user7309: At what point does the discussion of others become wrong speech?
"Abandoning divisive speech he abstains from divisive speech. What he has heard here he does not tell there to break those people apart from these people here. What he has heard there he does not tell here to break these people apart from those people there. Thus reconciling those who have broken apart or cementing those who are united, he loves concord, delights in concord, enjoys concord, speaks things that create concord."
Being that I am not an arahat, I need to work through occurrences, sometimes my mind is not enough, so doing so with other people could be helpful. But to talk through some events by those committing wrong speech, wrong action - with those that one considers capable of adding something positive - necessitates their exposition as wrong speakers etc, so is certainly close to creating rifts. 
I understand that the above has right intention - no desire to spread rumours or damage others' opinion of others, but how to decide whether it is wrong speech?
I suppose choosing a person that is not easily susceptible to jumping on disconcord, that differentiates between direct and indirect experience, and that aims to solve problems is a start, but is there anything from the texts?

user295: The main factor is the intent. If one repeats something with the intention of bringing discord, then it is divisive speech.
If one says something without the intention of discord then it is OK, regardless of the consequences. 

user13709: If there is doubt, refraining from speech is immediately effective. 
Yet sometimes there is a need to speak of others. Sometimes there is a need to accuse. In these cases:

A mendicant who wants to accuse another should first establish five things in themselves. I will speak at the right time, not at the wrong time. I will speak truthfully, not falsely. I will speak gently, not harshly. I will speak beneficially, not harmfully. I will speak lovingly, not from secret hate. A mendicant who wants to accuse another should first establish these five things in themselves. --AN10.44

As an example, this happened recently when a grandmother, worried about her grandson, intervened and spoke out.

user2282: The Buddha didn't just emphasize the truthfulness of one's speech but also its timeliness/appropriateness:

So too, prince, such speech as the Tath›gata knows to be
  untrue, incorrect, and unbeneficial, and which is also unwelcome and disagreeable to others: such speech the Tath›gata
  does not utter. Such speech as the Tath›gata knows to be true
  and correct but unbeneficial, and which is also unwelcome and
  disagreeable to others: such speech the Tath›gata does not utter.
  Such speech as the Tath›gata knows to be true, correct, and beneficial, but which is unwelcome and disagreeable to others: the
  Tath›gata knows the time to use such speech.613 Such speech as
  the Tath›gata knows to be untrue, incorrect, and unbeneficial,
  but which is welcome and agreeable to others: such speech the
  Tath›gata does not utter. Such speech as the Tath›gata knows to
  be true and correct but unbeneficial, and which is welcome and
  agreeable to others: such speech the Tath›gata does not utter.
  Such speech as the Tath›gata knows to be true, correct, and beneficial, and which is welcome and agreeable to others: the
  Tath›gata knows the time to use such speech. Why is that?
  Because the Tath›gata has compassion for beings.” ~ MN 58 ~


user16761: What produces right speech? Like the wheel of a cart follows the ox, if a mind is very agitated, full of ignorance it will be difficult to produce beneficial Noble speech. If the being or mind is calm, compassionate, and clearly seeing, unlikely the words will cause harm.

user-1: From Abhaya sutta:

[1] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual,
  untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing &
  disagreeable to others, he does not say them.
[2] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say
  them.
[3] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense
  of the proper time for saying them.
[4] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual,
  untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not
  say them.
[5] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say
  them.
[6] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the
  proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has
  sympathy for living beings."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.058.than.html
This sutta is also interesting, because it suggests that being silent can sometimes be wrong speech in a sense. There may be situations where we need to speak up to prevent harm. Right speech then becomes a question of knowing when to remain silent and when to speak up. Timing becomes a factor.
What is considered factual, true, beneficial, endearing & agreeable, and not least proper timing will probably always be subjective to a certain degree, so it's hard to draw a clean cut line between right/wrong speech. One will always need be mindful to make good judgements, i suppose.

7309: <p>At what point does the discussion of others become wrong speech?</p>

<p>"Abandoning divisive speech he abstains from divisive speech. What he has heard here he does not tell there to break those people apart from these people here. What he has heard there he does not tell here to break these people apart from those people there. Thus reconciling those who have broken apart or cementing those who are united, he loves concord, delights in concord, enjoys concord, speaks things that create concord."</p>

<p>Being that I am not an arahat, I need to work through occurrences, sometimes my mind is not enough, so doing so with other people could be helpful. But to talk through some events by those committing wrong speech, wrong action - with those that one considers capable of adding something positive - necessitates their exposition as wrong speakers etc, so is certainly close to creating rifts. </p>

<p>I understand that the above has right intention - no desire to spread rumours or damage others' opinion of others, but how to decide whether it is wrong speech?</p>

<p>I suppose choosing a person that is not easily susceptible to jumping on disconcord, that differentiates between direct and indirect experience, and that aims to solve problems is a start, but is there anything from the texts?</p>
 295: <p>The main factor is the intent. If one repeats something with the intention of bringing discord, then it is divisive speech.</p>

<p>If one says something without the intention of discord then it is OK, regardless of the consequences. </p>
 13709: <p>If there is doubt, refraining from speech is immediately effective. </p>

<p>Yet sometimes there is a need to speak of others. Sometimes there is a need to accuse. In these cases:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>A mendicant who wants to accuse another should first establish five things in themselves. I will speak at the right time, not at the wrong time. I will speak truthfully, not falsely. I will speak gently, not harshly. I will speak beneficially, not harmfully. I will speak lovingly, not from secret hate. A mendicant who wants to accuse another should first establish these five things in themselves. <a href="https://suttacentral.net/an10.44/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">--AN10.44</a></p>
</blockquote>

<p>As an example, this happened recently when a grandmother, worried about her grandson, <a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndtx/pr/lubbock-man-allegedly-plotting-mass-shooting-charged-making-false-statements-firearms" rel="nofollow noreferrer">intervened and spoke out</a>.</p>
 2282: <p>The Buddha didn't just emphasize the truthfulness of one's speech but also its timeliness/appropriateness:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>So too, prince, such speech as the Tath›gata knows to be
  untrue, incorrect, and unbeneficial, and which is also unwelcome and disagreeable to others: such speech the Tath›gata
  does not utter. Such speech as the Tath›gata knows to be true
  and correct but unbeneficial, and which is also unwelcome and
  disagreeable to others: such speech the Tath›gata does not utter.
  Such speech as the Tath›gata knows to be true, correct, and beneficial, but which is unwelcome and disagreeable to others: the
  Tath›gata knows the time to use such speech.613 Such speech as
  the Tath›gata knows to be untrue, incorrect, and unbeneficial,
  but which is welcome and agreeable to others: such speech the
  Tath›gata does not utter. Such speech as the Tath›gata knows to
  be true and correct but unbeneficial, and which is welcome and
  agreeable to others: such speech the Tath›gata does not utter.
  Such speech as the Tath›gata knows to be true, correct, and beneficial, and which is welcome and agreeable to others: the
  Tath›gata knows the time to use such speech. Why is that?
  Because the Tath›gata has compassion for beings.” ~ <a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn58/en/horner" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 58</a> ~</p>
</blockquote>
 16761: <p>What produces right speech? Like the wheel of a cart follows the ox, if a mind is very agitated, full of ignorance it will be difficult to produce beneficial Noble speech. If the being or mind is calm, compassionate, and clearly seeing, unlikely the words will cause harm.</p>
 -1: <p>From Abhaya sutta:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>[1] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual,
  untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing &amp;
  disagreeable to others, he does not say them.</p>
  
  <p>[2] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  unbeneficial, unendearing &amp; disagreeable to others, he does not say
  them.</p>
  
  <p>[3] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  beneficial, but unendearing &amp; disagreeable to others, he has a sense
  of the proper time for saying them.</p>
  
  <p>[4] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual,
  untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing &amp; agreeable to others, he does not
  say them.</p>
  
  <p>[5] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  unbeneficial, but endearing &amp; agreeable to others, he does not say
  them.</p>
  
  <p>[6] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  beneficial, and endearing &amp; agreeable to others, he has a sense of the
  proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has
  sympathy for living beings."</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.058.than.html" rel="noreferrer">https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.058.than.html</a></p>

<p>This sutta is also interesting, because it suggests that being silent can sometimes be wrong speech in a sense. There may be situations where we need to speak up to prevent harm. Right speech then becomes a question of knowing when to remain silent and when to speak up. Timing becomes a factor.</p>

<p>What is considered factual, true, beneficial, endearing &amp; agreeable, and not least proper timing will probably always be subjective to a certain degree, so it's hard to draw a clean cut line between right/wrong speech. One will always need be mindful to make good judgements, i suppose.</p>
