Jump to content

Talk:Impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 4 discussion(s) to Talk:Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump/Archive 1) (bot
Line 248: Line 248:
*'''Oppose''' The current title is in line with the way reliable sources describe the inquiry. [[User:Retimuko|Retimuko]] ([[User talk:Retimuko|talk]]) 03:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' The current title is in line with the way reliable sources describe the inquiry. [[User:Retimuko|Retimuko]] ([[User talk:Retimuko|talk]]) 03:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
*'''Weak Support'''. I would prefer "inquiry into" or "inquiry of". [[User:Garp21|Garp21]] ([[User talk:Garp21|talk]]) 04:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
*'''Weak Support'''. I would prefer "inquiry into" or "inquiry of". [[User:Garp21|Garp21]] ([[User talk:Garp21|talk]]) 04:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
*'''Strong Support'''. This is a grammatical no-brainer. According to basic English construction (as referenced above), one cannot "inquire against" anything. Instead, one may only "inquire into" or "inquire about," or some similar variation thereof. Moreover, an "inquiry" and a "process" are entirely different concepts. "Impeachment process against Richard Nixon" follows because one can initiate a process against something or someone (see, e.g., termination process against an employee). To use another example, there could (properly) be no "inquiry against" a vehicle's purchase price. [[Special:Contributions/69.137.100.213|69.137.100.213]] ([[User talk:69.137.100.213|talk]]) 16:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC) Vandy3L


== Biden Claims ==
== Biden Claims ==

Revision as of 16:03, 9 October 2019

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

"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]
Just wanted to comment how the claims of bias haven't been retracted since Trump literally admitted to the accusations. As a non-American, I am intrigued at the mental gymnastics Trump worshippers need to do to continue swallowing what the rest of the world sees as propaganda.
Even though the previous comment from 331dot is in definite good faith, I think you are wasting your time. In my experience, you should literally ignore all Trump supporter comments, as they disagree with reality - from silly things like the weather and crowd sizes at rallies, to serious things like apparent human trafficking rings or global warming. It doesn't mean you don't give them time to express their views, they can go for their lives. But it is time wasted assuming they will play by any rules other than what their reality TV star tells them. Vision Insider (talk) 02:35, 5 October 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]

Thanks, that's kinda what I thought but I wasn't 100% sure. Unless I see objections here soon, I now have confidence to attempt an edit to the article to reflect this state of affairs. Djbclark (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Djbclark: - if you read the entirety of that section (Efforts to impeach Donald Trump#Start of formal impeachment proceedings), and then read the last source [4], you will realize that it took them until September 12, 2019, to have a resolution defining the rules of the panel's impeachment investigation - so things moved really slowly, and there wasn't any inquiry started. starship.paint (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]
We also have to be careful not to confuse "support for impeachment" with "support for an impeachment inquiry". Many commentators and even headline writers are carelessly describing support for the inquiry as support for impeachment, but we should not do the same; our tables and polling results should reflect the actual wording of the question being asked. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:32, 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]
There's the fact that Trump has literally said he did it. I'd say that's pretty strong evidence.Vision Insider (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Subzerox: - let me make this clear: reliable sources say there is no evidence of any wrongdoing by the Bidens. See below. Also, Hunter Biden was never under investigation by Ukraine, so how can his father have interfered to protect him? I’d like to see your sources on there being no evidence of wrongdoing by the president. I think a particular memorandum would count as evidence. starship.paint (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
  • BBC There is no evidence of any wrongdoing by the Bidens
  • AFP: there has been no evidence of illegal conduct or wrongdoing in Ukraine by the Bidens
  • Reuters: There has been no evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden.
  • Associated Press: there has been no evidence of wrongdoing by either the former vice president or his son
  • NBC News: But despite Trump's continued claims, there's no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of either Biden
- Even if you are so adamant on only accepting left-wing biased media as "reliable", it's still not a valid excuse for keeping an article section that's written in a tone that makes it sound like some kind of good vs. evil fairytale struggle. Sentences like "Trump and his surrogates engaged in a campaign to discredit impeachment." are simply unencyclopedic. Why call something a campaign to discredit when it could be a defense against false allegations? 87.116.178.19 (talk) 05:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
87, we are not adamant about only accepting left-wing media as reliable. We are adamant that only reliable sources will be accepted. I see that Following the initiation of the impeachment inquiry, Trump and his surrogates engaged in a campaign to discredit impeachment. seems to be unsourced. I have added a failed verification tag. Could someone add a citation, or rephrase it, or remove it? starship.paint (talk) 11:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even though there is a reference, the sentence "One aspect of the campaign focused on attacking Joe Biden and his son for their alleged, but baseless<reference> involvement with Ukraine" is poor. It is inaccurate. It is not "baseless" that they each had an "involvement", a connection of sorts, with Ukraine. What is baseless is the allegation that the connection involved misconduct of some kind. Can we find a better way to word this? How about "One aspect of the campaign focused on attacking Joe Biden and his son over alleged but unproven misconduct involving Ukraine." -- MelanieN (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I'm going to put that version of the sentence into the article. Can be discussed here if someone objects. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bias in lead

If you assume that 35% of Americans are "Trump's base" and that therefore (say) 20% of all voters believe in some form of a deep state and/or conspiracy theories against Trump then the lead lacks any attempt to portray that 20%. This seems to be a question of WP:WEIGHT.

WP:NPOV states "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Yes, the article's title is "Impeachment inquiry..." and so one might expect the vast majority of opinions (by realiable sources) to be based on that that inquiry. But just because most of the arguments against impeachment inquiry are (in my opinion) debunked conspiracy theories doesn't mean we should ignore them in the lead if, say, 10% of reliable sources (like Fox News?) believe in those theories.

To be fair, we should include a short paragraph about the responses from the White House and the Republicans, in addition to the "Two close associates of Trump..." at the start of the last paragraph in the lead. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:17, 7 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]

I tried to link to Jeffress' Wikipedia page in the Twitter comment, but I caused a wikilink conflict that I don't know how to resolve. Is there any solution that would keep the blue link to Jeffress but also not cause the conflict? Thanks for any help. Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Geographyinitiative: - everything is fine. If someone else confirms this, this can be archived. starship.paint (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint: look at the reflist - Control F on the page and look at the second Jeffress on the page Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, there is an error. It's beyond me. Sorry. starship.paint (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it's not possible with the {{tweet}} template. The name is actually part of the text, which for Twitter is the title of the web page for that tweet. We tend to avoid adding links inside direct quotes, and certainly can't put internal links inside external links. If you really want a link to Jeffress, I think we'd need to use a different quotation template, and probably repeat the name of the pastor being quoted. -- Beland (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info box

This photo with DT flashing a big grin seems inappropriate to the topic, and unintentionally funny. (For a photo of how he looked discussing impeachment on Oct. 2, 2019, see this AP story.) – Sca (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sca: - that's not the infobox, that's the Donald Trump template with his official photo. Cheers. starship.paint (talk) 13:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but it still looks inappropriate here. – Sca (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's his official government photo, which is free to use, which is why it is in the template. If you think the template should have a different photo, please propose one on its talk page. 331dot (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WGAR? Sca (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Public Opinion" Section Issues

I worry about the wording of the Public Opinion section. The section intro reads Polling has indicated that, on average, a plurality of Americans lean towards supporting impeachment. However, many of the polls listed do not speak to that. Politico/Morning Consult, CNN/SSRS, NPR/PBS/Marist, Reuters/Ipsos, and Quinnipiac are all within the margin of error and therefore statistically the same. Those outside of the margin of error (Monmouth, HuffPost/YouGov, Hill/HarrisX, CBS/YouGov, and USA Today/Ipsos) show, except for Monmouth, average 2-5% lean towards supporting impeachment above margin of error. Half of our current dataset demonstrates statistical neutrality and no plurality one way or another. This is why originally I wrote Polling during late September 2019 has indicated, on average, that a plurality of Americans leans slightly toward supporting impeachment. before the line was reworded by Nixinova.

I also want to question why the first poll in the paragraph is not current support or opposition, but hypothetical support based on the what-if regarding the Trump-Ukraine controversy. I know it's relevant because the Controversy is a significant reason for the Impeachment Inquiry, however it seems to reek of WP:CRYSTAL. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 23:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By this time, someone, I didn't check who, changed the first sentence to Polling has indicated that Americans are generally split on their support of the impeachment inquiry. I am confused as to why some polls are in text when the rest are in the table. starship.paint (talk) 06:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint: It was Nixinova who changed it likely after being pinged here. Regardless, I'm with you why some are listed in paragraph and some in table. Perhaps paragraph is for qualitative while table is for quantiative evaluation? Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 06:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that is how it should be. Unfortunately, this issue is beyond my interest and time. Anyone else can weigh in? starship.paint (talk) 07:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Generally split" is a fair interpretation. News outlets sometimes vary differently in their own interpretation of the surveys. —Partytemple (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Impeachment

There has been no vote on Impeachment Inquiry and won’t be until December. Stop using the term. Without that vote subpoena power is missing and so is any attempt at any inquiry. Joe Biden did brag at a foreign affairs meeting that..”if the prosecutor isn’t fired in the next six hours you’re not getting that billion dollars “ Phildonohue (talk) 00:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cite?- MrX 🖋 00:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An inquiry doesn't need voted upon. The Speaker has directed the House Committees to investigate if an Impeachment Resolution is merited. Also House Rule XI (m)(1) states that House committees have this power at any time the committee consider it necessary provided it is within the purview of the committee.

For the purpose of carrying out any of its functions and duties under this rule and rule X (including any matters

referred to it under clause 2 of rule XII), a committee or subcommittee is authorized (subject to subparagraph (3)(A))—

(A) to sit and act at such times and places within the United States, whether the House is in session, has recessed, or has adjourned, and to hold such hearings as it considers necessary; and

(B) to require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents as it considers necessary.[1]

Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 01:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "House Manual 116" (PDF). House Committee on Rules. 2019. Retrieved 3 October 2019.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
RE: Bidens, no evidence of wrongdoing. starship.paint (talk)
  • BBC There is no evidence of any wrongdoing by the Bidens
  • AFP: there has been no evidence of illegal conduct or wrongdoing in Ukraine by the Bidens
  • Reuters: There has been no evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden.
  • Associated Press: there has been no evidence of wrongdoing by either the former vice president or his son
  • NBC News: But despite Trump's continued claims, there's no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of either Biden

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2019

Please change the title ("Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump") to read "Impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump" or "Impeachment inquiry against U.S. President Donald Trump," or some variation thereof which includes his title/office because: (1) it eliminates any ambiguity about inquiries into Mr. Trump personally versus Mr. Trump in his role as president; and (2) provides a more formal, complete picture. 2603:3018:59:0:246B:107A:F470:7653 (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: There is no ambiguity; an impeachment inquiry cannot be conducted on a private citizen. WMSR (talk) 22:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Article names don't use people's titles.  Nixinova  T  C  00:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 October 2019

Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump → Donald Trump impeachment inquiry – Removes controversial usage of "against" while conveying all necessary information. WMSR (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So is Impeachment process against Richard Nixon incorrectly named? Using "against" is not a judgement call, by its nature impeachment is not done to exonerate someone or otherwise make findings in the subject's interest, it is done to find things against their interest. 331dot (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, I think "Impeachment of Richard Nixon" would be a better title. That aside, an impeachment inquiry is different from an actual impeachment. You may be right that the impeachment itself might be "against" someone, but we're not there yet, we're still in the inquiry phase, and an inquiry is "into" someone or something, not "against". Qono (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nixon was not impeached, so it would be incorrect to title it that way, but I digress. 331dot (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, I actually agree with you there, but my original argument stands. Common usage points to "Trump impeachment inquiry" and dictionary guidelines point to "inquiry into". Until this expands beyond an inquiry or turns into a formal impeachment, the common and neutral "Trump impeachment inquiry" is the proper title. Qono (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot, it is a different English grammar structure, not comparable. A "process" can be "against", an "inquiry" can't. "Process into" would make no sense in English, and neither does "inquiry against" Walrasiad (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds more like a debate about semantics than grammar. Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CaffeinAddict The current title is not non-neutral. There is no other way to interpret an impeachment inquiry other than for it to be against someone, as impeachment inquiries are not conducted to exonerate someone or make other findings in the investigated party's interest. 331dot (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The current title is analogous to that for Richard Nixon, as others have pointed out. I would support removing "against" from both pages by changing them to "Impeachment Inquiry of Donald Trump" and "Impeachment Process of Richard Nixon", respectively. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support One can call for an impeachment inquiry without being opposed to the President. Dmarquard (talk) 03:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The current title is in line with the way reliable sources describe the inquiry. Retimuko (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support. I would prefer "inquiry into" or "inquiry of". Garp21 (talk) 04:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. This is a grammatical no-brainer. According to basic English construction (as referenced above), one cannot "inquire against" anything. Instead, one may only "inquire into" or "inquire about," or some similar variation thereof. Moreover, an "inquiry" and a "process" are entirely different concepts. "Impeachment process against Richard Nixon" follows because one can initiate a process against something or someone (see, e.g., termination process against an employee). To use another example, there could (properly) be no "inquiry against" a vehicle's purchase price. 69.137.100.213 (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC) Vandy3L[reply]

Biden Claims

I came here to learn about the story totally ignorant of the details. One thing that struck me is that there's no mention of what the White House thought Hunter or Joe Biden did to warrant investigation. Without it, the article appears to imply Trump and Giuliani just wanted them investigated with no foundation whatsoever. Is that the case? If not, could the White House's suspicions be added? 2604:2000:1403:2D9:914E:E91D:6670:72BF (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those allegations are covered under Trump–Ukraine controversy. This article specifically mentions offenses related to the impeachment inquiry and doesn't merit just copy-pasting every detail between articles. The Controversy, however, is linked in this article and discussed in the lead section in paragraph two. I would also suggest you evaluate the sources listed above in the Talk:Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump#Impeachment section by user Starship.paint which seems to indicate the "suspicions" were baseless, as well as the rest of the sources cited in this article and the Trump-Ukraine article which seem to indicate a purely political motive. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 00:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One or two sentences with the rationale or supposed rationale isn't copy-pasting every single detail. It's conspicuous that there's no mention in this article and that users have to hunt through another article to find what seems to be a key detail. However, if there is too much redundancy, perhaps the articles should be merged. Otherwise, I suggest, if they are baseless, say so, but still mention it. 2604:2000:1403:2D9:914E:E91D:6670:72BF (talk) 06:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Polls

Polls are asking different questions depending on the poll; some ask opinions on the mere inquiry, some ask about supporting actual impeachment, and some ask for support for removal from office. Should we be differentiating between these questions in the display of the polling information? Currently we are conflating all the polls as "support for impeachment". I can see certain benefits to that as well(easier for readers). 331dot (talk) 10:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are there sources for this? Different questions being asked can produce different results, in which case I think we should state this clearly in the article. —Partytemple (talk) 04:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uptick of interest at Talk:Hunter Biden

Just in case anyone is watching here but not there. Cheers, XOR'easter (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quoted Tweet

"Adam Schiff illegally made up a FAKE & terrible statement, pretended it to be mine as the most important part of my call to the Ukrainian President, and read it aloud to Congress and the American people. It bore NO relationship to what I said on the call. Arrest for Treason?"

I've removed this. I think this is problematic per WP:SELFPUB, particularly with regards to "2. it does not involve claims about third parties" - the entire message is a (possibly libelous) claim against a 3rd party, without quoting any response by that individual, which poses further neutrality issues.

Ultimately, I don't think this quote really adds to the section in question Jw2036 (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Different polling questions

The Washington Post poll I just added asked about support for an inquiry and support for removal, so I put both in different sections. I don't know if some of the earlier polls did that or otherwise asked different questions, but we may want to adjust that section if they did. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Impeachment enquiry against Donald Trump

This title make it seem like a personal attack on Mr Trump. Consider changing to 'Impeacement enquiry on Donald Trump' BDTraining (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BDTraining Please see the discussion about the title of this article above. 331dot (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Impeachment_inquiry_into_Donald_Trump&oldid=920406916"