Talk:2019 Trump–Ukraine scandal

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2023

The scandal might be known as Trumpgate, Ukrainegate, Trump-Ukrainegate, or other names. 24.46.53.73 (talk) 01:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, the first two are definitely not specific enough Cannolis (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

No, the scandal has officially been labeled “the Russia collusion hoax”, see… https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2023/05/17/durham-report-vindicates-trump-fbi-russia-investigation/70222344007/ BrainiacOne (talk) 00:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Correct it, or I will edit it myself. BrainiacOne (talk) 01:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I will simply publish a Wikipedia page on the Russia Collusion hoax, cite the many sources, including the Durham report, and expose your use of Wikipedia as your personal disinformation outlet. BrainiacOne (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing that. soibangla (talk) 02:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

It was definitely an unfounded conspiracy theory. The theory that there was collision ended up being bogus. That specific page should be renamed to the 'Russian Collusion Conspiracy Theory'. For intellectual consistency.

It is beyond the scope of this specific page however. 31.201.108.155 (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Your link is to an opinion column. See WP:RSEDITORIAL. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

BrainiacOne, not all sources are equal, and Wiki is supposed to be a collaborative project. If you are new here, at the very least you should be aware of the rules and guidelines...Cheers. DN (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Claims that the Trump-Zelenskyy conversation was recorded?

Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed, as recently as March 2024, that his July 25, 2019 phone call with Volodymr Zelenskyy was recorded, that the recording vindicates his claim of exoneration in this matter, and that his political opponents, notably California Congressman Adam Schiff, have listened to this recording and thus are lying about the nature of the call. It's not clear whether any such recording exists, but certainly no recording has ever been released to the public -- and it wasn't introduced as evidence by Trump's legal team during his impeachment or Senate trial. Still, is the fact that the man at the heart of this scandal insists, more than four years later, that an exculpatory recording exists something that should be added to this article? And if so, what is the correct way to source such a statement? It's easy to find Trump referencing it in various speeches he's made on Youtube (including one in Dayton, Ohio today), but I haven't noticed this being reported in a reputable news outlet (although certainly it may have happened without my noticing it). NME Frigate (talk) 06:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed many false things. If the call was recorded, it would have been done by his NSC staff and he could/would have declassified it during his impeachment to prove it was a "perfect call" to exonerate himself. soibangla (talk) 06:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. But we can't speculate about what he would have done. We can, however, note things he's said about this subject if they're notable. I think these comments reach that level -- although I would certainly be interested in hearing other perspectives -- and was also wondering about how to cite them.

And lo! I'm not saying that someone on CNN was reading this talk page, but there's new reporting there today, not 12 hours after I raised the question, on this very subject, so that answers that part of my question:

[1]https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/17/politics/fact-check-trump-ukraine-zelensky-call-pelosi/index.html NME Frigate (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

We should not add his claim that there is an exculpatory recording. It's just another of his lies. We have the transcript, released shortly after the call, which confirms he was seeking a quid pro quo. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I've read the transcript. It was a great transcript, and some would say PERFECT. 31.201.108.155 (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

We should document the false claim and the facts by using that RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Addition request

Probably, the article could be a place to mention or even to elaborate on the scandalous summit on Feb 28, 2025. 78.37.216.35 (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 5 March 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 11:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

---

Trump–Ukraine scandal → 2019 Trump–Ukraine scandal – Given recent events, I think this article needs to be renamed to distinguish it from the controversial events of Trump’s second administration. Open to other ideas on how best to title this article. Rafts of Calm (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose move. There is no scandal related to Ukraine in Trump's second term. O.N.R. ^(talk) 23:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support in principle - I think a descriptive title would be best, but this is still better than the current title. Red Slash 17:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Unnecessary disambiguation. When we create an article on a 2025 Trump–Ukraine scandal, we would need to move this page, but no earlier. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

For. Per Rafts of Calm.— MykolaHK (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support I think it's very reasonable for readers to be confused based on current titles between this event and recent events which transpired in Trump's second term so far. Yeoutie (talk) 01:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Support given recent events. Sushidude21! (talk) 09:28, 18 March 2025 (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.

Requested move 26 September 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. After going through the discussion, I can see that while some editors argued that "Trump–Ukraine scandal" is the common name used in reliable sources and that hatnotes could address any ambiguity, a clear majority opposed the proposed change. The opponents pointed out that Trump's dealings with Ukraine have produced multiple controversies that could be described as "scandals", and that including the year provides necessary precision and recognisability in line with WP:NCWWW. Therefore, it remains at 2019 Trump–Ukraine scandal. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:46, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

---

2019 Trump–Ukraine scandal → Trump–Ukraine scandalTrump–Ukraine scandal – This was moved from the shorter title without the year to the current title following a brief discussion tinged with recentism shortly after the chaotic meeting between Trump and Zelenskyy. Multiple votes specifically refer to "recent" or "current" events, which should generally be a minor concern on Wikipedia. Now that some time has passed, it seems obvious which event is more significant in the long run. The term "Trump–Ukraine scandal", based on a quick skim of Google results, seems to only ever describe the 2019 incident (indeed, EB simply calls it the "Ukraine scandal"), and one source uses the term "Trump-Zelensky scandal" for the more recent incident. We should generally follow common naming conventions on Wikipedia. In the event of any confusion, there is a hatnote on this page (which doesn't even currently make sense when the article has the year in the title). — Anonymous 18:29, 26 September 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE 15:20, 8 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. CoconutOctopus talk 15:31, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nom. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 19:43, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
• Opposed: The saga of Trump's relationship to Ukraine has included various events that could be considered scandals (e.g., decisions about aid, weaponry provision, training and availability, activities in relation to NATO, and attempts to make deals with Russia). Including the year helps clarify which one is being discussed and avoids elevating this one above others as a "primary scandal". Including some mention of the subject matter of the scandal might also be helpful. If the subject matter is described in the title, the year might be less necessary – although Wikipedia's WP:NCWWW article title convention generally suggests including it anyway. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

  @BarrelProof, the first sentence of NCWWW states "If there is an established, common name for an event, use that name." There are a plethora of reliable sources calling this simply the "Trump–Ukraine scandal". Indeed, "[2019] Trump–Ukraine scandal" is not a very clear description of the actual events were this title intended to merely be that. Instead, we've ended up with a hodgepodge that's halfway between a common name and a descriptor. This is absolutely a primary scandal as far as Wikipedia should be concerned; we are absolutely allowed to elevate certain events above others if they receive more coverage by reliable sources, which this clearly has. — Anonymous 20:55, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose In its former title, it could easily be confused for the Oval Office meeting in 2025, which could reasonably also be called a scandal (i.e. "strong social reactions of outrage, anger, or surprise") which were well documented in the media as expressed by most in the world besides the Republican party/Russia. Therefore, it is overly vague to move back to a name without a date. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:02, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Zxcvbnm, it doesn't feel like you've addressed my lengthy reasoning for the move proposal at all. Your response reads as perhaps somewhat politically influenced. I could not care less about whether both incidents could accurately be described as "scandals". The fact is, reliable sources consistently use the term "Trump–Ukraine scandal" to refer to the 2019, not 2025, event. A quick Google search (with quotation marks) makes that abundantly clear. It's not a case of whether or not they both qualified as scandals, but one of common names. — Anonymous 00:17, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think it comes off as political at all. It is purely based on the facts, and "potentially being confused for something else" is always a legitimate reason for not moving a page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:38, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Zxcvbnm, well, you did write it after all. And your statement could not be further from the truth. Why do we have an article named "Gaza war" when there have been other wars involving Gaza? Because of the policy of WP:COMMONNAME. Slightly ambiguous article titles that reflect common naming patterns are allowed and quite common on Wikipedia. This is why hatnotes exist. — Anonymous 14:27, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

  Let me put it this way, if I asked an average Joe "what do you think about the war in Gaza", they'd know immediately that I was referring to the recent one. On the other hand, if I asked "what do you think about the scandal between Trump and Ukraine", they'd probably assume I meant the 2025 Oval Office situation unless I corrected them and said "actually, I meant the one way back in 2019". It's simply not recognizable enough under solely a name and not a year, such as Bay of Pigs Invasion. Even if there is no exact analogue in name, WP:NCWWW dictates a date be added for clarity. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:17, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

  This seems to drift into the territory of verifiability not truth. It may be true that an "average Joe" thinks like this, but that isn't verifiable. It is verifiable that reliable sources overwhelming refer to the earlier event with this terminology, which they do not for the more recent one. — Anonymous 17:53, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

• Support - I'm typically rather weary of WP:NOYEAR, but this is a clear case. Obviously this is an exception and has more than enough long-term significance to satisfy NOYEAR. The prior discussion was wrought with WP:RECENTISM that the closer failed to identify as such. The 2025 Trump–Zelenskyy Oval Office meeting is hardly a scandal and a hatnote is more than enough to redirect any confused readers. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:18, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
• Support per nom and Estar8806. Politrukki (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. As others have pointed out, this could be seen as multiple different scandals if not for the clear specification of "2019". Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 17:33, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Jcoolbro, please refrain from voting if you aren't even going to address 90% of the discussion. — Anonymous 11:43, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  @An anonymous username, not my real name So you're gonna gatekeep this conversation against people who disagree with you by expecting us to summarize every single post made in this discussion thread? ThePoggingEditor (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  @ThePoggingEditor, it isn't "gatekeeping" to ask that new comments provide some response to previous arguments rather than merely repeating already contested statements. This is a discussion, not a vote, and you have not added anything of value to it. — Anonymous 17:55, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  So then how come you're not holding this standard to those in the discussion that agree with you? Such as Politrukki, who, by your standards, did not add anything to the discussion (they said "per nom and Estar8806"). I don't see anything wrong with them just saying that, but by your standards, there is something wrong with that. ThePoggingEditor (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  @ThePoggingEditor, please keep this civil. You seem to be lashing out. Each comment that has been left in opposition to this move has received a response by myself further explaining my views. If no one can offer a rebuttal, it makes sense to question opposition more than support. — Anonymous 17:25, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  @An anonymous username, not my real name I'm not lashing out, I'm pointing out your hypocrisy and your wrongful understanding of how voting works for these kinds of things. There is no asterisk next to a vote that says "vote doesn't count because they didn't bring a new discussion point to the table." ThePoggingEditor (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  @ThePoggingEditor, on Wikipedia the "primary means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus — not voting". (WP:NOTADEMOCRACY) I think your accusations of hypocrisy are largely subjective and open to debate. Try to assume good faith. Perhaps if you could soften your rhetoric we could see eye to eye. — Anonymous 03:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  I was just thinking of it in the perspective of a reader, who I think would be confused. I think its still the strongest argument. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 02:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Jcoolbro disregard what they have to say. These discussions are meant to have votes in support or opposition. There's no rule that you have to "add something to the discussion" to vote on a matter that is meant for editors to vote on. ThePoggingEditor (talk) 03:20, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Jcoolbro, I understand where you are coming from, but there is no rule that Wikipedia article titles have to be completely unambiguous. That's why we have hatnotes to redirect anyone who arrives at a page they were not expecting to arrive at. Also, keep in mind that "Trump–Ukraine scandal already redirects to this page. — Anonymous 17:27, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. As others have said before, there are multiple things that Trump-Ukraine scandal could be, such as that Oval Office meeting, or things he's said about Ukraine since the war. ThePoggingEditor (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

@ThePoggingEditor, see my response above. — Anonymous 11:44, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think the above discussion itself demonstrates the ambiguous nature of the term Trump–Ukraine scandalTrump–Ukraine scandal. Best left with the date to reduce this confusion. Andrewa (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject International relations, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Ukraine, and WikiProject United States have been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 15:20, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose Using the year makes it clear which scandals it is not. Lova Falk (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose There have been so many scandals over the years with Trump and Ukraine, Trump and Zelensky, and Trump and Putin arguing over Ukraine I think the timestamp is super important for clarity. Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per @Agnieszka653.

Shocksingularity (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose, essentially per Zxcvbnm and BarrelProof. I have read the nom's proposal and replies and I disagree with the reasoning. First of all, the proposed title isn't quite the common name but is similar to common variations like Trump's Ukraine scandal. More importantly, the year adds precision and resolves possible ambiguity. Sources do reasonably support maintaining Trump–Ukraine scandal as a primary redirect here but nothing is lost by adding the year to the actual title. It is a misreading of WP:NCWWW/WP:COMMONNAME to suggest that using the year violates the naming conventions. A wordy descriptive title would likely be inappropriate here but using '2019' with wording that is consistent with common usage is an elegant solution that won't trouble (most) readers who would know the meaning without the year and will help a good portion of readers who don't think of this as "the" Trump–Ukraine scandal. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 00:46, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, for reasons stated above. Any article on Trump-foo scandal usually has the same issue: which one? This may be part of the source of his grievance against Zelenskyy, but it is only the first of many scandalous actions towards Ukraine. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:07, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support There is no other article where there is a scandal. The hatnote is really ridiculous. The 2025 oval office meeting was not a scandal. There is no other article about a scandal that requires usage of the year in the title. Not to mention, the discussion above did not allow for more voices. Those opposed to the move have not cited a single shred of evidence that there is another scandal involving Ukraine with Trump, just how it could be described. We don't go by possibilities when naming an article. No other article exists about a scandal. Can users actually follow through with basic policies and actually read through guidelines and not vote with feelings?
• "There have been so many scandals over the years with Trump and Ukraine, Trump and Zelensky, and Trump and Putin arguing over Ukraine I think the timestamp is super important for clarity." No evidence presented by the user. "Using the year makes it clear which scandals it is not." What other scandal is there? No evidence provided.
• "I think the above discussion itself demonstrates the ambiguous nature of the term Trump–Ukraine scandal. Best left with the date to reduce this confusion." It never did. "As others have pointed out, this could be seen as multiple different scandals if not for the clear specification of "2019"". No evidence once again.
• "Any article on Trump-foo scandal usually has the same issue: which one? This may be part of the source of his grievance against Zelenskyy, but it is only the first of many scandalous actions towards Ukraine". No evidence provided of many scandalous actions toward Ukraine.

This is a case of user's willfully choosing to ignore. There is only one article on this matter. No other article is about a related or different scandal. None exist. Users need to vote with facts and the nominator has provided evidence to back their claims as to why this page should be moved back. One vote just says opposed and no reason as to why. Not good enough to factor in the tally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiCleanerMan (talk • contribs) 20:07, 23 October 2025 (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.