Talk:US Speaker Pelosi announces Trump impeachment investigation

Headline

@DannyS712: In current form, is pitched for a US-only audience. Should be for a general international audience, for whom neither Trump, nor Pelosi, nor Speaker (without qualification) may be meaningful. --Pi zero (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps "US House Speaker Pelosi starts presidential impeachment process"? --Pi zero (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Pi zero: Done --DannyS712 (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Submitted prepared content

I have submitted this for review. Please only review the bottom 2 paragraphs (the prepared background content). Once I finish writing the article, I will resubmit for the top part to be reviewed. See also Talk:UK Supreme Court rules prorogation of parliament unlawful. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The content appeared to be ready to publish. Might be worth quoting the speaker from her Twitter. There's video of her announcement speech (~5 min). —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 21:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mikemoral: sorry, didn't see this until now. I've submitted the article --DannyS712 (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: I'm on mobile so changing stuff is a bit difficult, but here's a Twitter Link to the video, which I think is more appropriate than linking to CNN. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 23:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Linked --DannyS712 (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Image

I uploaded a screenshot to Commons File:Nancy Pelosi announces Impeachment Inquiry - 24 September 2019 - C-SPAN screenshot.jpg which is her delivering the announcement. --SVTCobra 22:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Added, thanks --DannyS712 (talk) 23:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I have saved the image on my computer as it may turn out to be restricted for non-commercial use. --SVTCobra 21:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Two independent sources for the main point

@DannyS712: A second source for the start of the inquiry, the focal event, would be appreciated. Only Deadline is post-announcement (needs disambiguation, btw). --SVTCobra 22:55, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Added NBC --DannyS712 (talk) 23:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

and disambiguation added --DannyS712 (talk) 23:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Question

@DannyS712: What does it mean for Pelosi to announce she's launching an investigation? I've heard Trump has said she doesn't have the authority, but things I've heard before this have suggested there may not even be any such meaningful thing as an "impeachment investigation", other than some committee(s) asking questions that they are, in fact, already asking. --Pi zero (talk) 23:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: I'll amplify and perhaps clarify that. As a reader, in order to understand the story I would want to know what is the legal significance, if any, of the Speaker announcing an impeachment investigation. (Oh, btw: shouldn't there be a "House" somewhere in that part of the headline?) Sorry if it seems I'm making this difficult, but it really does seem to me quite important. --Pi zero (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Pi zero: I've added specifics from NBC. Will be done in a few minutes. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Done --DannyS712 (talk) 23:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: So... if she told them to proceed with their investigations under the umbrella of impeachment, does that mean they would not otherwise have proceeded, or does it mean there's something different about it because of the "umbrella", or... something else? --Pi zero (talk) 00:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I can't say, but it means that the investigations are "impeachment" investigations (as opposed to regular investigations, or instead of no investigations) --DannyS712 (talk) 00:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: That, well, bothers me. If we don't know that, it's not clear to me that we know what this story means. That we don't know suggests the entire msm may be failing to explain it; which, far from lifting the responsibility from us, makes it all the more important for us to get it right. --Pi zero (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Pi zero: All she said was that she was moving forward with impeachment, and having the investigations be "impeachment" investigations - I'm not sure I should assume what she means, and since she hasn't explicitly come out and said if there are new investigations or what is changing, I'm just reporting the facts as we know them. If the rest of the media leaves it as "impeachment" investigations/inquiry, without speculating as to the form, I think we should too --DannyS712 (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: We do not speculate, period. There's no question of that. We must aspire to report only objective facts. But it's possible to leave out something really important, and I feel if we are unable to explain what this means, we literally don't know what we're talking about. And we are doing a disservice to readers if we present them with something inadequate and try to pass it off as informing. Reporting that something isn't known is sometimes the right thing to do, too, but in this case nobody is going to admit to not knowing what it means. Besides which, somebody probably does know.

I'm not in a position to look into this right now, because this is the time of evening when I'm no longer sharp enough for review. --Pi zero (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────┘
@SVTCobra: I propose the following addition to the article. I'd add it as a new paragraph just below the current second paragraph (which ends with the bit about the umbrella of impeachment), and just before the current third paragraph (which starts by mentioning the NYT).

Members of the {{w|United States House Committee on the Judiciary|House Judiciary Committee}} do not all agree on how impeachment inquiries work.  {{w|Republican Party (US)|Republican}} committee member {{w|Doug Collins (politician)|Doug Collins}} of {{w|Georgia (US state)|Georgia}} said on [[Twitter]], "Until the full House votes to authorize an inquiry, nobody is conducting a formal inquiry".  {{w|Democratic Party (US)|Democratic}} committee chairman {{w|Jerrold Nadler}} of {{w|New York}} has repeatedly maintained an impeachment inquiry is what the committee is already doing.

--Pi zero (talk) 02:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I see this has been added ... or at least some part of it. I can't keep up with Danny's further edits. --SVTCobra 03:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: You should be able to just look at the diff for my edit, check that it's in the sources, and (if it checks out correctly) sight that one edit. The Collins quote is in the NBC source, and the Nadler quote is in the second NYT source (by Charlie Savage). --Pi zero (talk) 04:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Done --SVTCobra 04:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: sorry for moving so fast; I wanted to make a bunch of small edits, rather than a few long ones, to avoid causing edit conflicts; since I knew both you and Pi zero were looking at the article. Thanks for your help --DannyS712 (talk) 04:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: I, at least, found the small edits helpful as it's then possible to look at them one-at-a-time for review. I gather SVT had less experience with reviewing individual edits in a stack of pending edits to a published article. (The wiki software doesn't have good support for a stack of pending edits like that if some of them need to be rejected or modified in complicated ways, but that generally doesn't happen with your edits.) --Pi zero (talk) 04:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Pi zero: I'm familiar with the software, but good to know others' experiences. (Thanks for the vote of confidence about not needing to reject my edits!) --DannyS712 (talk) 04:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Whistle-blower

Do we know what the report sent to the IG was? It feels like a huge reach to say "the whistleblower disclos[ing] attempts by Trump to sabotage Joe Biden's presidential campaign." This could be a verification fail. --SVTCobra 02:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Review of revision 4515857 [Passed]

Revision 4515857 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 03:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Be careful about what sources say they have heard and what they are reporting. It ain't the same thing. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4515857 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 03:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Be careful about what sources say they have heard and what they are reporting. It ain't the same thing. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

@SVTCobra: thanks for the review! Do you have specific concerns? I looked through your edits and I'm not sure what you are referring to --DannyS712 (talk) 03:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: Did you not read my remarks here on the talk page? The {{under review}} template says to put remarks here, and the review gadget requires the reviewer to pledge that they read what's on the talk page, and I had hoped it would be helpful that I pinged you. --Pi zero (talk) 03:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I fucked up. I did check the talk page a few times. It was a long review, and I didn't realize there was more going on there. I was honestly consumed with what we could say was fact or rumor, most of which I cut out. Sorry. --SVTCobra 03:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@SVTCobra, Pi zero: I've added sources for the paragraph that Pi zero added. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 03:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Actually, I drew all of that information from sources that were already in place. --Pi zero (talk) 03:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Pi zero: I couldn't find it there - is there any harm in adding the sources? --DannyS712 (talk) 03:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: As I was just remarking to SVTCobra in the other section, the Collins quote is in the NBC source, and the Nadler quote is in the second NYT source (by Savage). Afaik those two should be sufficient for the paragraph. We shouldn't add sources unless there's a need for them. --Pi zero (talk) 04:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing them out.  Reverting the extra sources --DannyS712 (talk) 04:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Reverted --DannyS712 (talk) 04:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: I've made similar goofs myself, where my sharpness of attention wears down on a rough review until near the end I overlook some other detail that I wouldn't have overlooked if the review had gone more smoothly. --Pi zero (talk) 04:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit request - category

{{editprotected}}

Please add Category:Impeachment of Donald Trump. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Done. --Pi zero (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)