Jump to content

Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Feedback: suggestion
Line 215: Line 215:
::Can you please specify which credible sources you are referring to? [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 23:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
::Can you please specify which credible sources you are referring to? [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 23:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
* '''Keep'''. It's both extraordinary and notable when journalistic entities from across the spectrum come together to dismiss a breaking story as nonsense. Separately, I learned today that when you use all caps for "LOGIC", apparently that turns the definition of the word into "opinion". [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 15:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
* '''Keep'''. It's both extraordinary and notable when journalistic entities from across the spectrum come together to dismiss a breaking story as nonsense. Separately, I learned today that when you use all caps for "LOGIC", apparently that turns the definition of the word into "opinion". [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 15:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
* '''Remove'''. Contested info <> false. --[[User:BBird|BBird]] ([[User talk:BBird|talk]]) 16:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


===Discussion===
===Discussion===

Revision as of 16:44, 19 October 2020

why was this removed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biden–Ukraine_conspiracy_theory&diff=983698064&oldid=983697931

Aviartm? soibangla (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soibangla Edit conflict. It has been added. Aviartm (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NY Post is unreliable source

It is making an extraordinary claim, requiring corroboration from reliable sources, and that doesn’t mean sources simply reporting The Post reported this. No such corroboration exists. The article makes at least one clearly false assertion and allusions to other dubious if not false assertions. The material is clearly UNDUE and must be removed. soibangla (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The same could have and was said of the Steele Dossier. We need more RSs to corroborate reporting, agreed. According to Vice News, "At the moment, no reporting including our own has turned up evidence to contradict the Post, and The Daily Beast has published an interview with the repair shop owner, which is also bizarre, but lines up with the Post's story." Corroboration is already underway. Aviartm (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Steele dossier has zero to with this. Corroboration is already underway Sure looks like debunking at this point. soibangla (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Look, this whole thing has all the classic telltales of October Surprise dirty trick disinformation, likely of Russian origin. It absolutely reeks. Think. soibangla (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, it's politics. Whether it came from Russia is unknown. Aviartm (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this Wikipedia policy or just an opinion? Just because a newspaper gets something wrong once doesn't mean that it is unreliable. Most newspapers make mistakes occasionally. It also isn't relevant to its accuracy if it is right or left-winged. To date, the only disputes about NY Post's article are that it was obtained through hacking. Nobody is disputing the accuracy of its contents. 12:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skb7 (talk • contribs)

Yes, they are [1]. XOR'easter (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you are all ready to remove all instances of "false" and "conspiracy theory" after the FBI confirms this story.

It's already been confirmed that Joe Biden was the Big Guy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:191:8303:ef90:591a:75ec:3c8:b54 (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 October 2020

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: WP:SNOW closed as not moved. As is said multiple times in the discussion, reliable sources nearly unanimously call it a conspiracy theory, and the "recent reporting" comes from a tabloid infamous for fabricated stories (and this story seems to be highly fabricated). It should also be pointed out that a conspiracy theory doesn't stop being one because the President of the United States believes in it; after all, Trump was one of the most high-profile believers in the Obama birth certificate conspiracy theories. Sceptre (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory → Biden–Ukraine allegations – Recent reporting on this issue necessitates a likely different title. As more questions than answers been brought up and as the news will continue to report on new developments, it is more appropriate to rename for now. Aviartm (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, things coming up in the news are conspiracy theory all their own. like, how can a laptop dropped at a shop in April 2019 have files with meta-data showing them created in December 2019? Seems like a trap to trick the Trump administration. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the title characterizes the situation appropriately. Numerous WP:RS for this article are calling it a conspiracy theory, and I don't see much in the way of a counterargument. AlexEng(TALK) 21:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The "recent reporting" is exclusively from NY Post, a notoriously unreliable source. This article should never have been created in the first place for the evidently sole purpose of featuring this highly dubious content that is uncorroborated by any reliable source. This whole episode is a disgrace. soibangla (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We do not consider Russian disinformation propagated into an attempt at an October surprise to be "allegations". It's complete garbage, a hit piece, and to suggest any sort of validity to it is a false equivalence that compromises the neutrality of the project. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: An allegation is "a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof". While the proof that exists may not be valid, it's proof at the very least. Snowycats (talk) 22:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think the above !votes make the case well enough. The existing title sums up what reliable sources have to say. XOR'easter (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Existing title is accurate and reflects usage in reliable sources. Kaldari (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Originating from a damaged laptop left at a computer repair store, this is as sketchy and as much of a conspiracy theory as you can get. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Everything indicates this is a conspiracy theory that is part of a long-standing Trump/Russian disinformation campaign directed at Trump's supporters, who are notoriously uncritical and lap up this type of stuff without any fact-checking. -- Valjean (talk) 01:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Calling it a "conspiracy theory", especially in the title, seems like Wikipedia is taking a side. Another more neutral title: Biden-Ukraine scandal. Mcrsftdog (talk) 05:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But it is baseless. No media organization has been able to view or verify that any of the documents are what the tabloid NYPost claims they are. And, according to CBS News, the computer repair person who said that Hunter Biden dropped off the computer is legally blind so he couldn't even identify who gave him the damaged laptop. This story is full of holes and the "evidence" not been verified by any reputable news organization. Liz Read! Talk! 05:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If something can't be verified as true or false, a better label would be "allegation." I'd refrain from calling it a "conspiracy theory" unless that's the label reliable sources are giving to it. Mcrsftdog (talk) 05:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are in fact secretly distant cousins descended from the same European royal house, would it then be a conspiracy theory or an allegation that the Clinton-Trump Family has illicitly masterminded all political developments in the US for the past three decades? Hyperbolick (talk) 06:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
USA Today, NBC news, The New Yorker, and ABC News have all referred to it as a conspiracy theory, and thats just a quick glance. Greyjoy talk 10:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mcrsftdog, but that is the label reliable sources are giving to it. Also baseless, debunked, and an invention. —valereee (talk) 12:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Our policies require editors to take the side of RS, as we are required to use them and give them due weight over baseless accusations from unreliable sources. We are a reality-based encyclopedia. When RS concur that the sky is no longer blue, we will also change our content to say it is no longer blue. Until then we favor sources which describe the reality that the sky is blue. -- Valjean (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - Neutral language is preferred in all articles. Conspiracy theory should only be used if there is no dispute that it is false. Given that the current sitting president Donald Trump is calling this fact, it is far from a conspiracy theory. Skb7 (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Trump calling something a fact doesn't really mean all that much. Greyjoy talk 12:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Skb7, hahahahahahahahahaha...whew! Good one! —valereee (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV misunderstood to mean "neutral", as in "No Point of View". "Neutral language" is, according to NPOV policy, the language used in RS, even when biased. It is a serious NPOV violation to alter, censor, or neuter such language. Editors must remain neutral and document the biased language used in RS. Keep in mind that the truth is usually biased toward one side or the other. -- Valjean (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on grounds of neutral language. Guitarmankev1(TALK) 12:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as imprecise; RS are calling this a conspiracy theory and so should we. In fact they're calling it it debunked, baseless, and an invention. Using "neutral" language would be false balance. —valereee (talk) 12:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - conspiracy theory is a derogatory term. Nowadays popular and once-reputable media are not so strongly bound to neutrality and restraint in reporting. This should not result in a trickling down consensus from these sites that whatever accusations have been made are a 'conspiracy theory'. Whatever it is (and right now it's just a whole bunch of ruckus), until the accusations have been made are proven or disproven they should be discussed and represented neutrally. Beaneater (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, for the same reasons that have already been mentioned above. Guycn2 (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it's a conspiracy theory, not an "allegation". To call it an allegation is false equivalency between WP:RS and propaganda.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Calling it a conspiracy theory is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. To quote from the NPOV article, "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed." Do any of you reasonably believe that an editorial bias is not apparent on reading the article? Additionally, there are certainly WP:RS that use significantly softer terms than conspiracy theory and read as much more neutrally written articles, such as NY Times, BBC, AP, Snopes. Chandra.sarthak (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, looking at Wikipedia:Article_titles#Non-judgmental_descriptive_titles also point towards the same direction --- conspiracy is far from non-judgmental, and similarly far from a neutral point of view Chandra.sarthak (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chandra.sarthak, it is not "editorial bias" to point out that these allegations meet the definition of a conspiracy theory. Did you notice the clause although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity? We need to be clear that there is no validity to these claims. See WP:FALSEBALANCE: Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We cannot omit the conspiracy theory if it is the entire subject, but we ensure we don't legitimize it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

QAnon?

I removed a claim that the computer-shop owner was a QAnon supporter, which I was unable to substantiate. A believer in the Seth Rich conspiracy theory, yes, but not QAnon (according to anything I could find, and presuming that there is even a difference anymore, cf. the conspiracy singularity). The original source in that passage was this Business Insider story, which doesn't mention QAnon specifically. If anyone has a more direct connection that I overlooked, that would be much appreciated! Cheers, XOR'easter (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If RS say he believes in the Seth Rich murder conspiracy theory, that should be included. -- Valjean (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only source I see that explicitly says Macisaac supports QAnon is from WP:DAILYMAIL. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting. The Seth Rich bit is cited in the Business Insider story. XOR'easter (talk) 02:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No daylight there. Seth Rich conspiracy theory is a product of QAnon, or they are the same movement. Now, purely mathematically, what are the odds of somebody anonymously abandoning a laptop containing incriminating information on a Trump foe with the business run by either/or a QAnon supporter/Seth Rich conspiracy theorist? I suppose about equal to somebody abandoning a laptop with incriminating information about Donald Trump Jr at the Old Antifa Computer Repair Shop. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, if it’s really normal for people to care about and pay attention to the political views of the owner of each and every small-to-medium-sized business they patronize. Secondly, the conspiracy theory being “a product of QAnon” would not logically follow that everyone who believed in the Seth Rich theory learned it because they directly followed QAnon stuff. As for the article, we can mention that the guy who claims to have found the computer was a Seth Rich theory believer, as well as a tiny blurb on how the story came about, and if there’s a need to mention QAnon or whatever just say it’s popular with QAnon people. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 12:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss-Dubious, Hunter Biden is a reasonably wealthy individual who has been under political attack for months; his father is the Presidential candidate of a party that has been the subject of repeated cyberattacks and data theft by malign actors, primarily foreign governments.
Put yourself in his shoes. Would you drop off an unencrypted laptop at a strip mall computer shop and leave it there without paying the bill? Seriously? That is not even slightly plausible.
Add to this the prior reporting of data theft by Russian intelligence and Giuliani and Bannon's statements about having emails, made some time ago, and what you have is a very obvious attempt at a reunion tour by Ben Ghazi and the Buttery Males. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JzG, Ben Ghazi and the Buttery Males? Asartea Trick | Treat 13:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Asartea, yeah, they were huge from 2012-2016 but all ten tracks on the first album were indistinguishable and the difficult second album got some early buzz but turned out to be a complete bust. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JzG, Thanks for the answer! Asartea Trick | Treat 17:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LMAO! -- Valjean (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship

How can you write the whole intro paragraph without citing any sources to say that it is fake.

Yet you deny my edit to state 'yet unproven allegations'. Any other thing that remotely hints that it might be true immediately gets redacted without a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WakkoYakko (talk • contribs) 07:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That the same trick is being rerun ought to leave no doubt that Trump killed Seth Rich. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@WakkoYakko: The issue is, Wikipedia only says things that a majority of sources agree on. The majority of sources in this situation are news media. A large portion of news media disagrees with this claim. Wikipedia cannot say things that are based on what we personally think because people disagree on what is the truth. We cannot do our own interpretations of the evidence. Wikipedia rules say that only the interpretation given by the majority of sources is what matters. The only way for the statements made in your edit to be accepted and not denied is for a large amount of news sources that Wikipedia respects to stick their neck out for the idea. However, a large amount of news media has come out against the idea. Wikipedia is ultimately the aftershock of what happens with sources that it respects, and this is true of most any topic. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 12:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of Hunter Biden computer

The stories, sprung from the original NY Post article, mention a computer, but none of the sources provide any evidence of a computer. The words computer and FBI should not be in the same sentence. ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tero111 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should be careful about the use of the word "computer", given that there is dispute about where the information originated. Skb7 (talk) 12:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had a Finnish keyboard on and tried to improvise the tilde last time. Tero111 (talk) 13:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC) No changes have been made to the two lines that them refer to Reference 54. NBC claims that there is an actual computer the FBI seized, but they are just quoting the NY Post article! The next line about FBI investigation is true, but only related to the conspiracy, not an actual laptop. Tero111 (talk) 12:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing the term "False" in opening statement.

{Logic statement, ignoring WIKI policy and sorry for any people pinged}

  • Background

So let me drop a quick logic statement. Wikipedia is supposed to remain unbiased in articles. So in the opening statement, the article has "The Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of false allegations". I undid the word false as the FBI still has the computer. Valjean undid my revision with the comment "Follow the RS in the body (IOW, pretty much NEVER revert content with such an editorial note without extensive discussion first). This article isn't just about the last New York Post matter." So I read the body section.

Now let me give some logic. About 90% (maybe 100%) of the sources in the Background section are liberal sources (In general, Go Biden, Boo Trump...Those sources). Logically, they would all say "FALSE!" to any comments about a democrat/liberal, because those are the people they support. For example, CNN just after the allegations (NY post talk) came out, immediately started saying they were false and then never reported it. Fox News (Using Logic, ignoring WIKI RS policies) is running with the story. HOWEVER, Fox News and the majority of non-liberal sources, are leaving the fact in that they might be true. Knowing how Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased, should the body have some conservative sources? {LOGIC Statement: If you want to know why Wikipedia is saying 'False' to the allegations, it is because the article only has liberal sources, which say 'false'.} Elijahandskip (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

To keep this from turning into a major edit war, I am proposing a vote to see if the term false should be removed. [Vote up for 30 days (per WP:RFC), or until a clear consensus is reach].

Widely debunked is even better! soibangla (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, 'widely debunked' is the best phrasing, more neutral than the flat 'debunked' or 'false'. —valereee (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That Trump chooses to manufacture and use conspiracy theories as part of his election strategy (and modus operandi in life) does not affect how we document RS-coverage of those theories. When fact-checkers describe them as false, then we do too. If they weren't false, we'd change the title of this article, because we only use such titles for false conspiracy theories. -- Valjean (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is sourcing, such as what was presented by soibangla, that uses the word "debunked", which has the dictionary meaning of expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief). So, that'd be okay I think, if consensus were to develop for "debunked" over "false". The term "dubious" is also being used in sourcing, but is much more equivocal than "debunked" and therefore not as good. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to synonyms. -- Valjean (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And of course, "An Eastern European expert in digital forensics who has examined some of the Ukrainian documents leaked to the New York Post told me he found anomalies — such as American-style capitalization of the names of ministries — that suggest fakery." https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-truth-behind-the-hunter-biden-non-scandal/2020/10/16/798210bc-0fd1-11eb-8074-0e943a91bf08_story.html
Remember that per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, "There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable. A tabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication." 2601:2C0:C300:B7:FC53:F984:3F15:4B4C (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why was an RfC opened for this topic as this vote is underway? Because the vote here was not going someone's desired way for an article that did not have consensus to be created in the first place? soibangla (talk) 22:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Overwhelming weight of RS and repeatedly confirmed WP consensus text. SPECIFICO talk 02:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per earlier statements about RS. Asartea Talk | Contribs 11:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. It is critical that this remains neutral. As of now we have no proof that this is false. The term "unclear" or something along those lines would be appropriate. The tone of this article is critical for anyone coming. The term "false" is absurd to apply to the article at this time. Outspoken users like :Valjean, whose page prominently contain the text "Donald Trump is a lunatic" are hardly users that we should be seeking input from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:48f8:4028:78d:e947:e7af:a6b:19e7 (talk • contribs)
  • Cannot really vote on this as there is an assumption that there is a laptop and that FBI "still has it." Rather than have this entire thing in the article, I would remove most of the content and references, and only leave the alleged email that NY Post showed, and discussion of it and its dates and the actual dates of the PDF. Voting on allegations or false allegations is irrelevant if there is no computer. Tero111 (talk) 13:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Tero111, no, that would be a spectacularly bad idea, because the email is probably fake; instead we should wait for analytical reporting of the thing in its entirety, including the route by which the laptop arrived at a strip mall computer shop, whether any of the "emails" are verified (the Biden campaign has explicitly refuted at least one claim with backup from official records) and the like.
    WP:NOTNEWS. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove This is a clear example What Wikipedia is not. Using a page of Wikipedia for bias political fighting and turning "allegations" into "conspiracy theory" without being supported by the overwhelming majority of reliable secondary sources would downgrade Wiki reliability and neutrality and therefore should be avoided. This is also not a place to "vote" but to gain consensus. Tritomex (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Tritomex, do you have reliable sources that are calling it an allegation rather than a conspiracy theory? Because other editors have said the opposite. —valereee (talk) 20:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Tritomex, when we cover allegations as allegations, it's because they are alleged by credible sources such as investigators. What credible sources exits that allege any part of this conspiracy theory to be fact? Guy (help! - typo?) 21:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not upon editors to prove that something dosent exist, but upon you to prove that RS are calling this allegations a conspiracy theory. I nowhere saw such attribution. This allegations are not named as such by BBC, DW, RT, Reuters, The Jerusalem Post, France international and all other major media outlets. No mention of conspiracy theories anywhere. The title and the artickle itself is against the fiive pillars of Wikipedia and on the level of WP:NEGATIVESPIN Tritomex (talk) 04:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove this post screams of bias. The Steele Dossier has been debunked but its still treated as fact by wikipedia.Guitarguy2323 (talk) 01:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you would like to discuss the Steele dossier, Talk:Steele dossier is thataway. I'm not sure how it's relevant here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    treated as fact by wikipedia is false, as paragraph 4 of Steele dossier lead makes clear. Just sayin'. soibangla (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite to "debunked", per the long list of reliable sources that verify. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I did a quick browse of Category:Conspiracy theories in the United States and it seems that most of them use wording like "have rejected these theories" (9/11 conspiracy theories), "debunked" (Clinton Body Count, Pizzagate), "No evidence supports the conspiracy theories" (Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories) and so would prefer wording along those lines. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources. Bias means adding content that disagrees with mainstream sources often based on an editor's opinion. Bias does not mean that those sources take or explain a position. Sources often take a position. If the sources are reliable, per weight, we can and should add the content they reference. Littleolive oil (talk) 08:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The 'bias' argument is irrelevant when all the genuinely reliable sources overwhelmingly agree that the substantive allegations against Biden have been comprehensively debunked and disproven; even the heavily biased Republican Senate report came to the same conclusion. The WP:RS similarly agree that NY Post story is based on a deliberate fabrication. Unless that changes, the descriptor ``false" is the correct one to use here. Saying that ``not all" allegations" have been disproven and that's why the word ``false" should be removed, is a red herring argument. The main allegations have been disproven, comprehensively so, and the Republican Senate report said as much, failed to substantiate anything significant, and produced nothing more than painful handwringing. Even if the infamous hard drive contains some occasional true statements such as "Joe Biden's last name is Biden", that would not justify un-labeling the story as "false". Nsk92 (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The 'false' description appears to be well-supported by the sources. To remove that adjective would be to present a false balance. I would be okay with adding a short sentence to the lead about how the New York Post story has drawn increased attention to the theory since that's why many readers are coming here. – Anne drew 16:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not in Wikipedia's voice. Allegations prior to the New York Post story are false according to numerous reliable sources. I understand Sphilbrick's point that the specific allegations made in the Post story haven't been disproven. So we need to walk this fine line of:
    1. The underlying allegations have been called false by numerous WP:RS
    2. The specific allegations in the New York Post article are yet to be disproven
    I don't think the solution is to remove the 'false' or 'debunked' description entirely, but instead we should follow the guidance in WP:VOICE:

    Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts... Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views...

    Given this guidance, we should change the first sentence to say something this (or similar):

    The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of allegations that are widely considered false...

    And make sure we explain that WP:RS call the New York Post article unreliable and possibly part of a disinformation campaign.
    – Anne drew 14:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak support for this adjustment (in tone, to better adhere to WP:WIKIVOICE) as an improvement. Although I don't agree with your entire rationale, I agree it's better to follow use a neutral voice. I don't think the NYP emails change the falsity of the conspiracy theory (per JzG), as I explain below, so I'm cautious about watering this down. Jr8825 • Talk 15:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Jr8825, I would go with wording that makes it clear that the allegations about Biden and Burisma are (debunked|false|refuted|generally considered bogus|whatever), but the specifics of the NYP (the emails) could justly be framed as merely implausible - there's not been time for anything definitive on these, and probably won't be before the election because the FBI have learned the lesson from Comey and probably won't say anything either way. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)#[reply]
    How about:

    The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of allegations centred on the widely debunked assertion that 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden engaged in corrupt activities while...

    Jr8825 • Talk 16:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite I think it's fairly well accepted that Wikipedia is not in the business of documenting truth. While Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth is an essay, Wikipedia:Verifiability is policy, and links to the essay. For this reason, it's well established that we should avoid statements such as "X is true". The counterpart should be equally obvious. We ought to avoid (in Wikipedia's voice) statements that "Y is False". In many cases, we might mean that the statement isn't verified, we might mean that the logical opposite does have a citation to a published reliable source. This is so basic, I'm surprised to see many editors including some I highly respect, arguing that this article should retain the word "false". That's not only a high bar that hasn't remotely been reached, but it's inconsistent with the very way that Wikipedia works.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you provide the policy that says we should avoid statements such as "X is true"... [or] "X is false"? WP:V and the essay you linked do not say that. They say we should follow reliable sources instead of just writing whatever we think is true. In this case, our sources say the theory is false. What is the bar for calling something false in Wikipedia? – Anne drew 23:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sphilbrick: if the published, reliable sources are unanimous in describing the issue as false disinformation (which editors following the topic closely seem pretty clear about), then there's no issue with Wikipedia saying as much – the relevant policy is WP:DUE (giving due weight to reliable sources) not WP:V. Jr8825 • Talk 04:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sphilbrick, why would we avoid saying something is false when all the reliable sources say that, well, it's false? Guy (help! - typo?) 08:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JzG, Do you really mean "all" or "most"? If you literally mean "all", then you understand that one counterexample disproves the assertion. Let's look at the NBC article. there are a lot of useful quotes, "the serious accusations… are unsupported", "there is no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of either Biden", "Trump… yet to offer evidence of the claims", "building on the baseless claims", and more, each of which support an assertion that the claims are unverified, but not a single instance of the word "false".
JzG Show me which source proves that the allegations are 100% false. (Aka no sign of doubt in the entire RS). I know you will use a extremely liberal source...but I want to see if you can even pull a source that shows 0 doubt that it is false. (Also a RS with facts). Elijahandskip (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Elijahandskip, elsewhere I have cited the "extremely liberal" Financial Times: [2]. Here's a very thorough rundown written earlier this year: [3]. The Washington Post explainer also covers the objective merits (or rather, the lack thereof) of the claims. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • JzG, How about the Vox article? "he[Trump] insists — despite no apparent evidence to support this", "Trump, repeating a conspiracy theory", "He[Trump] has repeatedly misrepresented facts", "Trump and his allies and asserted — without any evidence". Again, lots of support for an assertion that the claims are unverified, but not a single instance of the word "false". S Philbrick(Talk) 12:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sphilbrick, the "false" part is the claim that Joe Biden intervened to sack Shokin to protect Burisma. I think that no reasonable person could conclude by now that this is anything other than bollocks. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG, Now you are trying to move the goalposts. You started by supporting a statement in Wikipedia's voice that all allegations are false on the basis that all the sources claim they are all false. Finding one aspect of one claim which might (I'm not yet convinced) be false according to one source is not remotely supporting your argument that all sources say all the allegations are false. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sphilbrick: - it's not moving the goalposts, the crux of the conspiracy theory is that Biden acted corruptly by withholding loans to push out Shokin, because Shokin was investigating his son – which has been shown time and time again to be nonsense. In its opening sentence, the New York Post story falsely asserted "the elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating" Burisma": this illustrates quite well how all the assertions surrounding the Bidens and Ukraine ultimately feed into this one, disproved lie (the significance of the leaked emails is that we're supposed to infer from them Biden was meeting Burisma to protect the corrupt company from Skohin). I haven't seen any reputable media suggest that the Bidens may have acted corruptly in one way but legitimately in another, the whole allegation of corruption boils down to one widely debunked (by serious media and government investigations) claim. This is the point JzG has made several times in the discussion, the new, highly questionable emails don't change the fact that the conspiracy as a whole is universally considered false. Jr8825 • Talk 14:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sphilbrick, or "a quick guide to Trump's false claims about Ukraine and the Bidens", and of course "Ex-White House Adviser Rejects False Ukraine Narrative". As I think I've made clear before, I would be happy with "discredited" or "debunked" instead, but there is no need to find the exact word in order to reflect the consensus of reliable sources that was established at least a year ago: the idea that Joe Biden pursued Shokin in order to protect Burisma is absurd on many levels. It would require that the EU, the IMF, the World Bank and the Ukrainian opposition were all in on it, as were the prosecutors who found the extortion of the Russian sand and gravel firm that led to the "diamond prosecutors" and the vote in the Ukrainian Parliament.
    Feel free to propose alternative wording that in your view more accurately reflects the status of the underlying claims. Unproven doesn't cut it. Allegations that Giuliani is compromised by Russian intelligence via Derkach are unproven. These allegations are contradicted by every single known relevant fact. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG, Why are you linking examples of sources that use the term "false"? Nobody disputes that there are some such example. the question is whether we can say it Wikipedia is voice that all the allegations are false, and you supported the inclusion on the basis that, as you said, " all the reliable sources say that, well, it's false". it only takes one counterexample to disprove that assertion and I provided several. You can provide 100 examples including the word but it doesn't change the conclusion, that it's incorrect to say all the reliable sources say it's false. my proposed alternative is simple – simply remove the word "false". Let the lead say that there are allegations, and let the body of the text discussed the various allegations and the extent to which they been confirmed, discredited, proven false, or simply unverified. That would be the fair thing to do. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is insufficient, "debunked" or "false" belongs there because that's what the reliable sources say about suggestions that Biden acted in a corrupt way by getting Shokin fired. This is the frontline of disinformation and it's important Wikipedia gets the due weight of sources correct here. Jr8825 • Talk 14:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sphilbrick, the main problem is that this article exists at all: it shouldn't. The idea that Joe Biden got Shokin fired to protect Burisma is ridiculous, and has been known to be ridiculous for over a year. But this being Wikipedia I have absolutely no doubt that attempts to delete it because it's obviously bloody silly will be defeated because lots of people want to talk about it.
    So: there is no problem with casting the core claim about Joe Biden and Shokin as false, debunked, refuted or whatever other synonym we decide to use. That's how it's been reflected on Wikipedia for a year or more, and that has not changed as a result of what appears to be a Russian disinformation operation. When the Financial Times opens with "Donald Trump’s lawyer has new fixers in Kyiv to help revive claims discredited as conspiracy theory", and says "Prominent Republican senators, including Rob Portman of Ohio and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, were on a similar push at the time, calling for “urgent reforms to the prosecutor-general’s office and judiciary” in an early 2016 letter to Mr Poroshenko", there's not much room for doubt. The conspiracy theory is debunked.
    Any residual uncertainty is about the disinformation operation itself, where I agree we can't make any confident statement beyond the fact that no reputable source currently takes any part of it at face value and most frame it as a probable Russian disinformation operation. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG,

    appears to be a Russian disinformation operation

    You rip your credibility to shreds with comments like that. yes, I am aware that some fringe actors are floating this nonsense, but I've yet to seen any credible support. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fringe actors like the FBI? [4] GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG, How about the Vice article? "a second attempt to tar Biden with allegations of corruption" but not a single instance of the word "false".
    I am sure you can find some sources which use the word "false" or a synonym, but I'm not arguing there are no such articles. I'm arguing that the general tenor of the articles is that the claims are unverified. That's what Wikipedia should say. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Plenty of credible sources have shown evidence for it, and this article reeks of WP:BIAS. Major changes need to happen to clean this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.5.219 (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please specify which credible sources you are referring to? GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

It's important to understand that even if the purported emails were real (which is not at all certain, since the evidence points extremely strongly to a Russian disinformation operation coordinated with Giuliani), the claim would still be false and debunked.

All this was explored in excruciating detail during the impeachment hearings. The facts are clear:

  • Viktor Shokin was corrupt. The first bipartisan motion to remove him was filed shortly after his appointment, and when he was finally removed by an overwhelming majority vote of the Ukrainian Parliament in March 2016 his associates were found with bags of jewels and multiple passports of his.
  • Viktor Shokin was not threatening to prosecute Burisma (unless perhaps he was making extortion threats, which is the clear implication in the events leading to Shokin's ouster [5]).
  • Investigation of Burisma was dormant. Replacing Shokin made it more likely that the investigation would be reactivated, as indeed it was in 2019.
  • The investigation of Burisma relates to events prior to 2014, when Hunter Biden was hired as an adviser on corporate ethics policies in what appears to have been an attempt to at least give the appearance of cleaning up the company's former image, as attention focused on Mykola Zlochevsky, its owner since 2011 and a crony of Yanukovych.
  • Removing Shokin was official policy of the United States, the EU, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. He was not alone: the office of Prosecutor General had been held to be corrupt under numerous previous holders. The pressure was not to remove Shokin, specifically, but to remove corruption and hire instead a prosecutor who would enforce the law and deliver a business environment free from corruption, so that Western companies, who have to comply with laws forbidding foreign bribery, could to business.

Nothing about the timeline stacks up. Nothing about the emails stacks up. And the idea that an unencrypted MacBook belonging to a man who has been under intense scrutiny for years, whose father is the Presidential candidate for the Democratic Party, would be left at a strip mall computer shop rather than taken to an Apple store or simply trashed and rebuilt from iCloud is so very implausible that you have to wonder who would even think of it. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention, dropping a laptop to a guy who just so happens to be legally blind and can't identify who actually dropped it, who just so happens to somehow connect to Rudy Giuliani, who worked with Steve Bannon to pass a copy of the hard drive to the NYPost because the legally blind guy decided that he wanted to give Giuliani a copy in addition to supposedly handing it to the FBI? That's an awful lot of "coincidences" there. It has all the hallmarks of a plot to disseminate something fake while laundering the source... 2601:2C0:C300:B7:FC53:F984:3F15:4B4C (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the word 'false' and add a second paragraph detailing the dubious nature of the emails. It looks very bad as it is, a conservative hitpiece waiting to happen. Pietrus69 (talk) 17:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be worrying whether conservatives or liberals are unhappy, the important thing is we maintain a neutral point of review and reflect reliable sources, that in itself will do more for readers' trust. Jr8825 • Talk 15:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How would hiring a sitting US vice president's son (and one in charge of Ukraine policy, on that - Obama's "point man") be "cleaning up" Burisma's image? It has all the appearance of a bribe, even if it's unclear what, if anything, Burisma received in return. 209.6.169.178 (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He was hired to advise on corporate governance. He was qualified to do so, but doubtless would not have got the job if his name had been Smith. But he was hired at a time when Burisma (and several other Ukrainian businesses owned by oligarchs) were trying to clean up their image. US and European businesses have pretty strict rules about bribery, and foreign companies that engage in corrupt practices are on blacklists and greylists with the financial conduct authorities, with heightened scrutiny. It's charmingly naive to think that the SEC would be swayed by the name Biden on a company's prospectus, but this is a Ukrainian company, and they work in a world where connections are paramount - you can see how they could make an error there. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate boards are rarely filled exclusively with operating professionals from the relevant industry. Biden's educational and professional histories are typical of tens of thousands of corporate board members worldwide. SPECIFICO talk 01:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bannon

This adds more poison to this "story"...

We may be looking at the old classic Breitbart/Bannon/O'Keefe scam strategy that has so often been busted. These people are desperate. -- Valjean (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that investigative journalists will be putting together the true chain of events of who got what, when, where, and how. It may not come out until after the election (surely what Bannon and Giuliani were counting on). – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Valjean, yup. [6], for example, and [7]. Plus of course [8].
We will have to see what the WP:RS's say. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News

The article needs to include information recently disclosed which suggests that a person or persons who where noted to be on the email chains of certain alleged Hunter Biden emails have substantiated that the messages where in fact authentic.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-biden-china-email-source-verifies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1217:49A9:C8B5:FB13:948E:E7A7 (talk) 04:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Has this source explained how meta-data of an email supposedly written in 2017 shows it to actually have been written in December 2019? Hyperbolick (talk) 05:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The emails were later exported to PDF after the laptop was dropped off. It's the metadata of these PDFs that are dated 2019, not the emails. Please read more carefully as to not spread misinformation. Databased (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Databased: can you provide me with the meta-data for the emails? Wait, what's that? There is none? The only meta-data which exists at all is that for the PDF files? How odd, no? Perhaps the files only had to look good enough to fool Giuliani. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One suspects it's not that hard to fool a guy who married his cousin. https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/05/rudy-giuliani-john-oliver-last-week-tonight 2601:2C0:C300:B7:2CFA:3DA8:CE80:C645 (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First, Fox is not reliable for political claims. Second, there are many more sources that absolutely refute this claim. So: No. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Third neither is MSNBC or CNN. This shows the bias. Guitarguy2323 (talk) 01:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But wait, the Fox News story doesn't name its source. So, um...fake news, right? It's all so unfair! soibangla (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For me, only sources that is reliable is the BBC or similar (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc). Fox News and it's affiliated are not used when reporting the news, even news about hurricane because it affiliates to Trump or right-wing. BBC or its similar media tend to more affiliate to American people, which is more reliable than any other news organization. 110.137.170.83 (talk) 03:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSP is a useful resource for what is generally considered reliable (and in what contexts), FWIW. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So if Fox News leans toward Trump on "all articles" and that makes it unreliable, then CNN is unreliable as it leans toward Biden. Simple. CNN and Fox News are both unreliable in politic news. LOGIC! Elijahandskip (talk) 14:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about we focus on editing this article and leave broad-strokes discussion of the reliability of various sources for more appropriate locations such as WP:RSN? GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 October 2020

KEbabs 78.56.237.238 (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 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. Asartea Trick | Treat 15:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The requested change must also be uncontroversial, so make sure that is settled first. -- Valjean (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Delete article and take the small amount of relevant info and add it to Biden Campaign article

There is already a Trump-Ukraine scandal article that has most of the facts related to Giuliani and the Bidens. There us also a Hunter Biden article in Wikipedia.

I would propose that the current article is not notable. It can be summarized, with the minimal references in the Biden campaign article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden_2020_presidential_campaign

right under the Trump Ukraine thing. Make a section called "The 2020 Giuliani and Associates accusations." That way it is clear they all come from Giuliani and NY Post.

The current article makes it look like there is a valid conspiracy and an FBI investigation into some laptop. A very neutral description of this entire sequence of events is given by NPR here:

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/17/924506867/analysis-questionable-n-y-post-scoop-driven-by-ex-hannity-producer-giuliani

This matter is a trivial item in the big scheme, but some remnants of this will remain in Wikipedia into the Biden presidency, which is likely the outcome of the election. The actual Hunter Biden working for Burisma is well covered already. But currently the article we are discussing is only adding to conspiracy thinking.

Tero111 (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tero111, No objections here, you are very welcome to nominate for deletion. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Scroll up. There was a split (Premature) vote that lasted 24 hours.Elijahandskip (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, rename to Giuliani-NY Post conspiracy theory. SPECIFICO talk 20:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Only administrators can have to move the page due to highly controversial and visible page, so any users that want to move the page please conducted using Request move tool. I also asking admin to imposing 1RR for this article but it will wait pre-condition that impose 1RR. 110.137.170.83 (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SPECIFICO, move requests can be initiated by anyone. My preferred title would be "Pfffffft", tbh. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably remove the word 'false' from the opening paragraph for the time being, and a second paragraph

As this is a developing story, and one which has yet to really bear out, the word 'false' without a solid source is almost certainly going to lead to negative attention.

I suggest removing 'false' and adding a second explanatory paragraph to the intro suggesting the uncertain origin of the recent emails released by the Post. Pietrus69 (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pietrus69, Please see the discussion above at #Discussing the term "False" in opening statement.. Asartea Trick | Treat 17:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 October 2020 (2)

Change it to an “ongoing political conspiracy.” It is intellectually dishonest to say that the allegations have been proven false already as the investigation is ongoing. Until proven otherwise it is neither true nor untrue. 2600:1011:B019:6773:99D6:5B2:477A:FBF (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please see the request for comment above discussing this exact thing: #Discussing the term "False" in opening statement. Any change will be implemented as a result of consensus in that discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Clarification needed

As written, the article does not just deny the NY Post story and the dubious allegation of Biden's causing Shokin's firing, but takes the significantly stronger position that any and all corruption allegations against the Bidens with regard to Ukraine, or even the idea that Hunter Biden was unqualified, constitute a conspiracy theory. Yet world socialist website (no right-wing source), while writing "This account is not very credible, but there does not as yet appear to be any substance to the charges by Trump & Co. that the vice president intervened to block the prosecution of his son’s company in 2016. " also states "But Ukraine is where Hunter Biden has apparently cashed in most extensively, trading on his father’s name and position" and "In the search for board members with the right contacts, Zlochevsky recruited Devon Archer, Biden’s business partner, the former president of Poland and ex-Stalinist Aleksander Kwaśniewski, and then Hunter Biden himself. Biden was brought on nominally to provide advice on corporate governance, although he never performed any actual legal work for the company". (article at https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/10/01/bide-o01.html) I think the article should be rewritten to clarify that it's about the dubious Shokin and NY Post claims, and not about any and all corruption related to the fact of Hunter Biden's employment at Burisma; from a certain perspective, his salary in and of itself was a bribe. 209.6.169.178 (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The NY Post story exists. All coverage in reliable independent sources casts serious doubt on its veracity, in every possible respect: the provenance of the laptop, the identity of the person who dropped it off, the authenticity of the content. This should be read in the context of a known ongoing FBI investigation into Russian hacking efforts directed at Hunter Biden and Burisma, which was notified to the White House at least a year ago, and the similar fact pattern around the Kremlin's attempt to smear Emanuel Macron in 2016, to say nothing of the DNC email hacks. This all fits neatly with the known MO of the GRU.
The idea that Joe Biden intervened to have Shokin fired to protect Burisma was extensively investigated in the impeachment hearings and shown to be completely inconsistent with all independently documented facts. Shokin was removed by a huge majority vote in the Ukrainian parliament after an investigation into extortion of another company led to associates who were found with large amounts of money and documents and multiple passports belonging to Shokin. The entire Western world wanted Shokin removed: the World Bank, the IMF, the EU and the US were calling for his removal long before Joe Biden got involved, because it was impossible for Western companies to do business in Ukraine due to our widely prevalent anti-bribery laws. You know these laws are an impediment to doing business in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, because Trump has complained about them in public. The timeline doesn't work for the underlying conspiracy theory any more than it works for the supposed laptop.
The biggest puzzle is why they thought adding Bannon and Giuliani to the mix would make it seem more credible. I guess they skimped on their research. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and the article should state that it's specifically about Biden being behind Shokin's firing, not any and all corruption allegations regarding the Bidens and Burisma. Wikipedia can and should say that a quid pro quo regarding Shokin is a conspiracy theory; it should not state that "The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of false allegations which assert that 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden engaged in corrupt activities while the former was Vice President of the United States and the latter worked for the Ukrainian gas company Burisma" as its lede, nor should it say that "The conspiracy theory alleges that Hunter Biden was paid a large sum of money by a Ukrainian firm, Burisma Holdings, to take a job for which he was unqualified, as a means for Burisma to influence then-vice president Joe Biden,".

The claim that Hunter Biden was qualified to work at Burisma is unsourced (I think, [7] is after the sentence wiki states he was, but doesn't claim it) and dubious, and Burisma could've influenced US-Ukraine policy through Biden in ways other than firing Shokin (or attempted to, but failed); the article I linked certainly claims it as Burisma's motivation for hiring him. It reads to me as the sort of normal influence-peddling in capitalist democracies akin to the lobbyist “revolving door” - generally legal, but often criticized as corrupt. Neither claim is nearly as dubious as the debunked notion that Biden induced the firing of Shokin on Burisma's behalf, nor does either on its own rise to the level of a conspiracy theory. The rest of the article is fine. 209.6.169.178 (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He's a qualified lawyer and formerly EVP at MBNA America, who subsequently served in the United States Department of Commerce in a policy position. Would I hire him? no. But is he qualified? It sure looks that way.
If the assertion is that Biden failed to have Shokin fired, then the subsequent Ukrainian Parliament vote is even more compelling IMO, but I've not seen it in sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I actually just removed the statement—it stuck out to me during my copyedit as very unusual for us to say in wikivoice that H. Biden was qualified for a job, especially because I couldn't tell which source was being used to support it and couldn't find any that said he was qualified so unequivocally. In fact I found some sources (including from left-leaning publications) that seem to agree that he was unqualified, though most are commenting on how nepotism is an expected part of American political families:
  • The Atlantic: "In April 2014, he became a director of Burisma, the largest natural-gas producer in Ukraine. He had no prior experience in the gas industry, nor with Ukrainian regulatory affairs, his ostensible purview at Burisma. He did have one priceless qualification: his unique position as the son of the vice president of the United States, newborn Ukraine’s most crucial ally."
  • Vox: "Back in 2014 after a change of regime in Ukraine, Hunter Biden joined the board of a scandal-plagued Ukrainian natural gas company named Burisma. Hunter had no apparent qualifications for the job except that his father was the vice president and involved in the Obama administration’s Ukraine policy."
I see that Soibangla has since added the statement, It was asserted that Hunter Biden's employment was suspicious because he had no expertise in the energy industry, though he was hired to consult on "transparency, corporate governance and responsibility, international expansion and other priorities" rather than on energy matters. That's at least got an inline source, though it seems a little bit WP:SYNTH—the Bloomberg source does verify that "The company said that Hunter Biden would advise on 'transparency, corporate governance and responsibility, international expansion and other priorities'", but it doesn't use it to refute the claim that H. Biden was unqualified. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Same WP:SYNTH concern applies to the just-added note about H. Biden's law degree: [9] GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare, not going to disagree with any of that. Most of it is duplicative anyway: just spin on what's already in articles like Hunter Biden and Viktor Shokin. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overview article

CNN has published a similar analysis today: https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/18/media/new-york-post-hunter-biden-reliable/index.html 2601:2C0:C300:B7:1415:FAD2:6664:3C80 (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After source (49)(50), we should add this

Biden admits to firing Ukraine Prosecutor. (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCSF3reVr10) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotafox2008 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Random YouTube channels aren't reliable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dotafox, that video isn't news. The prosecutor was corrupt and not investigating corruption like he should. The international community was agreed that he should be fired, and Biden was given that job. He got it done. A new prosecutor would do a better job, IOW actually investigate any corruption at Burisma.
There was nothing wrong with firing the corrupt prosecutor, and if Hunter Biden had been doing anything wrong, his father's action placed him in greater, not lesser, danger. The Trump/Giuliani/Russian narrative is disinformation. -- Valjean (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to remove the words 'false allegations' as this is a) tautology and b) stated as proven, without citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balancedcontent (talk • contribs) 05:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Balancedcontent, not even New York Post reporters seriously believe this arse gravy. [10] Guy (help! - typo?) 07:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Biden–Ukraine_conspiracy_theory&oldid=984344765"