Talk:Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump/Archive 1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1

Is this a good title for the draft

Self-explanatory. Since the first impeachment had 3 pages (inquiry/impeachment/trial) I was considering we call this impeachment? Since the "2021 efforts" article is under discussion for being renamed "Second impeachment process" (since there was never an inquiry). Phillip Samuel (talk) 02:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Appropriate images for House managers

Are the images that I chose for the House managers table appropriate? I copied the table from the previous Senate trial and then changed the people to fit the occasion. For some reason I can't find an image for Eric Swalwell in the image search; it shows caricatures instead and him wearing a mask. Phillip Samuel (talk) 06:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Resolved the problem Phillip Samuel (talk) 08:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Isn't this a Crucifixion?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Non-admin (and admittedly involved) closure of an off-topic thread  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

This article feels like a CNN news that only give one side of the coin, I read all the article and didn't read the part that says that this impeachment started because a twitt that 'lead' to the violence on the capitol, this twitter should be cited to at least make people think if you would impeach the president and give more context, and I say this because this matter hasn't Been closed.

Also the part that say that Trump falsely claimed election fraud, is over the edge because there was never a recounting of the ballots manually, so there's no proof that effectively there was no fraud (in my country Venezuela happened the same, there was fraud, there was evidence, even the CEO from the smatmatic said that there were manipulation on the results and you know what it happened the same as in US neither the judges or the "president" permitted the recounting, if you won cleanly like in a bingo you show it), so at least remove the part that says that his FALSE claim of election fraud there is no proof that what he said is false because like I said before there was no recounting of the ballots manually. Luislo.ol (talk) 07:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

It's hard to be unbiased in hot political issues. Feel free to make your own contributions though. See WP:BOLD. Nxavar (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
@Luislo.ol: It's false because he made the general claim of fraud through as series of sub-claims that were disproven, including various whack conspiracies. That's how we can justifiably say he claimed so falsely.
Also there WERE recounts. Wisconsin found no mass fraud in its partial recount (and, in fact, Trump's team tried to obstruct the recount that THEY had requested). Georgia did two statewide recounts, and found no mass fraud. Antrim County, Michigan found no mass voter fraud. And, despite this, Trump continued to claim there was fraud in these states. And judges never "forbid" recounts. In various states, Trump had no right to request a recount due to his margin of defeat, and produced no legal grounds for an exception to be made. In other states including ones he lost (I believe, including as New Hampshire, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania) and ones he won (I believe, including Iowa, Ohio, Texas), he never applied for a recount to be organized, even though he had a right to.
SecretName101 (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
@Luislo.ol: Neither this talk page nor any other is the place to try to prove to the world that Biden did not legitimately win the election. Considering that this comment is the first and only contribution you've made to the encyclopedia so far, I worry that you may not be here for the right reasons. However, considering that you are new, I would hope that this interaction could allow you to familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia is and what it is not. To pretend that Trump's claims of election fraud are not false would sacrifice objectivity in the name of neutrality. I would strongly advise against creating a talk section with a title as loaded as "isn't this a crucifixion?" when the topic of the article is simply the Senate trial in which senators vote on articles passed by the House.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 08:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
This article is not about vote fraud so the matter is not supposed to be thoroughly analyzed. Also in cases were accusations are made the burden of proof is not on the accused by on the accusor. The article is being absolutely neutral and objective in stating that Trump made false claims, and although fellow wikipedians @SecretName101: and @Vanilla Wizard: took it upon themselves to prove it to you, doing this on the article is simply off-topic. Now how this fact is presented, whether there is a negativity spin on it or not, that may be debatable. Nxavar (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2021 (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.

Organize trial sections for article

Hey, it seems that I am getting involved in an edit conflict where my edits keep getting reversed, so I want to resolve it here. I want to organize the sections to mirror that of the article for the first impeachment trial of Donald Trump. Specifically (and insert new sections as new events happen):

3 Opening ceremonies 4 Trial memoranda and responses 5 Procedural resolution and debate 6 Opening statements 6.1 Prosecution 6.2 Defense

And then we insert some sections for important events, like Rand Paul's motion to dismiss the impeachment. A heading for the trial on this page is unnecessary since *this* article is for the trial. A heading for the trial would be more appropriate for the impeachment page, which for the first impeachment of Donald Trump is more holistic and had headings for Background, Impeachment, and Trial. The second impeachment of Donald Trump likewise should follow the same format. Thoughts? Phillip Samuel (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Clarification

As Leahy is going to preside over the trial. Won't that mean he's barred from voting in the trial? GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand the selection of Leahy for that reason. If Roberts isn't to preside, then it should fall to Harris, as the VP would normally preside over all impeachments that don't involve a sitting president (though I am unsure to what extent this has been the case in the recent trials for judges; perhaps some aspects of the trials were presided over by majority-party senators, as for normal senate business). Apparently there has been some calculation that Leahy will appear more neutral than Harris would. I also wonder if Roberts was involved in the decision at all. I do believe we should expect Leahy to vote in the trial, but I don't think anyone has yet fully appreciated the oddity and poor precedent of a juror presiding over a trial. Mdewman6 (talk) 07:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, looking at the NPR article, it does point out that in recent trials for judges, the president pro tem. has presided (and voted), so the precedent seems to be there. (As an aside, it amazes me that even some senators say things that seem to imply they believe that only presidents can be impeached.) Mdewman6 (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Question now moot, as Leahy was sworn in with the other senators, as jurors. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Title and style

The title should be "2021 Impeachment of Donald Trump."

Think it's more appropriate for it to be as it is already. We usually leave it at "impeachment" and for Trump "first/second" since it's more formal. All other officeholders got impeached once, so putting the year is unnecessary Phillip Samuel (talk) 08:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Instead of "first president to be impeached twice," it should be "first president to be impeached on two separate occasions." Since the first occasion had two articles, he was technically impeached twice already.

All the sources are saying "impeached twice". -- MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Scare quotes are not protection from plagiarism.

I removed the scare quotes from Each senator was then sworn in as a juror,[73] pledging to do "impartial justice"[74] and signing the oath book.[73] The summons to Trump was issued the same day.[73] per WP:SCAREQUOTES with this edit. David O. Johnson (talk · contribs) reverted this saying the quotes were needed to avoid plagiarism. Anyone reading this would see the quotes as expressing doubt rather then a quote. We should remove these quote marks to maintain Wikipedia's WP:NPOV. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

It's taken directly from the cited ref:
"The action on Tuesday unfolded just after the Senate convened as a court of impeachment and senators took an oath, dating to the 18th century, to administer “impartial justice.”"
Not every instance of quote usage is automatically scare quotes. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@David O. Johnson: removing the quotes then does not avoid plagiarism, in fact it is the reverse. If we are rephrasing it, we do not have to use the quotes. When I read it, it seems to express doubt that the senators will actually be impartial and so expresses sarcasm in Wikipedia's voice. Exactly how is the meaning changed by taking out the quotes. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

External links

Please add a direct link to the President Trump's legal brief in response to the articles of impeachment. I'd post the link if I could find it but it has so far escaped my attempts to track it down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael-Ridgway (talk • contribs) 20:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Michael-Ridgway: His legal brief is already provided at the "Trial memoranda and responses" section. But you may be interested in knowing that a deletion discussion is underway for the legal brief at this Commons discussion page. Edge3 (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Deletion discussion of Trump's trial memorandum

Hello. Trump's answer to the House trial memorandum is included in this article's "Trial memoranda and responses" section, which I understand to be consistent with how we handled the memoranda during the first impeachment trial. However, I'm concerned that posting a copy of Trump's memorandum violates copyright belonging to him or his lawyers, and I've initiated a deletion request on Commons. Please feel free to provide your input on that page, if you're interested. Edge3 (talk) 04:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Trump letter

Neutrality Hi, it appears that my edits relating to the "House's invitation for Trump's testimony" section were removed on the basis of the source being non-RS. [1] I was quoting and paraphrasing directly from the letter. If reliable sources are needed, simply cite an RS source with a verbatim transcript, or put the RS template for me to fix. Phillip Samuel (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Do we really need more than 1 sentence to summarize a 4-sentence letter? Neutralitytalk 02:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Trump's letter been highly publicized and reported on multiple news networks and articles, so it should be elaborated more like the House's letter. Phillip Samuel (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I think what we say what we need to say on Trump's lawyers' four-sentence letter: the House asked him to testify, his lawyers said he won't. Not a lot more that we need to say. Neutralitytalk 02:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Their letter was very strongly worded, and multiple news networks picked that up. A simple declination would merit a sentence imo. They way they said it is what has gained its publicity. Phillip Samuel (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Purpose of the file of Trump's answer to House's brief under discussion

The purpose of the file is currently being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's image use policy. The outcome of the discussion may result in the file's usage or license being changed, or possibly its deletion. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this file's entry on the Files for discussion page. Phillip Samuel (talk) 03:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The Present Crisis

Barry Black used part of the poem The Present Crisis in his opening prayer on the first day of the trial. Thriley (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Opening arguments - defense

This section talks about what the attorneys have said they intend to do, rather than what they did. I'm inclined to remove it unless someone can persuade me otherwise. soibangla (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

soibangla Multiple notable and reliable news sources have provided broad commentary on the possible opening arguments provided by the managers prior to the trial, and thus fits WP's notability criteria. However, it would be more appropriate to delegate that to a separate section, like "Argument preparation", and then have the actual arguments on the "opening arguments" section. Thoughts? Phillip Samuel (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2021

Please change label in protection from (pp-semi) to (pp-vandalism) because i see when the article is semi-protected, there has too much vandalism on the page. It is actually protected not because arbitration enforcement, but due to persistent vandalism from multiple IPs. 36.65.47.156 (talk) 08:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Not necessary, the result is the same. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. 36.65.47.156 (talk) 10:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Senators' positions according to USA Today

According to the article in its current state, the positions are as follows:

38 Democrats support, 0 oppose, 10 have no statement
6 Republicans support, 34 oppose, 10 have no statement
2 Independents support, 0 oppose, 0 have no statement

It cites a USA Today page that appears to show contradictory information:

40 Democrats support (this includes the independents, this isn't the issue), 0 oppose, 10 have no statement
0 Republicans support, 35 oppose, 15 have no official statement

Is this a mistake, or am I misreading the source? I don't know what explains the discrepancy with the Republican positions. Should we change the content of the article, or should we change the source?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Section need more commentary

Hola, I believe that we need more commentary on certain sections of the page. In the "House's brief, Trump's answer, House's replication" heading, there is no description of the House's replication refuting Trump's answer. Furthermore, in the "Trump's brief, House's reply" heading, there is no explanation of the House's reply memorandum. Finally, there should be a lot more commentary on the House's opening arguments, since that is what will be on the public record - the House's complete compilation of Trump's conduct. Phillip Samuel (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Tighten Writing

I think I could remove 20 or so words from the first part of the page. For example, change "Trump was impeached for the second time by the House of Representatives on January 13, 2021. The House adopted one article of impeachment against Trump: incitement of insurrection. He is the only U.S. president and only federal official to be impeached twice" to be "On January 13, 2021 the House of Representatives adopted one article of impeachment against Trump: incitement of insurrection. He is the only federal official to be impeached twice". And the sentence "The VP does not vote to break ties" seems to be unneeded to me. I am worried that my bold edit would be called reckless and I would get sanctioned and banned from Wikipedia. 75.191.88.100 (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC) JMz

Change Tense

This sentence: "and he is to be tried after he has left office."

Should this future tense now be changed to past or present? Something along the lines of "the trial took place after he had left office". Looks like that sentence was written prior to the trail beginning and hasn't been updated since the trial began. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:160:E728:2:0:0:0:A (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

No. 8.3 - Reactions … to Defense-arguments

please add - 8.3

--Quousqueta (talk) 10:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Belknap

Suggested change:
"(Belknap was acquitted, with a majority (57%) but not the required two-thirds voting for conviction)".

Ref [2]: "the Senate voted 35 to 25 to convict Belknap, with one Senator not voting, thus acquitting Belknap of all charges by failing to reach the required two-thirds majority".[1][2][3]

  1. ^ Glass 2017.
  2. ^ Purcell 2008, p. 34.
  3. ^ McFeely (1974), p. 152

89.8.135.22 (talk) 10:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

A different suggested change:
(Belknap was acquitted; 40% voted for acquittal; less than two-thirds (57%) voted for conviction.) 89.8.135.22 (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2021

To add the subpoena vote of 55-45 172.11.72.246 (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the suggestion. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Vote on subpoenas surprised me

I'm sort of surprised that the House Democrats called witnesses since the House knew that the full and complete record of the attack still had unknowns and new facts were getting discovered, like CNN's bombshell of Trump's call with McCarthy. Since I was expected the format of this page to be like the last trial, I'm starting to think that it might follow Clinton's. How do we split this? Do we need a separate section for witnesses? Phillip Samuel (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

They were surprised too! This is getting us into unfamiliar territory, but they haven't yet drawn up the rules for witnesses. It may open up a whole new area of reporting, or it may become kind of pro-forma. Let's see how it develops. I would really prefer to keep all the trial material in this one article if at all possible. I don't know what you mean by "might follow Clinton's"; that impeachment has everything, including the trial, in a single article. And so does the "First impeachment of Donald Trump" article. This subject has already been split once, I'd hate to see any more. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Oops, sorry for my word choice. I mistakenly said "split" in the way I hadn't intended. I obviously agree with you that everything relevant to this trial should be in this page and shouldn't be split. I was wondering how we were going to section this page in a matter similar to the Impeachment of Bill Clinton. Phillip Samuel (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

now they changed their minds; we should still have a section about how they did call for a vote, how there was a vote, how they backtracked afterwards, and the reasons why they did so SRD625 (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2021 (2)

The senate is not evenly split, it’s 51-50. Although Kamala Harris cannot split a tie it must be mentioned dems do have control 108.170.65.170 (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2021 (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. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2021 (3)

On February 13th 2021, the Senate voted to acquit the former president by a 57 to 43 vote. 7 republican senators joined the democratic senators in this vote. No further votes shall be held on this article of impeachment. 97.77.71.138 (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

 Already done already in article EvergreenFir (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Section 'Vote on subpoenas', admitting JHB's statement as evidence

Note that, per Video of hearing[3] at 4.21 the evidence was admitted on the basis that neither party conceded the truth of the matter asserted by the other and that each senator shall decide for himself the weight to be given to such evidence. This is an important part of the proceeding, showing, first, how the majority and minority leaders eventually resolved the quandary that had taken them by surprise, and secondly, that this left the question of weight of the evidence both unresolved and not open to further argument. But how should it appear in the article text? Qexigator (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any secondary sources reporting on this? We can't use a youtube of the actual speech, that's a primary source. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
That is why I have mentioned this: has anyone found a citable source for this important fact in the way in which the proceedings were conducted to conclude on the day according to intended timetable? Qexigator (talk) 00:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Can we remove the sentence concerning the Lincoln Project?

They are not a relevant organization and likely played no large role in "convincing" law firms to not represent the fmr. president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.43.89 (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

article name

@Qexigator: I've moved the page back to Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump. This has been the page's title for a while, is currently linked as the title on the main page, etc. If you would like to change the name to 2021 Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump, please use a RM, as I think that would be a somewhat controversial move. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 15:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, thanks that was my error. Qexigator (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump#Political reactions issues

Can someone please help me add political reactions to the trial? It had a lot of publicity, both during and after from public and political figures. I believe Schumer and Pelosi harshly condemned McConnell and called him pathetic for creating the jurisdictional issue that gave him and other Republicans an excuse to vote to acquit. Both Joe Biden and Donald Trump released official statements and remarks following the acquittal, and they deserve more space than one line. Phillip Samuel (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

so political mud slinging, namecalling and childish remarks make it to the pages of wikipedia? shouldn't it be concise and not too long winded? I mean its obvious alot of this is a political show of force, impeachment no longer means anything at all. so childish thrashing about by any party (either by a sore looser or by a unsportly winner) doesnt belong on wikipedia. Daggerfella (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

regardless its notably reported, and as childish trump's comments are, he is still former president trump Phillip Samuel (talk) 06:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Mudslinging and snide insults shouldnt be on wikipedia. adding opinionated commentary by politicians to an event and posting them on a site that presents facts seems illogical Daggerfella (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Daggerfella Forum style discussions like this are not permitted. If you want to rant about the Democrats you can do that on facebook. Please see WP:NOTFORUM Bacondrum 20:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Affirmed precedents on Constitutionality of the trial for members of government

This impeachment trial was almost an exact parallel of Belknap's trial in regards to how Senators viewed the constitutionality of a trial of a former member of the government. In both cases they voted with a simple majority that the trial is constitutional. However, the required increased majority was not reached on the conviction vote because many Senators disagreed with constitutionality although they agreed with the guilt of the defendant of "Serious Crimes and Misdemeanors". Should we draw this parallel in the article? Nxavar (talk) 11:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Please link to RS for this information, which, if factual and not opinionated hearsay, should be included in the article. Qexigator (talk) 12:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Actually, if the RS is an RS then it doesn't matter if anybody thinks it is 'opinionated' or if it reports 'hearsay'.Nxavar (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Coverage heading?

Should there be a "Coverage" heading? In the first impeachment trial, the article did have a heading. Phillip Samuel (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

It depends. If the first one had more "coverage" than this one then it is a different situation. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vesper flying chrysanthemum (talk · contribs) 11:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


This article is well-written and meets the relevent criteria.

1. Well-written: Sentences are encyclopedic and there are no grammatical errors. The manual of style for this article is valid.
2. Verifiable with no original research: Article is extensively referenced with 224 in total, pertinent for the length, unreliable sources (e.g., Twitter/Facebook) are minimal and each of those utilised (e.g., 54th) are directly referred to in the article.
3. Broad in coverage: The article is long, comprehensive, and with information on background, opinions and impeachment details. Sections are also not overtly long and link to relevant other Wikipedia articles on the topics. AN example would be the two background sections, each linked to the main article.
4. Neutral: Article maintains a relevant encyclopedic tone and rarely shows any Democratic or Republican bias. An example would be the follwoing sentence: "Four scenarios for the removal of Trump from office had been posited by members of Congress, members of Trump's cabinet, political commentators, or legal scholars: resignation, the invocation of the 14th Amendment, invocation of the 25th Amendment, or impeachment and conviction."Stable:
5. Stability: Generally good, there might be rare acts of vandalism, but the last one, which removed 11,000 bites and said that it took out the lies, was from 5 May 2021, The other previous ones were from March and February respectively, but day-to-day stability is well ensured and vandalism on rare occasions is promptly addressed, and no problems have emerged recently.
6. Illustrated: Extensive and with detailed annotations and relevant links.

Overall, this article is passed for a good article criteria. Congratulations from Vesper flying chrysanthemum.

Vesper flying chrysanthemum Thank you for the review and the feedback! You also need to pass the article using the WP:GAN/I#PASS policy. Phillip Samuel (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

"Acquittal"/"acquitted"

Trump was not "acquitted." A majority voted to convict. In a criminal trial, a conviction or acquittal must be unanimous. Anything less than that is not a verdict at all. In the case of impeachment, two-thirds are necessary for a conviction. The word "acquit" is not in the impeachment provisions of the Constitution, but if people want to say it informally, that's fine. Logically, following the pattern of a criminal trial, acquittal requires the same two-thirds vote as conviction. That being the case, a 57-43 vote in favor of conviction is neither a conviction nor an acquittal. There were simply insufficient votes to convict.

And yes, I am aware that the "reliable sources" are almost unanimous in using the words "acquitted" and "acquittal", which is why I am not making the edit. In this case, the "reliable sources" are all wrong. It points out a flaw in Wikipedia's approach to the "truth." Fortunately, situations where the entire media are this wrong about something this important are very rare. Neutron (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is of no value whatsoever. Please pay attention to the warnings on every TP - about WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM.104.169.21.238 (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm not permitted to say the article is wrong? Would it be better if I just edit it so it is correct? Neutron (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Neutron, please understand: This is an encyclopedia. We report what Reliable Sources say; WP:Verifiability is one of our founding principles. You have an opinion, that the Reliable Source usage is in error. You base this opinion on your interpretation of how conviction and acquittal work in criminal trials. But impeachment is not a criminal trial, and different rules are in play. In any case, on this talk page, we are not going to debate whether you are right or wrong in an absolute sense; this is not a place for philosophical debate. We report only what we can verify through Reliable Sources. "The Reliable Sources are all wrong" is not an argument that carries any weight at Wikipedia. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I know what Wikipedia is. I have been on here longer than you have. And I don't care what carries weight on Wikipedia. I care about accuracy. Neutron (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
It points out a flaw in Wikipedia's approach to the "truth." - Please see WP:TRUTH about that.
I am aware that the "reliable sources" are almost unanimous in using the words "acquitted" and "acquittal", which is why I am not making the edit. - Then why are you making a comment about it on the talk page? Talk pages exist so we can discuss how to make the article better, it's not a place to voice your opinion on RSs. byteflush Talk 02:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
WP:TRUTH is just an essay, not policy. I helped make it not be policy anymore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_55#Trypotofish's_proposal_revisited
As for talk pages existing to make the article better, I think making it accurate would make it better than its current inaccurate state. The fact that WP policies prevent it from being accurate does not change the fact that it is inaccurate. Neutron (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I guess, Neutron, you know both sides of the problem better than many others, as well as the problem of frustration when the deemed RS fail to present a balanced and truthful account of events or facts which other sources, including uncontested and undoctored videos, are actually more reliable to any person capable of making useful edits. However, in my view, acquittal it must be, taking into account Acquittal, Impeachment in the United States and Senate website[4] where the only result of trial is either convict or acquit. Qexigator (talk) 07:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
The fact that WP policies prevent it from being accurate Well, I'm glad you recognize that WP policies are what we are talking about here. Yes, WP policies do require going with what RS say. WP policy also mandates that editing is determined by consensus. No one in this discussion has agreed that we should remove the word "acquittal" because in your opinion it is inaccurate. You are welcome to go on believing that. But I think this discussion is approaching WP:DEADHORSE territory. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Major news networks paint this as acquitted, the semantics being run by those doing damage control should not be in here as that is obvious. The Washington Post printed that Trump was Aquitted, are they not a valid source anymore? your opinion is not a verified source. sorry... Daggerfella (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

"conviction or acquittal must be unanimous" Not, it does not have to be, even in USA. "The government has no constitutional rights and therefore has no entitlement to avoid an acquittal in the absence of unanimity." There is a Hung Jury concept and a mistrial concept, there is that little fact that the President has absolute immunity and cannot be convicted in impeachment in a criminal sense. The President is above the law as it applies to common humans, starting with Hatch Act and stopping at copyright law, that does not apply to President at all. The political rethoric of some individuals is just what it is -- a political rethoric. The most classic example is of course Blagojevich. I understand that you are coming from Ramos v. Louisiana SCOTUS case, but retrials are not allowed in impeachment, so it is not applicable, and it is now sure thing Trump's free speach was not a criminal behaviour. 2A00:1FA0:27A:B579:88C0:D0CE:1135:6B49 (talk) 09:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Should the Question and answer section be split off into a separate article?

I added the Q&A session live while news were reporting. First impeachment trial of Donald Trump#Question-and-answer session is roughly the same size as this section. I don't think like the first trial it's appropriate to add headings. Is it better to split it into a new article and then summarizing it here, or condensing the section? Phillip Samuel (talk) 00:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I certainly don't favor splitting it off; it's not that big a problem. We could trim it some. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
MelanieN I think the q&a section of this article should be at least as big as the other article so we maintaining standards, especially since this imp trial is much more contentious arguably than the last trial. I was commenting live from media sources everytime a reputable source was covering a question, so that's why it is its current size. I also noted that particularly contentious questions (like Cruz attempting to equate Harris to Trump, or Sanders trying to make Trump's lawyers state whether they believed the election was stolen) in separate paragraph, which will have other notable reliable sources report on the same. Other less contentious questions were grouped into one paragraph. Phillip Samuel (talk) 04:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think we should go into great detail about individual questions. This is a minor part of the trial. The section could probably use a little trimming; you did a good job recording it live, but posting things live always makes us include some material that in retrospect isn't that important. Even at its current length, there is no need to split it off into a separate article. If anything we should be expanding our material about the cases presented by the prosecution team and the defense team IMO. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
I do still think that the q&a section of this article should be at least as big as the other article so we maintaining the same standard, especially since this imp trial is much more contentious arguably than the last trial. However, you are right in that questions that have been noted by multiple sources should be kept, and the rest should be trimmed out. I was using ABC's live commentary for the bulk of it from beginning to end, then started finding other sources to cite for notable questions. The section should have questions that have been reported by multiple notable and reliable sources. I'm sure every news network was reporting live on the questions, but certain questions that were reported multiple times by different networks, or the more controversial questions should stay on, and the rest removed. Phillip Samuel (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I personally think it’s fine how it is but it does deserve some cleanup and some of the less important questions could be cut out SRD625 (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

It's my view that this is actually one of the more important sections of this trial, mainly because of the insight it gives into the thinking and positions of the senators. I find overviews really useful so I'm currently working on a draft that lists all of the questions, with details of the senators who asked them, and who they were asked of (Draft:Question-and-answer session of the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump), even if it doesn't go anywhere, I've found it insightful myself so it's all good! The quotes are taken verbatim (before formatting) from the Congressional Record (2021 Congressional Record, Vol. 167, Page S682 ). I'll share an update here when I'm done. Aluxosm (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Phillip Samuel, MelanieN, and SRD625: I'm pretty much done with my overview draft. It turned up some interesting trivia in the end. I hope someone else finds some use for it, but please note that I'm not proposing that it be merged with this article, it's way too much detail. Aluxosm (talk) 03:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
That's a really great effort;that seems even more detailed than I expected!Aluxosm I was using ABC live commentary to report on the questions that were asked and the responses. I believe ABC reported them all, although I think there are a few that I let slip. I then went to CNN and NYT to check if they had also reported on the same questions so that I could decide whether questions that had been reported by multiple notable sources made the cut and the others didn't. For this page, I do want to keep the section roughly the same size as the section for the q&a session for the last trial. However, one main reason why I did this live was that in the last trial, the senators had 8 hours of questions instead of 4 so there were 1/2 the questions as before.
However,I don't think we should have a duplicate Congressional record, with full verbatim q&a summary on a Wikipedia page. I think we should keep your draft into an article with just the questions, and then the questions that have notable answers that got reported multiple times should be kept in this page. How does that sound? Phillip Samuel (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
@Phillip Samuel: Totally agree with your thinking, there's no point just copying the Congressional Record word-for-word and it's way too much info for this article. I was about to move it over to the article space and potentially change the name to something like "List of questions asked during the Q&A session of the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump", but then I saw a comment from MelanieN where she noted her opposition to it so I'll hold off for the moment. Cheers for your work on this! Aluxosm (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree, I just feel like some cleanup is needed and some of the more useless questions should be cut out though I’m not going to complain if they’re not SRD625 (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I realize you put an enormous amount of work into this draft. But I still feel strongly that the Q&A section should NOT be split out into a separate article - and if you do put this into mainspace I will propose that a summary of just the high points be merged back to the main article. It simply does not deserve this kind of treatment. The Q&A session was actually one of the less important aspects of the trial - much less important than the actual arguments, which we summarize in a few paragraphs. We do not need, and should not have, a blow-by-blow description of every question and answer. For one thing, no Reliable Secondary Source has reported in this kind of detail; this draft is sourced entirely to primary sources, namely the Congressional Record and CSPAN. They are the only sources that go into this kind of detail. We should follow our usual practice of reporting the session the way secondary sources did, namely to summarize the high points of the Q&A session. Sorry to be so blunt, but that is how I feel and will continue to feel. (Note that this is just the opinion of one regular editor. I do not function as an administrator at this page, so please don't assume that my opinion carries any more weight than anyone else's.) -- MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I am clarifying the section title to attract more opinions. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
@MelanieN: Wasn't too much work, don't worry! Most of it was just mindless formatting that I did while working on other things; It's answered the questions I had. This conversation however may take a bit more time 😅:
  • I was originally thinking that the full text of the questions could be added as notes to the statements in this article, but even with a few of them it would hugely bloat it. I really think that the original wording is important though; most of the reporting on the questions paraphrase them which in my opinion is not particularly healthy. I've now added anchors to each question so they can be linked to directly.
  • I think that picking the "high points" leads people to miss things. For example, the question about raising bail encouraging rioting (Q2/Q18) wasn't widely covered at the time (from what I saw at least), but has now been put into context and been widely reported on as Republicans have started talking about impeaching Kamala Harris for that very thing (🙄).
  • I maintain that the questions provide more insight into the senators positions than even their vote does.
  • I never intended to add the answers to each question (my bad for naming the section Q&A when it was just Qs). This article is where they should be discussed.
  • Since your comment above, I've added a reference from a well renowned source that lists and discusses every one of the questions. Regardless, I'm not sure I agree with your point about primary sources. WP:PSTS - A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge., as 99% of the article is quotes, it makes sense that there aren't many secondary sources.
  • It's not like each question is a different topic that requires establishing notability, the session as a whole has, so it's is only fair to list them all, and it would ease any worries about bias.
  • The topics notability has been established in this article. As the questions are supplementary to the content in this article, if they were all to be added here there wouldn't be a problem as most of the references would be secondary.
  • I know that this isn't what you meant, but if the Congressional Record is not a reliable source, Wikipedia is gonna have some problems when it comes to U.S. history!
Sorry to be blunt, but I'd suggest that stating that there is no possibility of changing your mind on something isn't a great way to go about things. Originally, I wasn't thinking that this should be an article by itself but now that I've seen how useful it is...
Hope I cleared up my thinking a little. I appreciate your thoughts and will hold off moving it to article space until there's another point of view on this. Thanks! Aluxosm (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Ummm... if you weren't thinking this should be an article by itself, what was your purpose in creating a draft? As for "not likely to change my mind", I do have fairly strong opinions about a trend that I see here - to splinter important articles off into multiple subarticles - and I think it is generally a disservice to the reader. As for this particular subject, you feel that laying out all this detail is important and useful; I feel the Q&A session was a minor aspect of the trial, as reflected in the amount of coverage that Reliable Sources gave it, compared to the actual arguments; so we disagree there. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
@MelanieN: As I said, whatever the case, I thought that they would at least end up as notes. My choice was between a user subpage or a draft; I chose a draft because there was a chance that it could end up as an article. That, and I said that I originally didn't think that it would end up as an article, putting it in the draft namespace increases it's visibility, someone else may have thought it was worth perusing. If in a month nothing came of it, I'd delete it, no dramas.
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding or haven't made myself clear, but I'm not proposing that any of the content in this article be moved. I was thinking that I'd move the draft to article space, add a {{see also}} template in the Q&A section here, then add links from here (like I did above with the Qn in parenthesis) to each full question. If you don't want to see the full text, don't click on the question link, simples. I didn't add any at the time because I thought that they'd be redundant, but I'll round up a few more references if it would help. Aluxosm (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
So you're not proposing to remove anything from this article; that's helpful. I'm not sure how your proposal would work. Assuming the draft survives in mainspace, I would have no problem with a "see also" link to a freestanding article. I don't quite understand what you are talking about with question links - you are proposing multiple such links in this article, one at each question? In that case, it can't be a "see also", can it? But these are details and can be dealt with at the time if you do go ahead with this. It was the forking I was objecting to, not the addition of a (to me unnecessary but YMMV) new article that doesn't take away from the original one. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
P.S. Before launching it you should get advice on how to title it. You were proposing a "List" title, but there are specific criteria for what constitutes a "list" article; does your draft meet it? And there must be a more concise way to title it. You might see if you can get any advice at WT:Titles. Or you might just ask User:Born2cycle, who has sometimes given me valuable advice about titling. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Yup, for the links, I was thinking something along the lines of:
The first question from Schumer and Feinstein (Q1) was whether the attack...
Bernie Sanders asked both sides (Q15) whether, in their judgement...
As far as I know, the see also template doesn't have the same "no duplicate links" stipulation that the see also section has. Thanks for your advice on the layout and naming, I wasn't aware that there were specific guidelines, I'll give them a read before I go any further. Aluxosm (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I prefer trimming the excess content added via WP:RECENTISM over unnecessary forking. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
A further thought: if we really think these questions are so important to specifically document, it seems more appropriate for WikiQuote rather than Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: I'm not sure that WP:RECENTISM that covers this. The subject is notable (it being one of the defining moments in American democracy and all), the Q&A session is notable (for reasons I've mentioned above), the event is over, nothing will be added to the list of questions, and it's in a separate article so no one would need to worry about maintenance. The only valid concern I can think of is the 20kB of storage it'd be taking up 😕. As far as Wikiquote goes, not sure I get that either to be honest. They aren't quotes that someone said, they are questions, that in some cases multiple high ranking people put their name to, that were part of a historic event. Might be missing something here but that's where I'm at. (I don't mean to sound angry by the way, any feedback is good feedback 😁) Aluxosm (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I do not think the Q&A section is "notable", definitely not to the point of being its own article. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
@Muboshgu, MelanieN, and Phillip Samuel: There's been a bit of confusion about where my thoughts on this (my changing point of view admittedly hasn't helped), so I thought I'd just be bold and go ahead with what I had in mind. If it gets reverted, so be it. In the process of adding the (Qs) to the Q&A section here it actually turned up a few issues like incorrect spelling, slightly mixed up order, and incomplete attribution, so it's probably worth leaving in place at least until those things are fixed. Hopefully the end result is a better article whatever the outcome. Thanks to everyone who's chimed in on this!
P.S. Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that this article be forked, or have any answers merged with the new article. Also, I'm not suggesting that they should be added (I'll leave it up to the editors here), but the questions missing from the section at the moment are Q6, Q14, Q24, Q25, Q27, and Q28. Aluxosm (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
We should avoid underestimating the importance of the Q & A for readers' understanding of the impeachment event. The tabular format in Questions asked during the Q&A session of the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump, so far as it goes, is a great help, while the section in the current version of this article is far from easy to grasp. Better than such an attempt at editorial summary would be the entire text of the Senate record transcribed to Wikisource, and the article section trimmed to a brief outlining paragraph, relying on links to the tabular article and Congressional record for those readers who appreciate the importance of this more than some of the comment here. Qexigator (talk) 08:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Why has this edit occurred without prior discussion here?
Revision as of 15:22, 9 March 2021 (edit) 78.26 (talk | contribs) m (Removing link(s) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Questions asked during the Q&A session of the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump closed as delete (XFDcloser))? [5]
Qexigator (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Qexigator, the article was taken to AFD, and closed as delete. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Questions asked during the Q&A session of the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Article was created

The article Questions asked during the Q&A session of the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump was created today. I have outlined my concerns at its talk page, here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the best course of action is now, but I'm considering AfD. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Aluxosm. Do you have anything to say before we decide how to proceed? Personally I am thinking about transwikifying and prodding, but I'd like to see what you have to say first. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Sentence accuracy.

"...and only federal official to be impeached and acquitted twice"? He wasn't a federal official, upon his second acquittal. GoodDay (talk) 07:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Second_impeachment_trial_of_Donald_Trump/Archive_1"