥渁lleged political scandal鈥, none of it was ever proven, and in retrospect, President Trump's assertions appear to be true.
BrainiacOne (
talk) 17:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)reply
which of his assertions now appear to be true?
soibangla (
talk) 18:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)reply
鈥淭he Trump鈥揢kraine scandal was a U.S.
political scandal that arose from the discovery of U.S. President
Donald Trump's attempts to coerce
Ukraine and other countries into providing damaging narratives about
2020 Democratic Party presidential candidateJoe Biden and giving
misinformation relating to
Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.鈥 This assertion is false. The following Wikipedia page,
Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, states "TheSpecial Counsel's report, made public in April 2019, examined numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials but concluded that there was insufficient evidence to bring any
conspiracy or coordination charges against Trump or his associates. James Risen claims that he wrote about the story here,
https://theintercept.com/2019/09/25/i-wrote-about-the-bidens-and-ukraine-years-ago-then-the-right-wing-spin-machine-turned-the-story-upside-down/., Risen states "On Wednesday, the White House released
a summary of the July conversation between Trump and Zelensky, in which Trump told the Ukrainian leader to work with Attorney General William Barr and Giuliani to find out what happened between the Biden's and a Ukrainian prosecutor. 鈥淭here鈥檚 a lot of talk about Biden鈥檚 son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that, so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great,鈥 Trump told Zelensky, according to the summary. 鈥淏iden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it 鈥 It sounds horrible to me.鈥 Trump never pressured anyone, he was obviously investigating a scandal, which has been confirmed by the Ukrainian prosecutor, and then Ukrainian leader Poroshensky. In an audio taped conversation between Biden and Poroshensky, Poroshensky goes out of his way to note that he had complied with Biden's demands and that he had dismissed the prosecutor, despite the fact that he had done nothing wrong. Biden agreed and then went on to say that the loan to Ukraine would proceed, an obvious quid pro quo. Biden boasted of the quid pro quo at the Council On Foreign Relations as well, and Congress is investigating the matter at this time, as a case of illegal extortion by Biden.
BrainiacOne (
talk) 00:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Opinion pieces tend not to be very encyclopedic.
DN (
talk) 01:26, 3 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I feel like I just watched a Hannity opening monologue.
soibangla (
talk) 01:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I agree with what Brainiac is saying. Remember the media used the phrase "digging for dirt" against a Political opponent. However, the use of the word dirt is too generic as it does not state if the dirt is real evidence or not, but rather presumes it is made up. It seems as if Trump kept getting into trouble for investigating prior administration's actions irrespective of whether or not the allegations were true. Also, Biden had not yet officially stepped into the race, therefore he was not a Political Rival. Another aspect is how the media made the words of Marie Yovanovitch and Alexander Vindman, subordinates to the President, as having more importance than the President. Just what was the actual scandal, the scandal appeared to be based on what the mainstream media wanted the scandal to be. Consider this, if Trump was going to make up fake evidence, then let him make it up, and then the impeachment charge carries so much more merit he may have actually been removed from Office. Instead, Trump was stopped from investigating, and that seems very suspicious.
2605:E000:2FC0:21:282B:78CA:1FFA:71BB (
talk) 22:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2023
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The scandal might be known as Trumpgate, Ukrainegate, Trump-Ukrainegate, or other names.
24.46.53.73 (
talk) 01:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)reply
聽Not done: please provide
reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, the first two are definitely not specific enough
Cannolis (
talk) 01:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Correct it, or I will edit it myself.
BrainiacOne (
talk) 01:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I will simply publish a Wikipedia page on the Russia Collusion hoax, cite the many sources, including the Durham report, and expose your use of Wikipedia as your personal disinformation outlet.
BrainiacOne (
talk) 01:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I look forward to seeing that.
soibangla (
talk) 02:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)reply
BrainiacOne, not all sources are equal, and Wiki is supposed to be a collaborative project. If you are new here, at the very least you should be aware of the
rules and
guidelines...Cheers.
DN (
talk) 17:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Extended-protected Edit request
The page
Biden鈥揢kraine conspiracy theory is highly related to the content of this article at a number of points. I would suggest that article be linked on the words "fueled speculation" in the Background section, as that article's content is precisely what speculation was fueled, and then perhaps have a link / mention of it in the Conspiracy Theories section further downpage.
Denzera (
talk) 19:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Suggesting changes to image location and pronouns
Suggestion 鈩1: I think the image of Marie Yovanovitch which is currently in the "Communications with Ukrainian officials" section should be moved to the section "Campaign against Marie Yovanovitch". The images of other people in this article are also in the respective sections about them.
Suggestion 鈩2: Use gender neutral pronouns when talking about the whistleblower(s). In some sections the whistle blower is already referred to as "they", but in some other instances "he/she" or "he" are used. The latter two should be changed to "they", imo. The non-gender neutral pronouns are in use starting from the "Whistleblower complaints" section. Here are the sentences where I've noticed it:
"the individual notified the CIA of his/her concerns, which were then relayed to the White House and Justice Department"
"Due to threats against him, the whistleblower spent several months guarded by the CIA's Security Protective Service, living in hotels and traveling with armed officers in an unmarked vehicle."
"After the whistleblower had informed the CIA's general counsel of his concerns, he grew troubled by "how that initial avenue for airing his allegations through the CIA was unfolding", according to The New York Times. He then contacted an aide"
Nakonana (
talk) 00:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Claims that the Trump-Zelenskyy conversation was recorded?
Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed, as recently as March 2024, that his July 25, 2019 phone call with Volodymr Zelenskyy was recorded, that the recording vindicates his claim of exoneration in this matter, and that his political opponents, notably California Congressman Adam Schiff, have listened to this recording and thus are lying about the nature of the call. It's not clear whether any such recording exists, but certainly no recording has ever been released to the public -- and it wasn't introduced as evidence by Trump's legal team during his impeachment or Senate trial. Still, is the fact that the man at the heart of this scandal insists, more than four years later, that an exculpatory recording exists something that should be added to this article? And if so, what is the correct way to source such a statement? It's easy to find Trump referencing it in various speeches he's made on Youtube (including one in Dayton, Ohio today), but I haven't noticed this being reported in a reputable news outlet (although certainly it may have happened without my noticing it).
NME Frigate (
talk) 06:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed many false things. If the call was recorded, it would have been done by his NSC staff and he could/would have declassified it during his impeachment to prove it was a "perfect call" to exonerate himself.
soibangla (
talk) 06:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Indeed. But we can't speculate about what he would have done. We can, however, note things he's said about this subject if they're notable. I think these comments reach that level -- although I would certainly be interested in hearing other perspectives -- and was also wondering about how to cite them.
And lo! I'm not saying that someone on CNN was reading this talk page, but there's new reporting there today, not 12 hours after I raised the question, on this very subject, so that answers that part of my question:
We should not add his claim that there is an exculpatory recording. It's just another of his lies. We have the transcript, released shortly after the call, which confirms he was seeking a quid pro quo. 鈥撀
Muboshgu聽(
talk) 19:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
We should document the false claim and the facts by using that RS. --
Valjean (
talk) (PING me) 19:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply