Talk:Paul Manafort: Difference between revisions

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. Biography C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Connecticut C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Donald Trump Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Donald Trump, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Donald Trump on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Donald TrumpWikipedia:WikiProject Donald TrumpTemplate:WikiProject Donald TrumpDonald Trump articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Politics C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Ukraine C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Milhouse-the-mighty.

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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kyivpost.com/news/politics/detail/53251/

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I didn't find anything at Commons. --MelanieN (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A scrambled article that is destined to become a classic in political shenanigans. --Wikipietime (talk) 12:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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 ^talk_contribs 15:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

No problem on my end. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 15:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Page numbers. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, thanks! 16:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

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
^ 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

VM, the source I used - CNN - stated directly that the charges are unrelated to the campaign. --MelanieN (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

What about "pro-Russian political figures..."? SPECIFICO talk 20:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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? GMG^talk 14:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. GMG^talk 14:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. GMG^talk 15:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Its public information, so appropriate.Resnjari (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I don't object to the inclusion of this. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-brooklyn-bloggers-who-brought-down-paul-manafort

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

That's crazy interesting. Legacypac (talk) 07:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It looks like this info was the basis for the Northern Virginia charges Legacypac (talk) 01:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• Paul Manafort Mugshot.jpg

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You will notice that Cullen328 is arguing against his political viewpoints in this case. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Keep. The other picture is shit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove -- Plenty of pages have poor quality images (e.g. Scott Baio), that's not a reason to use a mugshot, especially before someone has been convicted. BOLO 97 (talk) 02:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Comment - what about having the image, but not the caption which describes it as a mugshot? The photo itself is not that "mug-shotty" and I think most readers wouldn't even know it's a mugshot.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but fix the caption - per VM. This is better image, obviously. My very best wishes (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, a user named AlexOvShaolin continues to violate WP:MUG policy (five times in less than a month). They continue to also make false claims in edit summaries about vandalism w/o any sanctions. Can someone please help here? BOLO 97 (talk) 05:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Oppose mug shot. This is a BLP violation per WP:MUG. Either use a different image, or no image.Icewhiz (talk) 06:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@My very best wishes, BOLO97, and Pincrete: Pinging the people involved in the recent disputed edit. --MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BOLO 97: Messed up the ping. --MelanieN (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Here is the WaPo source for the text so other users can read it and judge for themselves: [8]

• Well, I am simply looking at most recent articles (Aug 3), like At Paul Manafort’s Virginia Trial, References to Russia Are Banned—Yet Ever-Present, it also tells about "separate federal charges filed against Manafort in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia have the more explicit connections to politics: conspiracy against the United States, unregistered agent of a foreign principle,...". So saying in WP voice that "None of the charges that have been brought against Manafort are related to Russian interference in the 2016 election" in the lead looks like a bad idea. Obviously, this is all somehow related, and do not forget the overall aim of Muller's investigation. My very best wishes (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • REMOVE Agreed completely. The inclusion of this line feels like a political statement rather than a sensible line to include front-and-center. --AlexOvShaolin 01:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]