Talk:Quid pro quo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2019[edit]

I would advise Wikipedia to remove this content

Donald Trump Impeachment Inquiry
Main article: Trump–Ukraine scandal
Quid pro quo has been frequently mentioned during the impeachment inquiry into U.S. president Donald Trump, in reference to his request for an investigation of Hunter Biden as a precondition for the delivery of congressionally authorized military aid during a call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky.[20]

As it is political and there should not be political content on a non political article Also it is possible libel to both the president Turmp as well as the Bidens Dq209 (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep I would almost agree with you User:FlightTime, but for two reasons. First, it is an excellent example of a Quid Pro Quo in the political arena which helps illustrate the article, and that is almost sufficient in itself. Second, there is a LOT of traffic being driven to Wikipedia these days due to the hearing, THIS article in particular, so a link to the actual main article about the impeachment is warranted to make the Encyclopedia more friendly to causal users and a short concise description of the Quid Quo Pro that the hearings revolve around is warranted. The latter reason is time sensitive, as there will be less traffic to the page when the hearings (and possible impeachment) is over, so with time that reason will expire. Were either of those two reasons moot, then the one reason left would not be enough to retain the entry - which is why I would, under other circumstances, agree with you. You raise an interesting legal point; Does anyone know how we could get the Wikipedia in house legal council to issue an opinion on this? I personally think this entry is safe because the facts are pretty straight forward: The hearing is taking place, it is in fact being mentioned, Donald Trump is the president and he is the basis of the hearings, and the issue they are dealing with is exactly as stated in the sentence. Alleged or not, the issue is as stated and it is no different than what is being reported worldwide in the press; if they are safe from slander so are we. Timmccloud (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don’t think it should be removed, but neither do I think an allegation (even a likely one) should be stated as fact, especially in WP:BLP matters. The way it’s written leaves no room for doubt—the investigation was a precondition for the aid. If we want to say something like that so strongly in Wikipedia’s voice, I’d say we need a stronger source than one person’s testimony reported by a left-leaning newspaper. Otherwise, it should be rephrased, maybe something like, “in reference to the accusation…”. — (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I’ve edited it to recast it as something someone said, rather than a definitive objective reality. As much as I’d love to say that every negative thing about the man is true, we can’t take sides in an encyclopedic voice and maintain integrity. (talk) 02:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I believe your nuances are lost in this article. There is a main article to make your points, But it doesn't belong here. As you recast it, you lay the accusation on only one person, when actually this accusation was made by multiple people, and the evidential trail of information was enough to warrant impeachment. I believe your recast, as you have made it, is highly misleading and it's better to simplify this entry by stating it simply as it was. I realize that your recast is in line with the reference, but this is only one of many references, far to numerous to list in this article (again, all of this should be in the main article, not here. How would you simplify this statement to being a short note in line with being an example in the article, without getting into nuance and overly footnoting the wrong article? (also, please name your account so we don't have to call you Thanks! Timmccloud (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Timmccloud: We certainly don’t need as much nuance as I added (in hindsight, that’s just way too many words), but I’d argue we still need some for the time being.

If at all possible, I would replace the citation with one to a bulletproof source that authoritatively states Trump’s motive. (I haven’t been keeping up with the news, so it may have become more of a hard fact, but I thought it was still in debate.) Without an irrefutable source, I’m not comfortable having an unqualified attribution of motive in WIkipedia’s voice. Failing that, I would have this (and any other passing mention) simply say he was accused of what he’s accused of. Hm, maybe… “in reference to the charge that his request … was a precondition …”? Something like that? That’s only three extra words, down from the fifteen or so that I added. Still a wordy sentence in general, though… (talk) 08:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Its definitely better and I would totally support this edit. No need to bring specific accusers into it (like Vendamin), because once impeached, the accusal has the weight of the entire house. The senate decides what remedy, if any should occur, but the accusation is no longer in question. I agree it's already wordy (and I've had to cull it multiple times), but keeping it to a single sentence, yet still relevant as an example has been a challenge. Timmccloud (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On an off-topic note, you, sir, embody the intended spirit of Wikipedia. — (talk) 08:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]