Jump to content

Talk:Paul Manafort/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paul J. Manafort. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey, the external link is a domain that appears to have been bought by boob job marketing. Not kidding. The link "The Buying of the President 2008: Paul Manafort" should be corrected or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.1.99.156 (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Need inclusion ...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Davis,_Manafort_%26_Freedman,_Inc.

why is this not in wikipedia?

(1) because SourceWatch is a wiki and therefore does not constitute a reputable source and (2) because that particular page says "There is currently no text in this page..." ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

$12.7 million in cash payments?

This should be covered in there somewhere: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/us/politics/paul-manafort-ukraine-donald-trump.html?_r=0 Victor Grigas (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

A short section was added at the bottom of the article.Clockchime (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually the New York Times article clearly states "[Ukrainian investigators] have yet to determine if he actually received the cash". So I think that this short section is redundant per WP:notnews and WP:CRYSTAL. 1 short sentence about the investigation will be more than enough. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

By the way: Putin disliked Yanukovych. So describing his party as Putinists makes no sense. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
A scrambled article that is destined to become a classic in political shenanigans. --Wikipietime (talk) 12:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

$2.2 million in payments to two prominent Washington lobbying firms usage

The $2.2 million in payments to two prominent Washington lobbying firms Manafort is said to have enabled was used for lobbying the U.S. Congress to reject a resolution condemning the jailing of Yanukovych's main political rival, former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. Should this be mentioned in this Wikipedia article about Manafort? Or is that pushing to much details in the article? Miss Tymoshenko is already mentioned in the article (at the time I made above request for input). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why it shouldn't be included if reliable sources support it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I am concerned that the section about Ukraine will become so lengthy that it starts to make sense to start the Wikipedia article Paul Manafort–Ukraine relations...... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the length, and I'm completely against creating a separate article. Just make it into a section of its own if it takes up too space. Its' clearly the issue that Manafort is most known for besides being Trump's chief or advisor or whatever position he currently holds. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I share your points of view. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Rachel Maddow Show

Here's a good news story that I think explains the Firtash story clearly.

http://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/rachel-maddow-show/2017-02-20

The Rachel Maddow Show 02/20/17

Pursuit of shady oligarch a test of DoJ integrity under Trump Rachel Maddow reports on the murky overlap between Ukrainian oligarch Dmitry Firtash, Vladimir Putin, and the Donald Trump campaign and alerts viewers to watch for whether the Department of Justice under Trump continues to pursue a case against Firtash.

--Nbauman (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

"best known as"

Someone recently edited the lede sentence to make it say "Manafort is best known as the campaign chairman for Donald Trump 2016 Presidential campaign and for his lobbying efforts on behalf of Ukrainian leader Viktor Yanukovych as well as dictators such as Ferdinand Marcos and Mobutu Sese Seko and guerrilla leader Jonas Savimbi." I was surprised to see that "as the campaign chairman for Donald Trump 2016 Presidential campaign and" was immediately deleted, by User:RA0808. Looking back through the article's history, I see this is what the lede has said for a long time; the lede sentence says he is "best known for" the Ukraine connection, and his work for Trump is kind of a throwaway item tucked in between "campaign advisor" to other campaign and "senior partner" in a later sentence. I think this is all wrong. He may have been "best known" (but not actually very well known) for his Ukraine work in the past, but that was the past. Now that he has been Trump's campaign manager, he is a well known public figure, specifically because of his stint as Trump's campaign manager and its (still grabbing headlines) followup. Google searching confirms this; it is almost impossible to find anything that ISN'T about his connection with the Trump campaign. I propose that "best known as the campaign chairman for the Donald Trump presidential campaign" be added to the lede sentence, as per the edit that was just reverted, and removed from its current passing mention in the second sentence. Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: This seems to be leaning toward a WP:RECENTISM issue, however I will say that my current reverts were because it was redundant to have the lede say that he was Trump's campaign advisor twice. RA0808 talkcontribs 15:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Would you be OK with my adding it to the first sentence, and removing it from the second sentence? IMO this lede just makes us look silly. It would be like saying "Donald Trump is best known as a businessman and TV personality", and dropping "president" into the second sentence. --MelanieN (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
No problem on my end. RA0808 talkcontribs 15:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, I'll work on it. First I will Wikify the article, moving the references from the lede to the text. Funny, I have had this article on my watchlist for a long time, but I never really LOOKED at it; I was really just checking recent edits for possible vandalism. You, too, I suspect. We may be about to get a lot more of that, now that he is in the headlines. If it gets too bad I will protect the article. Anyhow, now that I am here I will try to get the article in better shape. --MelanieN (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't have time to do as much revision as I would like, but I did rearrange the lede. Vandalism has been increasing, as predicted; one more such edit and I will protect the page. --MelanieN (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Picture?

An action picture or a portrait photo always improves an article. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

You could use a search engine for images. Please be aware also that only copyright free images can be displayed on wikipedia and if you have one go right ahead. 101.166.86.118 (talk) 03:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I tried posting a link to this article from comments on Facebook about Manafort. Because of the way Facebook posts snippets, it added the first image it found in the article, which was very misleading. If anybody has an appropriate image that can be added to the article, it would be helpful. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  22:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I didn't find anything at Commons. --MelanieN (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The use of Category:Trump administration controversies

SlackerDelphi has just removed this category from 21 pages and counting, stating that controversies don't cover events, people, bills, books, etc., in addition to them accusing editors of trying to smear Donald Trump. My first instinct would be to implement the category back into all those pages, but I figured it would be more constructive if everyone could weigh in. From my perspective, a controversy could encapsulate every one of those subjects, such as the 2017 National Scout Jamboree, so I'd say removing it is the polar opposite of a smear campaign. But, let's weigh in, shall we? DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 23:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of categories in general is, much less this one. It does seem problematic to list seemingly arbitrary "people in the news with Trump" in the same category as articles like Dismissal of James Comey. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I believe if any kind of subject should be barred from this category, it should be individuals. Events, on the other hand, probably warrant remaining. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 23:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I agreed, the controversies themselves should only be included in the category, as in the event or situation, not the people. There would need to be a separate category for people involved in Trump administration controversies, but I don't think that is a category we necessarily need. That is just my opinion though. If we look at Category:Clinton administration controversies, Bush 43 or Obama, they include people as well though. Overall there are a lot of categories out there that I feel are really mispopulated. WikiVirusC(talk) 23:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay, @WikiVirusC and Power~enwiki: so SlackerDelphi removed the category from the events American Health Care Act of 2017 and 2017 National Scout Jamboree, with a Russian banks, a book and a few individuals. So, re-implement those two events for now and leave this topic open for debate, whether or not we should include individuals and other entities? DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 00:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, now we are getting into defining what is a controversy or not. Personally I wouldn't call either of those one. One is a bill, regardless of how it goes or if/when/how it passes, that's just what happens with bills. The Jamboree I wouldn't call one either. The speech itself could be considered one yes, but not the entire event. If a redirect of Donald Trump's 2017 Boy Scott speech or something similar was created and redirected to the section about his speech, then I would put the redirect in the category and leave the main article alone. I'm not saying how anyone should do it, but it's just how I would. WikiVirusC(talk) 00:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd love to hear what @SlackerDelphi: has to say. Apart from leaving people off for now, I have no opinions here. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

First then I will start with correcting a misrepresentation of what I stated in the edit comments. I did say including all people in the controversy category is a "smear". But I did not say it was a smear of Donald Trump. I never said that and the claim that I did is simply not true. What is a smear is tagging every single individual that has ANY relationship to Trump--even if tangentally--is a smear of that particular individual, not Trump. It is a classic case of guilt by association. There is a clear guidance in Wikipedia not to use the word "controversy" willy nilly (not to use it as a weasel word) and that is exactly what happened here. An editor placed one or two individuals into the TAdminControv category every few days and that is a smear of each of those individuals. There MUST be some kind of reliable source that uses the word "controversy" in relation to each and everyone of those individuals. Categories are not to used randomly without a reliable source supporting the inclusion and if the category specifically is a category of "controversies" then the category should include "controversies" and not a random list of people that a particular Wikipedia editor wants label a "controversy". Also, I removed the Boy Scout Jamboree from the list because, once again, a jamboree is not a controversy. And the Republican Health Care Act is not a "controversy" regardless of what you might think about it. Yes, there are many people that find it controversial, but article is not about the controversial aspects of it per se. It is about the bill. If there is an article about the Act's controvesial aspects then that article should have the category. There are rules about when to use a category or not and in ALL of these situations thoses rules were not followed.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
For example, why is Mika Brzezinski's article tagged TAC controversies? Is Mika a controversy and not a actual human being. I would like the editor that tagged the article to provide a reliable source that proves that Brezezinski is a controversy and not a person. It is ludicrous to claim she is a controversy. She is not even a Republican. She is not even a member of the Trump Administration. I removed the category because it made zero sense. It was just an attempt to smear Brezezinski by association with Trump. That's all.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
@Ck4829 and DarthBotto: Just for the record, the editor that keeps adding categories to inappropriate topics is at it again. Please see this edit.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
@SlackerDelphi: That's annoying. Yeah, my concern is for ensuring that we have consensus and by this user re-adding it in the midst of our discussion here, that notion is defied. With the reasoning presented on your end, I support removing the categories from most every one of those pages, even the Jamboree page, as the incident was a small portion of an event. If it somehow becomes notable enough for a new article, then sure, but until then... DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 17:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
@DarthBotto: The category rules are what they are. And until the jamboree turns into a controversy then there is no reason to have the TAC category listed at the bottom of this article. I'm pretty sure that the jamboree will turn into a controversy about the same time that pigs will grow wings and fly.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I see no reason why 2017 National Scout Jamboree doesn't belong in Trump Administration Controversies, especially since it is a political controversy. Jimmy Carter rabbit incident has no connection to politics whatsoever, yet it is a Carter administration controversy.Radiohist (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

What about the usage? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

little numbers? Comment

what's the meaning of the little numbers after the citations for the section on his arrest? Gabriel syme (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Page numbers. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Aha, thanks! 16:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Lede section: the entire formal list of charges, or a summary?

I think it is inappropriate to state the entire, formal list of charges in the lede. Too much detail. The lede is supposed to summarize what is in the text, and the complete list should be in the text. Someone keeps restoring the full formal list to the lede, including the capital letters and the unnecessary quotation marks. Can we get some kind of consensus on how to handle this information in the lede? I propose that a summary is more appropriate for the lede, such as this:

On October 30, 2017, Paul Manafort surrendered to the FBI after news broke that Robert Mueller's special investigation unit indicted him and his business partner Rick Gates on multiple charges including money laundering, false statements, and failing to register as a foreign agent for Ukraine as required by the Foreign Agents Registration Act.[1]

Sources

  1. ^ Apuzzo, Matt (30 October 2017). "Paul Manafort, Who Once Ran Trump Campaign, Surrenders to F.B.I." The New York Times. Retrieved 30 October 2017.

Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I think given the amount of disinformation being pumped out there it's better to have the full list. There's lots of people out there pretending (actually, even here on Wikipedia) that these charges "have nothing to do with the campaign", something which is clearly belied by the "Conspiracy Against The United States" charge. This is probably why someone tried to remove that particular one while leaving the others. So at the very least that one NEEDS to be mentioned. Volunteer Marek  18:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
You don't understand what conspiracy against the united states means. Read this. It has nothing to do with the campaign. There's no need for a full list; we can summarize like many RS have done. Galobtter (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
VM, the source I used - CNN - stated directly that the charges are unrelated to the campaign. --MelanieN (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
That source also states: "The charges against top officials from Trump's campaign signals a dramatic new phase of Mueller's wide-ranging investigation into possible collusion between the Russian government and members of Trump's team" Volunteer Marek  13:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I like an approach taken at the Rick Gates article: "indicted in October 2017 on charges related to their consulting work with political figures in Ukraine." I think I will add it somewhere. --MelanieN (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
What about "pro-Russian political figures..."? SPECIFICO talk 20:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
That's spelled out pretty well in the Ukraine section of the article, but that point wasn't made in the source I used. --MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think "related to their consulting work with political figures in Ukraine." represents the sources well either. Volunteer Marek  20:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, a NYT source [1] does say the charges "center on a series of criminal allegations related to their lobbying for a pro-Russia government of Ukraine, not to Mr. Trump or the campaign." That's enough to add the pro-Russian angle to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not read this. Suggested text above looks fine to me. Yes, the source tells that allegations are related to lobbying for a pro-Russia government of Ukraine, but I do not think it tells assertively that charges are definitely unrelated to campaign. In fact, they might be somehow related. My very best wishes (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Daughter

The Washington Post says he also has a daughter, at the end of this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/paul-manaforts-lavish-lifestyle-highlighted-in-indictment/2017/10/30/23615680-bd8f-11e7-8444-a0d4f04b89eb_story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.81.178 (talk)

Given that the subject has been accused of crimes of the most serious nature, should we really be providing information re:BLP on their non-notable spouse and apparently non-notable (and likely to soon be deleted via PROD or AfD) daughter? GMGtalk 14:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I have removed this information pending discussion here, which is pretty standard for discussions of BLP concerns. If there is a feeling that these individuals are sufficiently independently well known so that this doesn't cause issues, then the content can be readded. GMGtalk 14:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Inclusion is important if it aids understanding of articles and if it is beyond mere mentions; his wife has been covered extensively in multiple sources in relation to the case; here are two articles. [2][3]. Could also be enough to add a sentence in the article about how houses were bought in her name. Both his daughters have also been talked about in relation to their text messages, so putting their name in the infobox might also be justified. Galobtter (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Removing family information from BLP pages of all public figures accused of crime would be against our WP:NPOV and WP:BLP policies. If someone wants to rewrite these policies, please discuss it on the corresponding policy pages. No, this is an important information, especially if we already have pages about other members of the family. Such info would be included without any objections on BLP pages of any other public figure. Why it is important? Simply because the information about relatives appears in RS in connection with the person described of the page. Hence it must be included per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I can understand where GreenMeansGo is coming with this, and i would agree to an extent if the daughter was a minor, but wiki policy would not agree. In the end Manafort's daughter is an adult with a public profile (film director etc) so the information is already out there and My very best wishes makes a valid point.Resnjari (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
If you all feel they're high profile enough to satisfy WP:BLPNAME, then that's fine. I'm not against having it there; I'm just against having it there without prior consideration. GMGtalk 15:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I've also added his other daughter's name: it has appeared extensively in a number of articles such as this politico one and is in the article body. Galobtter (talk) 16:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Its public information, so appropriate.Resnjari (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
With refs like that one ("Manafort’s Ukrainian ‘blood money’ caused qualms"), both daughters appear as participants of the controversy. My very best wishes (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The other daughter is a lawyer who worked in the same lawfirm as the dutch guy that Mueller charged. Coincidence? Legacypac (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Salary

Something is missing. I keep hearing that Manafort worked the campaign for free, without a salary. Mr. Barrack, “He would do this in an unpaid capacity.”. The reader should know. ―Buster7 ☎ 00:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't object to the inclusion of this. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree. I will add it. In fact we need more information about how he came to join the Trump campaign. --MelanieN (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Rachel Maddow made a big deal the other day of his working for free while was trying to come up with millions of dollars in loans because he was out of cash. Very strange. Very relevent. Legacypac (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, it could be a tacit admission that he was already being paid, IOW that he was already working as a paid lobbyist on a mission within the Trump administration, acting as a paid promoter of Putin's position on the Ukraine. The dossier alleges that former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, who had requested Russian military intervention in Ukraine before he fled to Russia in 2014, told Putin he had been making supposedly untraceable "kick-back payments" to Paul Manafort, who was Trump's campaign manager at the time. (This is one of the allegations which has been corroborated, and is therefore part of the criminal proceedings against him.) He was always getting and using huge amounts of money, but he could also be "between" payments, and be "dry" at times. Who was giving him this money, and why? We now know he also had a group of European politicians whom he paid to lobby for Putin. He was getting that money from somewhere. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Job is worth $10,000 a month. Gates also worked for free. [4] Given Manaford's typical fees run in the millions... maybe Manafort and Gates were just being patriotic volunteers for the good of the country, but maybe not given the charges they face involve crimes against the country. An interesting analysis here [5] Legacypac (talk) 06:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

infobox

Should we put in the module for infobox criminal if Manafort is convicted. It seems like to me he is more notable for his possible crimes than being a campaign manager. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Lets wait till the judicial process runs its course, and if a a guilty verdict results, then probably.Resnjari (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
He just got his bail revoked and incarcerated for obstruction of justice/witness tampering.[1] Not sure if there is a need to give his current location in the infobox. Just discussing it. I do agree with adding for a guilty verdict. P37307 (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
IMO there's no need for that at this point. Anyhow I don't think it would be "location" which is not normal for infoboxes. It would be something like "status" - changing it from "under house arrest" to "incarcerated". But I think we should leave it out. Even if he is in custody, he is still "presumed innocent". --MelanieN (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I did further research on Template:Infobox person and the criminal tags are For convicted criminals only. P37307 (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Sources

  1. ^ Hsu, Spencer S.; Nakashima, Ellen; Barrett, Devlin (15 June 2018). "Paul Manafort ordered to jail after witness-tampering charges". Washington Post. Retrieved 15 June 2018.

On another note, do we really have no better image of Manafort to put in the infobox? I mean, that one may as well be one of those Loch Ness Monster photos there. Volunteer Marek  05:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek:, lol! Every so often a more contemporary image of Manfort gets uploaded by other editors only to be deleted for some copyright infringement. The 1970s pic is the survivor. As with the feds and their investigation, its elusive when it comes to Manafort. Best.Resnjari (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Does this image work? https://www.flickr.com/photos/disneyabc/28355454201

I found out that you can do an advanced search on google images specifically for their licensing status. That one says it's free to 'Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.' with attribution. No idea how to put this into the article though.98.204.69.245 (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately that image is "NoDerivatives" so we can not use it, but thanks your search. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Trump–Russia dossier

After recent edits/vandals based on political views, I wanted to point out that the Trump–Russia dossier has been debated here: Talk:Trump–Russia dossier. As it went through the discussion periods and has a lengthy history here on Wikipedia, please go there to discuss or talk about the legitimacy there. Since it is valid there, it is suitable for inclusion in Paul Manafort page. P37307 (talk) 00:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

KConWiki (talk) 04:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

That's crazy interesting. Legacypac (talk) 07:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
In the future you may wish to use Template:Refideas instead of parking links as their own talkpage section, but I am grateful for you providing this. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
It looks like this info was the basis for the Northern Virginia charges Legacypac (talk) 01:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Keep Records released by Virginia FOIA are public domain per [6]. This photo is also significantly higher quality than the previous image. Further KEEP votes on the image page[7]--AlexOvShaolin 15:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Article organization

I've just taken a quick look at the article and find it has organization problems. The two jarring things to me were that the Trump campaign material appears near the top and is out of temporal sync with the rest of the article and that "Political activities" and "Lobbying" have been artificially separated. I am no expert, but it seems to me Manafort was a political operative who worked on the Ukranian campaign before working on the Trump campaign (and starting out working on the other US campaigns, as noted). The article seems to be artificially separated to put the Trump campaign material near the top. Surely there is a better way to do this! It also seems to me the article is about due to be broken into perhaps three articles - separate articles on the Trump campaign activities and on the indictments and trial may be warranted. There will be more material to include in the coming weeks... (I speak as a veteran of the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy article).

Would it be possible to include a time line of some kind?

While I am here, I will note that political articles such as this one go through a lengthy, decadal process: (1) people are excited and upset and put together a vast, jumbled article that does no one any good and misses the essential points, (2) a few select, good editors work to polish the article, reference it properly, trim it down, etc. to make it a good article, and (3) some years later white-washer editors appear and slowly blunt the essential outrage of what has occurred, making the whole thing look like it was no big deal (while deleting all those citations that supported the article, but are no longer available). Articles such as this one require long-term maintenance and vigilance. Bdushaw (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

What was Manafort doing for Dole, Bush, Reagan?

I saw a Trump surrogate on CNN claim that Manafort was Dole's campaign manager. Trump himself has repeatedly touted Manafort's connection to Dole and G.H.W. Bush. I don't know what roll Manafort played in those campaigns, and I came here hoping to find out, but see nothing more specific than "advisor." If any of the editors here have good sources on Manafort's prior involvement with Presidents or their campaigns, I think it would be useful to incorporate that info into the article. --BTfromLA (talk) 23:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, he was an "adviser", whatever that involved, and I believe managed their appearance at the RNC.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

Per a request at WP:RFPP I have protected this article for 3 days due to edit warring. Please take this time to discuss here the issues that have arisen in a collegiate and constructive manner, remembering that we are all here to improve an encyclopedia. Thanks. Fish+Karate 09:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Restore Mugshot or send Trial Section of Article

Already being discussed above. Don't split the discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

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

A final photo edit was made to this article[8] just before the user received a three day wiki block[9] and the article locked. Once again we have another picture of Paul Manafort where we see about 4% of his face, rather than a clear, front facing image of him as the main photo. I'd like to call a more nuanced vote this time. Restore Photo, Move to Trial Section of Article, or Neither (Remove from article entirely). Since the last vote became a stalemate, I think this more nuanced vote can be helpful. --AlexOvShaolin 15:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

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

recent edits

Not a useful discussion right now. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

by an editor with fewer than 10 edits to their account for example this, which is outdated and undue, while half of this edit is not actually supported by sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, the info is not outdated or undue. The trial is currently ongoing as of today, and the same Judge (T.S. Ellis) on Tuesday was very critical again of Mueller and the prosecution, so I'm not really sure what the problem is. Regarding the second edit you are correct, only half is supported by the WaPo source but another user thankfully already fixed that. BOLO 97 (talk) 07:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
If it is indeed the case that this is still relevant or significant and isn't just some cherry-picked spin, then you can find recent sources which discuss, right? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Both sources are recent, not sure why you are claiming they aren't. Plus there are numerous sources much older used throughout out the article. Also nothing is "cherry-picked spin". The judge is a senior federal judge who has repeatedly criticized Mueller and the prosecutors so that text should remain in the article. It is also important to make at least one mention that all of the numerous charges Manafort faces are unrelated to Russian interference. BOLO 97 (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your post Volunteer Marek. I am also concerned that user BOLO 97 may be acting in bad faith. Recently he lied about an edit to restore a lower quality photo of Paul Manafort. I believe he may be participating in Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view violations. --AlexOvShaolin 23:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I am becoming very concerned we are facing political vandlism. We have a perfectly clear image of Paul Manafort facing camera front and center and users are continuing to make edits unilaterally with subpar pictures where you can see approximately less than 5% of Manafort's face, instead of voting like the rest of us. Your edits which do not show concern for consensus are begging for examination of political bias and verge on vandalism. In particular BOLO 97, who has made several different controversial edits. I'd like to hear feedback from other users as to whether or not this deserves attention from moderators. --AlexOvShaolin 03:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

other Manafort directorships etc

Manafoirt has held other positions with institutes etc. See https://manafortdefense.org/a-lifetime-of-service/ and https://prabook.com/web/paul_john.manafort/914008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.245.141.95 (talk) 01:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Picture

Situation has changed, discussion is no longer directly relevant. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Is it common to use one's mugshot for the page photo? Mangofirst (talk) 02:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

No, that is not common. It might be acceptable if a mugshot is the only available freely licensed photo, and the person has already been convicted of a crime. Neither of those conditions is true in this case. We have other acceptable photos and Manafort has not been convicted. I support changing back to the previous photo, which is far more neutral. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
It's a blatant BLP violation as per WP:MUG. I will return it to the previous photo for now, but someone should find a better photo.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I do not support the previous photo and I support the mug shot. The old photo is decades old and hardly representative. Manifort may not be convicted of the crimes he is charged with but he did have bail revoked because the judge found he violated his bail conditions and was likely to do so again - that is a form of judgement. He is being held in solitary confinement in a federal prison. That is the context for why he is notable so a mug shot is not "out of context" Legacypac (talk) 06:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Bail being revoked is only an indication that he did something to violate his bail conditions, it does not suggest (yet) that he is guilty of the underlying crime. 331dot (talk) 07:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Legacypac, you can find me off-Wikpedia on social media and you will see how much I dislike the current administration including Manafort. No holds barred there. But we must maintain the neutral point of view on Wikipedia, and including a mug shot in the biography of a living person who has not been convicted is most decidedly not neutral. Are you having difficulty seeing the BLP and NPOV issues that this image raises? If so, why? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
In an attempt to seem overtly neutral you are injecting politics. This picture is demonstrably better quality than the previous picture. Please consider keeping your political viewpoints out of your edits. AlexOvShaolin 20:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
You will notice that Cullen328 is arguing against his political viewpoints in this case. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, and I am calling this virtue signalling in an attempt to be Overtly Neutral. He seems to feel a need to go against his beliefs to "Prove" he's not being political, but the opposite is true. The new pictures is demonstrably better than the previous potato-quality picture. --AlexOvShaolin 17:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Looks like the mugshot image of Manafort is a violation of WP:MUG. I am removing it. BOLO 97 (talk) 08:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
MOVE I do not support the mugshot photo being in the lede, but I think it would be acceptable to have it in the interior of the article, in the section on "Arrest and indictments". Attic Salt (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
KEEP I Support the keeping mugshot, it is significantly higher quality than the decades old pictures. Further more Rusf10's complaint about it being used outside a "false or disparaging light" is incorrect completely and is an editorialization of a rule. AlexOvShaolin 21:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Remove this grotesquely prejudicial image. Manafort is awaiting trial but has not been convicted of any crime. To prominently feature his mugshot in the Infobox serves its intended purpose: to shame and humiliate our BLP subject. In doing so, however, it also has an unforeseen consequence: it shames Wikipedia and our normally fair-minded editors. KalHolmann (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Comment Deletion discussion is taking place at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paul Manafort Mugshot.jpg. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's the most recent, high quality image of him, and relevant in relation to what he is known for. --Tataral (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, but move. It seems inappropriate to use the mugshot at the top of the article before he is convicted, but it is relevant to article content. I suggest that it be moved to the appropriate section of the article, and out of the infobox. 331dot (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove it is exceptionally inappropriate to lead the article with the mugshot photo. This person has not yet been convicted, and this really runs afoul of NPOV. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I have boldly changed the image back until consensus can be found to include it. Since there are concerns of NPOV and BLP, the mugshot should not be used for the time being. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, plenty of pages have poor quality images, but that's in cases where no alternative exists. Here we do have a free alternative.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
This discussion already mentions the MUG policy. Meanwhile, you continue to re-edit this page to fit your agenda in several areas (other than just the photo), which has resulted in repeated Wiki Moderator warnings which you continue to ignore. Please stop acting unilaterially, seemingly with political cause. AlexOvShaolin 06:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your opinion. Another wikipedian brought this up, but I'm still confused as to how this could be false or disparaging. It's not exactly a secret that he's on trial afterall. I'm trying hard to see through your lenses. AlexOvShaolin 06:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Mugshots in general, and this mugshot in particular, are exceedingly poor photographs that present tired, disheveled, and unprepared individuals to the camera.Icewhiz (talk) 09:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
From a presentation standpoint, it's considerably better than the 4% of his face we're seeing in other pictures. --AlexOvShaolin 15:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment, Icewhiz is correct. Also please be aware there are users here (VolunteerMarek and AlexOvShaolin, probably the same person) engaging in WP:GASLIGHT to deceive you. The Manafort mugshot image is a violation of WP:MUG and doesn't belong on the page, there is no consensus needed on this issue. P.S. yesterday RandomUserGuy1738 updated a better image from the crappy black and white one. BOLO 97 (talk) 08:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Consensus is needed for most things on Wikipedia. WP:MUG doesn't say anything about its overriding consensus. Accusing other users of socking and gaslighting is very serious, please offer your evidence. By the time we get done arguing about this, Manafort's first trial is likely to be over. Given what we know and the conviction rates of federal prosecutors, he seems likely to be convicted and this debate will be academic. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
@BOLO 97: Please show where it states that the guideline you cite overrides consensus. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Contrary to what Bolo says, I don't favor removing the mugshot, just moving it down to the section on arrest and indictment. Note that mugshots are rather common on wikipedia: for example, [Bonnie and Clyde], [John Gotti]. Attic Salt (talk) 13:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Just for the record I am also OK with moving the mugshot down for example to the section on arrest and indictment. It just shouldn't be prominently at the top of the page in the infobox. BOLO 97 (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • MOVE mugshot out of infobox, down to appropriate section. Over the course of his career, his notability is not primarily for his arrest. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Move in the manner indicated by SarekOfVulcan and others, including Attic Salt, 331dot. "Removes" that seem to leave the door open for placement elsewhere in the article came from Cullen328, Mr Ernie--and even BOLO. Let me note that there is no good reason NOT to have the mugshot anywhere, and let me also note that we've had such discussions about black victims of US police violence (though I can't find it right now in the 31 archived talk pages for the Shooting of Michael Brown). If we are choosing to not criminalize the entirety of "Paul Manafort" by putting his mug shot elsewhere in the article, which I think is the right thing to do, we should certainly allow such courtesies to others. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
    • I counted four "keeps", and at least one "remove" where I sensed "remove altogether" (Icewhiz). Ideally speaking we should have an RfC with three options, but if I counted correctly, I think placing the mug shot in the appropriate section represents a kind of consensus here. Something for you to ponder, SarekOfVulcan, while you're adminning. ;) Drmies (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep and Move. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe
  • Keep and Move. I agree it doesn't seem quite right to have the mug shot as the first photo, if there's a better one. But since there are so many photos of him in the article now, it seems appropriate to include the mug shot, perhaps in the section about the trial. Rider1819 (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Move to appropriate section, should not be the info box image. PackMecEng (talk) 00:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Editprotected request

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

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2018

Add

File:Paul Manafort.jpg
Mugshot of Paul Manafort

as photo Kvn smth (talk) 02:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Nope, this is not an uncontroversial edit. Get consensus here first, then request. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

New descriptor after conviction

@PackMecEng:

Fraudster: a person who commits fraud, especially in business dealings.

What's objectionable about noting that he is now a convicted tax fraudster? Is English not your native language? THE DIAZ userpage • talk • contribs 20:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I know the definition of the term, it just reads poorly the way you wrote it. Also first line of bio is perhaps undue. PackMecEng (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
@PackMecEng: How does it read poorly? It's also standard for individuals to have their convictions noted in the first sentences. See Bill Cosby, O. J. Simpson, David Duke and more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Diaz (talk • contribs)
"Fraudster" is not a word in common usage in the United States, and obviously this article should be written in U.S. English. Although a bit longer, I suggest something like "a felon, convicted of fraud". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Cullen is correct that would be better wording. I am still not sure if it really belongs in the first sentence since it already is mentioned later in the lead. Let's see what more people think. PackMecEng (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
@Cullen328: How about "convicted tax evader and bank defrauder? THE DIAZ userpage • talk • contribs 01:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Again, that reads awkwardly to me in American English, and adds too much detail to the lead. I have never heard the formulation "bank defrauder" before. Why not just say "fraud"? That's a single word that pretty much summarizes the convictions. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
@Cullen328: I'm American and both words sound perfectly normal to me. Just because you've never heard a certain word before, it doesn't mean it won't make sense. To answer your alternative suggestion, "fraud" is an adjective, not a noun. It would be incorrect to use an adjective as a descriptor. The only nouns I found for "fraud" are "fraudster" and "defrauder". THE DIAZ userpage • talk • contribs 05:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
"Fraud" most certainly is a noun. It does not describe a person but rather their act or crime. That being said, MelanieN may be right that this does not belong in the lead sentence. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
@Cullen328: Whoops. Apologies. I meant that the noun "fraud" doesn't literally mean a person who commits the crime of fraud. But see the aforementioned biographies and more to see how people's convictions are usually stated in the first sentence. THE DIAZ userpage • talk • contribs 18:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

This always happens when someone is convicted: people try to change his description in the lede sentence to include "felon" or "traitor" or "fraud" or some such term. This is almost never kept in the lede sentence. He is what he is, lawyer or consultant or whatever. "Felon" is not his career and does not belong in the lede sentence. Plenty of room for the legal stuff in the rest of the lede and the rest of the article. --MelanieN (talk) 04:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Propaganda Style

This article is a good example of the increasingly popular Wikipedia Propaganda Style. It would be better if it weren't, but it is. Santamoly (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

You have edits you believe that should be made then bring them up here. Posting a rant only shows possible bias and looks quite unprofessional. ContentEditman (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

"convicted felon" in lede sentence?

People keep adding this to the lede sentence: "Paul John Manafort Jr. (born April 1, 1949) is an American lobbyist, political consultant, lawyer, and convicted felon." I think "convicted felon" is inappropriate and I remove it; it's not exactly his job! His conviction is in the lede section, of course, but IMO it's not part of his identity. He's not exactly Charles Manson! I'm removing it. But let's discuss it and reach a consensus. What do people think about having "criminal" or "convicted felon" in the lede sentence - for this and similar articles where it comes up, like George Papadopoulos and Rick Gates (political consultant)? --MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal. It’s years of criminal behavior is absolutely part of this identity. It is well sourced and now admitted to. The text should be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casprings (talk • contribs)
Since he is now a convicted felon, I don't see why it can't be said in the lead. 331dot (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't think "convicted felon" always has to go in the first sentence for convicted felons but it summarizes a lot of very important material and helps avoid mistakes, e.g. "Paul John Manafort Jr. (born April 1, 1949) is an American lobbyist, political consultant, and lawyer," has some very obvious mistakes. He clearly is no longer a lobbyist or political consultant. He also can't be a practicing lawyer anymore - probably disbarred lawyer is more accurate. Let's try again. How about - "Paul John Manafort Jr. (born April 1, 1949) is an American convicted felon and a former lobbyist, political consultant, and lawyer." That's better and worth fact-checking (for disbarred). Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
From just a quick check - disbarment is not necessarily automatic with a felony conviction, but should be almost automatic in DC, where he pled guilty and where he is a member of the bar. Probably in Virginia as well. There was a disbarment proceeding last year in Connecticut but I can't find any reported results. In any case, it's abundantly clear that he will never practice law again, so "former lawyer" is called for. I'll try something similar for the lede. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Smallbones, that is Original Research and can't be used. Can you find any source that says he is no longer able to practice law anywhere? (Anyhow, technically a person with a law degree is a lawyer, whether or not they are registered with any bar.) --MelanieN (talk) 02:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Smallbones, I see you added this to the article. It is not appropriate to add your own version to the article while it is still under discussion at the talk page. Your edit was rightly reverted. Please wait for consensus here before changing the article. --MelanieN (talk) 02:04, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@Smallbones: You should not have re-added it. There is a discussion going on here. Do not edit war your own version into the article. Wait until consensus has developed here. --MelanieN (talk) 02:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
It is already second sentence and I think it is fine that way. It is not a career path and all the others to my knowledge (I have not seen sources say otherwise) are still accurate. Personally I doubt he will practice law again as Smallbones says, but again I have not seen anything that says it is not possible. Also not to be a picky lady here but technically you are not convicted until you are sentenced. So since he was not sentenced yet he has not yet been "convicted" technically. PackMecEng (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Just saw the reversion by PackMecEng [10] and reverted back without seeing the discussion here.
It looks to me like folks are making up a few rules here that aren't in the actual rules. Is there really some rule that says a person's career has to be in the first sentence? Where? Should the first sentence identify the person as he is best known and state the most important facts about him? Does anybody really believe that he is *not* a convicted felon? If not, you are only citing technicalities. Does anybody really think that he will practice law again? - if not please don't give me that OR stuff - he is a former lawyer and nobody will dispute that fact. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Who says that is what he is best known for? Also what you are searching for on rules is MOS:FIRST and MOS:LEADBIO. I do not think anyone could reasonably say that convicted felon is the only thing he is known for which is the version you inserted. PackMecEng (talk) 02:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Smallbones, please DISCUSS. That's what we are here for. We get it: you think the first sentence should include the fact that he is a felon. ("Fact" unless PackMecEng's definition of "convicted" is right. Got a source for that, Pack?) But your proposed rewrite has so far not been seconded by anyone. And the prohibition against OR is not a "technicality", nor is the absolute requirement for sources. Find a source that describes him as a "former lawyer" or we can't use it. Look, Wikipedia works by consensus and that can take a few days. Let's work it out. There's no hurry. --MelanieN (talk) 02:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Closest I have found so far is this not a RS but still expert opinion on the matter. I will try and find a more better source. PackMecEng (talk) 02:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Better from https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/convicted
"Convict
To adjudge an accused person guilty of a crime at the conclusion of a criminal prosecution, or after the entry of a plea of guilty or a plea of nolo contendere. An individual who has been found guilty of a crime and, as a result, is serving a sentence as punishment for the act; a prisoner." I take the first sentence being for a verb and the 2nd being for a noun.
Also see at https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/lawyer
Lawyer
A person, who through a regular program of study, is learned in legal matters and has been licensed to practice his or her profession. Any qualified person who prosecutes or defends causes in courts of record or other judicial tribunals of the United States, or of any of the states, or who renders legal advice or assistance in relation to any cause or matter. Unless a contrary meaning is plainly indicated this term is synonymous with attorney, attorney at law, or counselor at law.
It looks like the plain reading of the legal definition is more on my side.
Also - in matters of consensus, counting is a valuable skill. I count 3 folks here who support what I wrote and 2 who don't. It's not a consensus yet, but until you have at least a majority, I don't think you should claim the consensus is on your side.
Finally - everybody in the whole world who has read recent reliable sources on Manafort knows that he has been convicted in the plain meaning of the term. Everybody knows that he is not not a lobbyist, a political consultant, or a practicing lawyer. "Is" is present tense. You may have reliable sources from before the conviction, but things change. You know this. That makes the current sentence (with "is", without "former") a falsehood. The is no reason ever to put a known falsehood into Wikipedia. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay so that supports my definition of conviction since the proceedings are not over yet. Also give sources that he is no longer those things. Also of those three you mention you are the only one supporting your version at the moment. PackMecEng (talk) 03:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
"or after the entry of a plea of guilty" does not support your view at all. Source below for "former lobbyist and political operative", "former lawyer" is more difficult to find (because of Cohen) but you and I both know that pleading guilty to obstructing the FBI means that he cannot now and never will act as a lawyer again. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

see also USA Today

"Wearing a dark suit, white shirt and purple tie, Manafort told U.S. District Judge Amy Jackson: "I plead guilty."

"The 69-year-old former lobbyist and political operative acknowledged leading a long-running conspiracy involving his work on behalf of a pro-Russian faction in Ukraine led by the country's former president Viktor Yanukovych. He also pleaded guilty to obstructing the special counsel investigation he has now promised to assist."

I'd think that's enough. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

  • I agree it should be in the lead now. He is well known for that, in trial and pleading guilty to it as well. This is not a case where the person is appealing it or its a minor thing. His life was wrapped around these crimes and he has been not only found guilty but also plead guilty as well. ContentEditman (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

There is clearly consensus here to include it in the first sentence. I will restore it, using the format in which it was originally inserted, namely, at the end of the sentence. That's where it is usually put (if done at all, which is isn't in the majority of cases I looked at - most seem to put the conviction in a second sentence). For examples of using it in the first sentence see Duke Cunningham, David Duke, O. J. Simpson. I could not find any examples, of people who were already notable, where "convicted felon" was put as the FIRST item in the sentence followed by "former Representative" or "former" whatever made them notable. Smallbones has found a source for calling him a "former" lobbyist, lawyer, etc., as was done for O.J., and I would be OK with adding "former", but I would oppose putting "convicted felon" as the first item in the list. --MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I like “Paul John Manafort Jr. (born April 1, 1949) is an American convicted felon and a former lobbyist, political consultant, and lawyer.” as suggested earlier. This is more accurate as and starts with what is most notable.Casprings (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Repeatedly used clip, of Norah O'Donnell asking Paul Manafort, (from 01:57 to 02:11), by late night talk shows Colbert, Corden, Fallon, Kimmel, Maher, and Meyers:

69.181.23.220 (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Jess Bond

Jess Bond is Jessica Manafort (born June 13, 1982). Is it fair to mention her here? When people change their name and they are alive what is the policy of stating their birth name? What if they actively change their own page to delete their birth name? 69.181.23.220 (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

"Manafort's daughters, Jessica and Andrea" is in the text of this page, should they be mentioned in the infobox?
69.181.23.220 (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

377UNION

69.181.23.220 (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The accusation and trial section needs a major trim

This article contains way, way too much minute-by-minute detail about his trials and convictions. This is a biography, after all. IMO most of the detail should be removed or relocated to the Trials of Paul Manafort article, with just a general summary left here. If no one objects, I will undertake that trim over the next few days. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

For addition - 'Manafort Accused of Sharing Trump Polling Data With Russian Associate' - New York Times

"Paul Manafort shared political polling data with a business associate tied to Russian intelligence, according to a court filing unsealed on Tuesday. The document provided the clearest evidence to date that the Trump campaign may have tried to coordinate with Russians during the 2016 presidential race." https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/us/politics/manafort-trump-campaign-data-kilimnik.html Skinnytony1 (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Convict??? Ex-lawyer???

I really don't like "convict" listed as one of his attributes, in our current lead sentence: Paul John Manafort Jr. (/ˈmænəfɔːrt/; born April 1, 1949) is an American lobbyist, political consultant, lawyer, and convict. I have seen "felon" or "convicted felon" listed in the lead sentence before, but never "convict".

Also, there were attempts today to change lawyer to "ex-lawyer", based on reports that he has surrendered his Connecticut law license.[11] That doesn't make him an ex-lawyer. He still has a law degree so he is still a lawyer, even if he can't or doesn't practice law anywhere. Just as a doctor who has an MD degree but never gets a medical license - maybe going into research or something - is still a doctor. I reverted "ex-lawyer" to "lawyer", but chances are it will come back. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Being a lawyer is dependent on being admitted to the bar and holding a license, not on merely possessing a law degree. However, I would suggest "former lawyer". 331dot (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi @MelanieN: I made the change that caused the page to reflect "ex-lawyer"; this was a drive-by edit to clean up an edit which added unsourced content in the process of some recent-changes patrolling. I didn't want to completely remove it because, as per my edit summary, I could find some sources with a quick Google but I wasn't about to do WP:RS due diligence on all of them hence the site needed tag. Apologies if I made the wrong call. I do agree that "convicted felon" is much better than "convict". -- a. spam | contribs 20:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I'll change it to "convicted felon". As for whether we should still describe him as a lawyer or not, I did a search for ex-lawyer and former lawyer. I could not find any sources that all that identified him that way, except with regard to being Trump's ex-lawyer or Trump's former lawyer. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, everybody is way ahead of me. Alfie put in "convicted felon", and the lawyer issue has been dealt with in a separate sentence. I'm OK with that. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Lawyers must be licensed. No longer holding a license makes you a former lawyer. Legacypac (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Guardian story about Assange/Manafort meetings in embassy

FAIR has convincingly called this story "A Case Study in Journalistic Malpractice"[12], and Manafort has called this libel. I don't think per WP:BLP their story should be used in the article, however I'm moving that paragraph here per WP:PRESERVE for discussion.

''[[The Guardian]]'' newspaper subsequently reported from a "well-placed source" that Manafort had met with [[Wikileaks]] founder [[Julian Assange]] at least three times, including in the spring of 2016, around the time that Manafort was appointed convention manager by Trump. Assange, at the time taking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, also reportedly met with a number of Russian nationals. Several months later, Wikileaks began releasing a huge trove of Democratic Party emails, hacked by Russian military intelligence beginning in March of that year.<ref name="AssangeConnection">{{cite web |last1=Harding |first1=Luke |last2=Collyns |first2=Dan |title=Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-held-secret-talks-with-assange-in-ecuadorian-embassy |website=The Guardian |publisher=Guardian News and Media Limited |accessdate=November 27, 2018}}</ref> Manifort has said the story is "totally false and deliberately libellous". Wikileaks has said Assange intends to sue ''The Guardian'' for its "fabricated" story.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-28/paul-manafort-denies-meeting-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange/10564374|title=Former Trump campaign head Paul Manafort denies 'totally false' report that he met with Julian Assange|work=ABC News|agency=Reuters/AP|date=November 28, 2018|access-date=November 28, 2018}}</ref>

-- Kendrick7talk 20:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The Washington Post has said out that no other news organization has corroborated The Guardian account. I think you were right to remove it. Philip Cross (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
He maybe did not meet personally with Assange, but Manafort discussed Assange's fate with Ecuadorean President Lenin Moreno at least twice [13][14]. That could be noted. My very best wishes (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Use Mugshot in info box

He is now convicted. This is what he is most known for. We should move the mugshot to the infobox.Casprings (talk) 12:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Is it normal to use a mugshot for someone's main photo? I am honestly asking as I am not sure that is the proper course. I agree he is now known for that but the photo is already used in the "Arrest and indictments" section. I am not for or against it just curious if its the normal and proper thing at this time. ContentEditman (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Generally no, it is not normal to use a mugshot as their info box pictures. The only reason to do so is if there is no other photo to use and they are primarily known for it. Neither is the case here. PackMecEng (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Agree with PackMecEng. Not in the infobox. The current location is very appropriate. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Didn't we dance this dance before? No, not in the infobox. Casprings, this dude is not Jeffrey Dahmer or whatever--the conviction does not cover his life or his career. I consider identifying him by his mugshot (which is the net effect of putting it in the infobox) as a kind of BLP violation. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Bernie Madoff's wikipedia entry shows his mugshot. At this point - Paul Manafort is most well know for his sketchy (and illegal) dealings in the Trump campaign.Hyperactive dave (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps it should not be used there either. But it is a fair question if it should be changed here. Generally it is frowned upon to use mugshots in general, see WP:MUG. PackMecEng (talk) 02:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Today's lede edits

It seems to me that lede edits made today tend to confuse rather than clarify the distinctions between the Virginia and DC cases, for example...

"Manafort was prosecuted in two federal courts,[a] which convicted him on eight charges of tax and bank fraud in 2018"

so two courts are noted, but the eight charges of tax and bank fraud were in the Virginia court only, but not in the DC court, and...

"His sentencing is set to be announced on March 8, 2019, and March 13, 2019,[26] with Mueller advising the court that sentencing guidelines call for a 19.5-year to 24-year prison sentence."

but those sentencing dates are in two different courts, which are not distinguished, as they were before, and the cited sentencing guidelines are for the Virginia case only and don't include today's announced sentencing guidelines for the DC case

IMO the previous versions were more clear and should be restored, then today's DC court stuff can be added. Cheers. soibangla (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I also don't like the edits. I'm a fan of streamlining but not removing useful info making the whole thing less informative. Legacypac (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

"Charges are unrelated to Russian interference"

There has recently been disagreement at the article about whether to state in the lede that the charges against Manafort are unrelated to the Russian interference in the election. The latest removal argued that the source was inadequate, since it only quoted Trump rather than asserting it as fact. But there are plenty of Reliable Sources that DO assert this as fact (mainly because it's true). Examples:

  • "And yet none of those 25 charges against Manafort are explicitly about that central question of collusion to interfere with the presidential campaign." Vox
  • "The charges do not relate to Manafort's work on the Trump campaign or involve allegations of Russian election interference." Chicago Tribune
  • "But the charges against Manafort do not explicitly relate to Russia or its attack on the US election." The Guardian
  • "The Mueller investigation turned up evidence being used in the trial, but the charges are not related to Russian interference in the 2016 election." Washington Post

This is significant information, especially since it would be easy to infer that the charges against him ARE related to Russia since they are being brought by the special counsel. The point that they are not has been widely reported by Reliable Sources. I believe a brief mention of it should be in the lede as part of the paragraph describing the charges. Comments? --MelanieN (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@My very best wishes, BOLO97, and Pincrete: Pinging the people involved in the recent disputed edit. --MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
@BOLO 97: Messed up the ping. --MelanieN (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
My reason for removing was that it was a bit strange to say what the charges were NOT about and - to me - had the effect of drawing attention to the possibility that they were connected - without having said who thought there was a connection and what that might be. Note also that the sources use phrases like 'not explicitly', presumably they are related at least to the extent that they came to light as a result of special counsel's investigation. I don't feel very strongly about it, but wonder why we would say what someone was NOT charged with. Pincrete (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Not sure why this is being allowed on Wikipedia but it seems like some users are making numerous false claims regarding this specific issue. Another user earlier today stated it was "something Trump said according to the source" when that is not true. I just read through the WaPo article to make sure and here is what it says: "U.S. attorneys are prosecuting Manafort on charges of failing to pay taxes on millions he made from his work for a Russia-friendly Ukrainian political party and then lying to get loans when the cash stopped coming in. The Mueller investigation turned up evidence being used in the trial, but the charges are not related to Russian interference in the 2016 election". So let me get this straight, users are allowed to remove RS text by just making things up, then an admin says that my edit has been "objected to" (even though it has only been objected to by users making stuff up, e.g. another user VolunteerMarek claimed yesterday the sources were outdated when the source is from 2 days ago and also said the source wasn't RS when WaPo is clearly a reliable source). What is going on here? BOLO 97 (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Here is the WaPo source for the text so other users can read it and judge for themselves: [15]
  • The lead says stuff like this "He is also a person of interest in the FBI counterintelligence probe looking into the Russian government's interference in the 2016 presidential election" and also this "The indictment charged Manafort with conspiracy against the United States...being an unregistered agent of foreign principal". Therefore a sentence in the lead that states none of the charges Manafort faces are related to Russian interference is needed. The source that keeps being removed for some strange reason (by the same user) is RS and sourced to WaPo. BOLO 97 (talk) 08:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • REMOVE I see that the claim "the charges are not related to Russian interference in the 2016 election" appears in the WaPo article that is BOLO 97's source, but I think that what the WaPo writer meant was that the charges are not directly related to Russia's interference. It's very hard to prove a general negative, because a general negative is disproved by any counterexample. In this case, for example, the charges against Manafort were turned up during an investigation into Russian interference. Also, Manafort is being tried for hiding from the IRS money that he received from a pro-Russian party in Ukraine, and one of the few changes that the Trump campaign asked to be made in the Republican party platform that year weakened America's support for Ukraine in its effort to fight off Russia. The change in the platform can't be construed as interference with the election in terms of its outcome, but it might have constituted interference with the foreign policy adopted by the party that prevailed in the 2016 election. The change in platform might not have been related to Manafort's alleged crimes, because it might have been the result of a separate effort at interference on Russia's part. Or the change might have been unfortunate coincidence. But I don't think it's been proven yet that there's categorically no relationship between Manafort's alleged crimes and Russian interference in the 2016 election, and I'd vote to remove the line from the intro section. Rider1819 (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Mueller, along with 17 other prosecutors, have been seriously investigating Manafort for over a year. He probably did some shady illegal stuff which is why he is now facing years in prison. Does anyone really think if there was even the slightest bit of evidence Manafort had colluded with Russian interference he wouldn't also be charged with that? That sentence should definitely stay in the lead as long as those other charges are listed in the lead. And the WaPo source does not use the word directly. BOLO 97 (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes. He can always be charged with that stuff later. You pick the easy fruit first.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Exclude - there's no claim about charges otherwise, we list the relevant charges, so this is already redundant.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Huh??? About 10 different charges are listed in the lead. The lead says stuff like "Manafort is also a person of interest in the FBI counterintelligence probe looking into the Russian government's interference in the 2016 presidential election" and also this "The indictment charged Manafort with conspiracy against the United States...being an unregistered agent of foreign principal". Again, as long as that text is in the lead, the WaPo sentence at the end should remain. Also please don't make false accusations of vandalism and "political, unilateral edits" as you did over on your talk page. Also please stop violating WP:MUG, you've done it several times now. BOLO 97 (talk) 03:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • On March 9, 2019, Mcfnord removed my edit On the day of the sentencing, the judge said Manafort “is not before the court for any allegations that he, or anyone at his direction, colluded with the Russian government to influence the 2016 election."[1]. Mcfnord indicates in the revision note that It's a tangent that I doubt we should emphasize.. I respectfully disagree with the comment that the judge statement is 'tangent' because the suspicion of Russian governement inluence in the 2016 election was in the first place what started the investigative work that led to the present conviction of Paul Manafort. I think my edit should be restored and perhaps completed with a clarification that there remain other pending proceedings against Paul Manafort that may lead to a conviction in connection with Russia role in the 2016 election. I'll let other editors weigh in. thank you. Typom (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  1. ^ Lynch, Sarah N. (March 7, 2019). "U.S. judge gives Trump ex-aide Manafort leniency: under four years in prison". Reuters. Retrieved March 9, 2019.
Hello! Thank you for bringing in this debate to my attention. I do see RS clarifying for readers that the convictions are not about Russian interference, or the candidate campaign. This might be worth mention in passing (even in the lede), but I suggest judge quotes should be limited to the most germane statements about the trial of the subject. We quote the judge saying the guideline was "excessive", and I am surprised we don't quote the "otherwise blameless life" claim by the judge. I think the judge said the matter wasn't related to Russian election interference because the sentencing pleadings by the defendant were focused almost solely on that claim. I find myself asking: Is the quote about the subject? About Mueller? About the judge's hard-thought conclusion? None of these... the judge said it because the defendant's sentencing focused almost exclusively on an issue not before the court, of Russian collusion. Perhaps the defendant was appealing for a pardon. Perhaps the defendant was just confused about the charges. This trial concluded that the subject did some crimes unrelated to collusion. Another trial might conclude that he also did crimes related to collusion. We clearly state these matters were uncovered by Mueller in the course of his investigation. I think we should quote judges about the conclusions they make about the case before them. The quote and claim are tangential to this legal proceeding. Perhaps we should clarify for readers, but I don't think we should quote the judge on matters beyond the scope of their verdict. Mcfnord (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I just heard the current POTUS refer to this statement by the judge in a misleading way. I cannot support inclusion of this quote, as the POTUS has misused its meaning and misinferred its implications, in ways Wikipedia must not enable. This statement by the judge is information prompted by deflection in the sentencing pleading and must not be inferred to mean what the POTUS implied it means. Mcfnord (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Lawyer

Manafort was a lawyer. He earned a law degree and practiced law for years. His activities in politics are informed by his lawyer status. He maintained his law license until early 2019. I fail to see why anyone keeps trying to remove this fact from the lede. Legacypac (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2019

After his first official security briefing, Trump minimized Manafort's role and only 2 days later forced Paul Manafort to resign as Campaign Chairman on August 19, 2016, a position he held for less than 2 months.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/paul-manafort-resigns-from-trump-campaign-227197

During Manafort's time as Chairman of the Trump campaign, none of the crimes to which Manafort has admitted occurred.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Manafort_superseding_indictment.pdf

On April 12, 2017, the AP reported that Manafort retroactively registered as a foreign agent. His work as a foreign agent directly ties him to have worked with former Clinton campaign chairman, John Podesta.

https://apnews.com/7820703c490a45a8a5608274e24e827b


2600:1702:1330:CAE0:B9C3:F50:6400:5190 (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Manafort was on the campaign for longer than two months, and they were critocal months. He helple d two different roles - delegate wrangling and then chairman. Trump wants to minimize this making like he hardly knew Manafort but that is just anothe rTrump lie. Legacypac (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy to Defraud the United States

Could somebody please add a bit to the article explaining what his "Conspiracy to Defraud the United States" actually meant? I don't want a definition of the charge, I want to know exactly how he was defrauding the United States. What was he doing there? Every time I read about this charge, it's all very vague. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Suppression of on topic news item

Soooo...documents obtained by Judicial Watch concerning a meeting between the AP, DOJ, and the FBI is "speculation"? If FBI docs are "speculation" then the PTB around here need to get busy and so some more editing on multiple articles. Disgraceful.RRskaReb talk 22:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

RRskaReb: Concerning the revert of this edit, the speculation is the quoted content only from the view of Manafort's lawyers, saying that DOJ, FBI and AP personnel colluded for background on Manafort's banking. This fails WP:V, and is basically hearsay and WP:RECENTISM until further information is revealed. It is unencyclopedic to write content based on one side's interpretation of events still under investigation. --Zefr (talk) 01:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
OK, thank you for the response. Don't agree, as the details of the meeting were compiled by the FBI. How can released FBI docs be construed as "hearsay"? I think there is POV in that statement, but, whatever. Cheers. RRskaReb talk 01:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

"cardiac event", add?

X1\ (talk) 01:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_Manafort/Archive_1&oldid=1137074116"