Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory

"False" allegations in the introduction

Stating that the allegations are false is a great example of why Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.209.218.176 (talk) 04:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The allegations made long ago described in this article are false. More recent allegations are pending. This is not the "Every allegation made against Joe Biden" article. soibangla (talk) 04:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes of course, because the science is changing and those allegations that were false may have actually always been true. Weve always been at war with eastasia. 97.119.134.32 (talk) 13:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Lol, you've got a point there! 77.32.35.108 (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

You're a liar who is lying. 2600:1004:B05F:EC6B:1552:84DE:59D5:C3A (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the characterization of this entire topic as a “false conspiracy theory” is extremely inappropriate as it is ongoing. 68.180.94.165 (talk) 15:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Biden is guilty 65.190.193.40 (talk) 11:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

An allegation is a guess. Nothing implies it is False. The use of left leaning baised media as a source doesn't help either. Many things that where thought of as Qanon theories, Russian misinformation, and right leaning hypocrisy have been proven to be real time and time again. if you need a source I would say use the many you can find on bing and brave search engines (not Google for obvious reasons) Hawksofthewoods (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Counterpoint: false allegations are false, they are not a "guess", and presenting a baseless "guess" as valid as you suggest is an offense, in this case, against Biden. No Qanon theories, Russian misinformation, and right leaning hypocrisy have been proven to be true, or you would provide some reliable sources to back up your claims. Sources that you "perceive" as left leaning baised media are just telling you what you don't want to hear. This is the first time that I've heard someone suggest that Google is biased and Bing is not. @Hawksofthewoods: please back up your claims. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Hunter Biden, Burisma, and Corruption 75.108.55.59 (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

A partisan report authored by Chuck Grassley. Point? Zaathras (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying that Congressional reports are not reliable sources? 75.108.55.59 (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Even the minority on that committee denounced it. – _•Raven  ^.talk 19:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Grassley’s report has specific Suspicious Activity Reports and details whistleblower evidence given to the FBI. What are characterizing as partisan? Salem196027 (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

SARs are very common and most often false positives. Please provide a source for this supposed whistleblower. soibangla (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

"Republican Inquiry Finds No Evidence of Wrongdoing by Biden" soibangla (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of "false" and "bias", the document you cite claims on pp. 8–9: "In 2016, Ukraine’s top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, had an active and ongoing investigation into Burisma and its owner, Mykola Zlochevsky. At the time, Archer and Hunter Biden continued to serve on Burisma’s board of directors." As the article Viktor Shokin notes, "The investigation into Burisma only pertained to events happening before^[54] Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, joined the board of directors of Burisma Holdings in 2014." (54. Ivanova, Polina; Polityuk, Pavel (27 September 2019). "Ukraine agency says allegations against Burisma cover period before Biden joined". Reuters. London: Thomson Reuters. Archived from the original on 3 October 2019. Retrieved 1 October 2019.) ... Also: "Among other issues, he was slow-walking the investigation into Zlochevsky and Burisma and, according to Zlochevsky's allies, using the threat of prosecution to try to solicit bribes from Mr. Zlochevsky and his team....^[40]" (40. Vogel, Kenneth P. (22 September 2019). "Trump, Biden and Ukraine: Sorting Out the Accusations". The New York Times. New York City. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 3 October 2019. Retrieved 23 September 2019. "A version of this article appears in print on Sept. 22, 2019, Section A, Page 19 of the New York edition with the headline: Trump Is Pointing Fingers, but Here’s the Rundown on Biden and Son.") [Boldface added in both cases.] In 2020 (i.e. while Trump was U.S. President), Ukrainian police opened a probe into the allegations Shokin had made of political pressure... and closed it again. (Melkozerova, Veronika. "Ukraine police close Biden probe initiated by ousted prosecutor". NBC News. Kyiv. Retrieved 2021-10-25.) The last source also mentions: "Shokin has alleged that he was forced to resign once he started looking into Hunter Biden’s role at Burisma, but a deputy prosecutor working under Shokin has said the Burisma case had been dormant at the time the U.S. was pushing for Shokin's removal. / Multiple western governments, including the Obama administration, had demanded he be replaced for failing to prosecute corruption cases, and Ukrainian investigators and anti-corruption watchdogs have said that Shokin was fired because he had made no progress in the fight against corruption." – _•Raven  ^.talk 18:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no question that Hunter Biden's substantial financial gain from sitting on the Board of Burisma was problematic for the stated US anti-corruption foreign policy at the time. It doesn't matter when the corrupt dealings happened, what mattered was that nothing could be done about Burisma and it's odious owner while Biden was sitting on the board (the whole motive for asking him to be on the board?). I don't know why you fight so hard NOT to acknowledge this, it's stated directly in the source you cited. Other facts, also not disputed is that Joe Biden, as VP, threatened to withhold financial support to Ukraine if Shokin wasn't removed. (Also in your citations) The interference itself, was the problem, not the motivation behind it. 75.108.55.59 (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

We're still doing this? There is no question that Hunter Biden's substantial financial gain from sitting on the Board of Burisma was problematic for the stated US anti-corruption foreign policy at the time. This appears to be your imagination. also not disputed is that Joe Biden, as VP, threatened to withhold financial support to Ukraine if Shokin wasn't removed This was done at the behest of the entire Western world. Shokin's removal put Hunter at greater, not lesser, risk of prosecution. Facepalm – Muboshgu (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Jon Stewart says Hunter Biden's Burisma role was 'corruption ... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/jon-stewart-hunter-biden-burisma-corruption-b2211376.html?amp 75.108.55.59 (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

And Jon Stewart is an arbiter of these things? Does he say what laws were broken? Please stop reaching, it's a waste of everybody's time. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

But you are you? 2600:8800:6107:4300:48D2:983B:8BD1:DB10 (talk) 23:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The subtitle reads: "The comedian also said the president’s son benefited from 'nepotism'" — which Merriam-Webster defines as "favoritism (as in appointment to a job) based on kinship"... except that no-one at Burisma or involved in hiring him was related to him. By Stewart's usage, Hunter Biden should not have been employed anywhere. (Added to the irony: Stewart made this comment after the Trump Administration had employed Trump's daughter and son-in-law for four years.) – _•Raven  ^.talk 19:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I've posted my concerns with the unabashed bias evident in this wiki article. If you feel like time is being wasted then you can certainly stop responding. Everyone who disagrees with you isn't just imagining things, what an awful and delusional thing to suggest. You have an air of intellectual and moral superiority that is not substantiated by the facts 75.108.55.59 (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I've never really cared what Stewart thinks about anything, but he's just wrong here. Everyone knew Burisma was corrupt, but the company wanted to expand into partnerships with Western companies that wouldn't touch Burisma because it was corrupt. This is why Burisma hired Hunter et al. to clean it up with Western standards of corporate governance and transparency, so prospective business partners would have confidence in working with Burisma. Burisma made a slick video for prospective partners presenting Hunter et al. for that purpose. Of course it's easy to assume that because Hunter joined a corrupt company that he was hired to participate in and further corruption, but the opposite was true. I explained this years ago with sources, but I'm not gonna go find it in the archives. Try some more googling. soibangla (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

BTW I worked as a management consultant for the better part of a decade. Consultants working at the board level of a major corporation make what can seem like an obscene amount of money to outsiders, but the business is a common path to wealth, like investment banking and corporate law. There's really nothing suspicious about Hunter's income, especially if he had analysts working for him that he had to pay from his gross billings. soibangla (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

> "... not substantiated by the facts." — Were my citations above, from the article on Viktor Shokin, now NOT reliable sources of fact? Perhaps you should take that up there, or at WT:RS. – _•Raven  ^.talk 20:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

not if you're using these sources which are also used as citations to this wiki article 75.108.55.59 (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

https://abc7amarillo.com/how-three-major-news-outlets-botched-a-report-about-giuliani-and-russian-disinformation 75.108.55.59 (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Although that appears to come from a reliable source, it actually originates from Sinclair Broadcast Group, which isn't. soibangla (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

What is it that you think this ABC7Amarillo article proves that we haven't taken into account? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/01/media/washington-post-new-york-times-retraction-giuliani/index.html

Is this source better? I'm not going to read it for you. You are not interested in truth or acting in good faith. Did you remove the articles from these sources and all the sources referring to these articles since it's a big circle jerk of authenticity based on what each other report. 75.108.55.59 (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you asserting there is something wrong with reliable sources making an error and dutifully correcting it? The fact that three of them made the same error suggests they all used the same source who got this one wrong, despite a record of reliability. soibangla (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

There is something wrong with using the original articles without corrections posted as authentic citations for your false assertions of conspiracy. Wikipedia isn't a trustworthy source of information. 75.108.55.59 (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Did we miss that correction? Please point it out so I can fix it immediately. Nobody bats 1000, you know. Nobody. soibangla (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, I don't know whether that particular piece of information, and/or its corrected version, actually exists in any article, so unless you can show where it is, I'll have to conclude it's not actually in Wikipedia. soibangla (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

We are not including any errors in this article that have since been corrected, as far as I am aware. That Rudy correction involves a minor bit in this story that I don't think is included in this article at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I denounce this chess piece, by itself and alone, for carrying on a campaign against the opposite side of the board. I choose to ignore the activity of all the other pieces on that side, per the precedent set by the Republican side of the Committee on Homeland Security. – _•Raven  ^.talk 19:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

On what basis do you say SARs are very common and most often false positives? I have worked in banking AML. Unless you are in law enforcement and can provide a source for that statement, please do not make such claims regarding SARS, Soibangla. This is a comment about Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) not anything else.--FeralOink (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Just to wrap up this specious concern: Such reports flag a broad range of incidents, so as to ensure that no actual problems are overlooked. The SAR is not intrinsically noteworthy or significant. SPECIFICO talk 18:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

A BPI study found that, in 2017, a sample of the largest banks reviewed approximately 16 million alerts, filed over 640,000 SARs, and received feedback from law enforcement on a median of 4% of those SARs. Ultimately, this means that 90-95% of the individuals that banks report on were likely innocent ... Our data indicate that about 4 percent of SARs result in any follow-up from law enforcement. A tiny subset of these results in an arrest and ultimately a conviction.[1]

soibangla (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

soibangla, your source is a banking advocacy group; BPI doesn't satisfy WP:NPOV. Secondly, law enforcement does not provide SARs feedback to filing institutions. That's a major challenge in validating SARs for BSA/AML model risk management (MRM) per Fed Reserve Letter SR 11-7 (November 2011). I'll cite my source, about law enforcement not giving feedback, updated Guidance for BSA/AML, see p.4 as of April 2021: "testing and performance monitoring for some BSA/AML models may not include the same techniques as other models because of various factors, such as the lack of information about realized outcomes (e.g., Suspicious Activity Reports)". Banks cannot disclose the existence of SARs to anyone other than regulators or for enforcement purposes. See 12 CFR 21.11(k) Confidentiality of SARs; however you're right about high rates of false positives for sanctions screening! I thank you for pointing that out to me.--FeralOink (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, the "broad range of incidents" associated with SARs are noteworthy and include much more than sanctions, e.g. $10,000 or more in cash transactions in one day or layering/structuring to avoid getting caught; being politically important, i.e. a "politically exposed person" (PEP) or a relative of one; wire transfers to or from tax havens; lots of frequent, large transactions in developing economies; doing business in countries under sanctions. It is not WP:GOODFAITH to describe my concern as specious. I would suggest the following as a response to that editor Salem196027's comment: If Hunter's SARs are significant, then law enforcement such as FinCEN will investigate them. Since we have no WP:RS sources about the SARs, we can't include them in the article.--FeralOink (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The allegations were not false though. Barisma is true and whistleblowers show Joe "Big Guy" was involved. You leftist s are really sick people. 2601:2C3:CD00:2865:D9B7:1:B818:5720 (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

well we're sorry you feel that way, but there's been lots of lying and innuendo about all this for years but there remains no evidence Joe did anything unlawful or unethical, or even that he's lied about any of this. I recommend ignoring what Comer and Hannity say, among many others saying similar things. they're not being straight-up with you.[2] soibangla (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

On the contrary, my advice would be to continue examining the facts being unearthed by the United States House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family, and appreciate that much more is forthcoming. There has been excellent reporting of this in conservative media, such as The Federalist (website), FrontPage Magazine, The Washington Free Beacon, Townhall, The Washington Times, and the Washington Examiner. Miranda Devine has also done an exquisite job outlining the allegations of corruption in the New York Post. Be aware, some conservative media has been deemed "unreliable" for use on Wikipedia, per WP:RSP, so you may have to dig to find reliable sources in order to add this topic to articles. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Lol, those "sources" are dumpster fires of Russian and alt/far-right propaganda. They are not and never will be usable in the Wikipedia. Zaathras (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Your opinion is a small minority one. Wikipedia shows up on Google, itself a bastion of selection bias, as one of the rare places where the Biden's influence peddling scheme is not recognized as well documented. In source after source, the pyramid of 20 bank accounts for Biden money laundering is treated as fact. Not so here. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has made itself into a laughing stock. Credible sources? Get real. You have to do fact checking on gibberish like that portrayed here, the majority opinion of the media and public have no need to do so. 142.165.171.201 (talk) 04:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

no influence peddling scheme has been documented. there's a whole buncha LLCs that are commonly used by many to structure complex financial deals, for various tax and legal reasons, and there's still no evidence Joe was involved in any way. In source after source, the pyramid of 20 bank accounts for Biden money laundering is treated as fact. Not so here because it isn't fact. soibangla (talk) 04:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

"because it isn't fact." It is another item of slander in the increasingly annoying Republican propaganda. I tend to tune out whenever I hear such claims. Dimadick (talk) 08:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

This section has ended up exactly where it started out, ie WP:FORUM...DN (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

"don't use Google!"...(cackles in Alex Jones)... DN (talk) 07:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

How could you label it “false” when it’s still under investigation and both democrats and republicans have confirmed the laptop is real? The truth is none of us know whether it happened or not, but I believe just labeling it false is a bad characterization and looks like bias towards a theory that very well could be true and is under investigation. Just a thought to better educate the readers as to where it stands now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14E:80:46D0:29B4:F206:B42F:2E61 (talk) 06:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I think you mean Hunter Biden laptop controversy. soibangla (talk) 13:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

This might be one of the most pathetic and illogical arguments I've ever witnessed on a talk page, and it has obviously devolved very quickly into a debate about politics and editors arguing over whether or not the allegations are true or false. This website is meant to be completely objective and remain clear from the bias of either side. Something does not have to be proven true for it to be an allegation; however, it must be PROVEN TO BE FALSE and NOT SIMPLY REMAIN UNPROVEN before it can be labeled as such. Why are we debating whether it's true or false? If the debate even exists, it remains a neutral allegation and should not be labeled as false. THAT'S HOW ALLEGATIONS WORK JackSitilides (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

JackSitilides said If the debate even exists which it hasn't for years, but in light of more recent events, many incorrectly believe the debate still exists. People are taking their eyes off the ball, thanks to efforts by people like Comer and Hannity, which explains why this is one of the most pathetic and illogical arguments I've ever witnessed on a talk page soibangla (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Soibangla How did you manage to put words on a page and still say nothing? How do the recent events not reopen the debate as to whether or not the allegations are true? These events are occurring due to the matters of continued investigation and new testimony of witnesses, which means that the debate is very much still open. people like Comer and Hannity are allowed to cover all topics of politics as do the left-leaning media sources which have been covering it just as much. Please explain to me how them reporting or for whatever other reason that people incorrectly believe the debate still exists. JackSitilides (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of this page

The phrase conspiracy is used frequently and incorrectly on this page including the title. Biden’s business dealings in Ukraine while his father was overseeing Ukraine policy as vice president are proven fact. My question is why is this disinformation remaining in the site? Mav214 (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Biden’s business dealings in Ukraine while his father was overseeing Ukraine policy as vice president are indeed proven fact. Beyond that, there is no evidence they are connected. None. soibangla (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you willing to stand by that statement still? 2603:7081:2339:86E8:5496:5D4B:78B3:5504 (talk) 22:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, because the unverified claims made in the document released on 20 July 2023 by Sen. Chuck Grassley were previously investigated by the DOJ during the Trump Administration, and they found insufficient evidence to warrant further investigation. Put simply, accusations are not evidence, and no evidence has been found to support the accusations. EricTN (talk) 03:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

"The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of false allegations" versus "the unverified claims made in the document" - Put simply, unproven accusations are not false allegations, and copious evidence has been found to support the accusations, but not proof of guilt - which are different standards. If you don't agree to delete the article then it must be rewritten so that it's no longer wrongly calling accusations false just because they're unproven. SalClements (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

multiple reliable sources say false, not merely unproven[[3]]

have you taken a look at Comer investigation of Biden family where allegations of bribery, money laundering and cover-up remain pending? soibangla (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The false allegations are about Joe Biden, not his son. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree. This should not be labeled as a "conspiracy " as many facts and credible news sources are now showing that the sated alligations could be valid. Labeling a subject a "conspiracy theory" leads the viewer to disbelieve statments herein as untrue and or false, which can persuade the said viewer to come to a conclusion that is not fully factulal. Disinformation hurts everyone. Thank you. 72.28.4.89 (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Labeling this as a conspiracy theory should lead the reader to disbelieve it, because the idea that Joe Biden personally benefited from Hunter's Burisma dealings has no evidence to support it, as James Comer's nothingburger press conference today demonstrates. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

James Comer, the obscure politician from Kentucky? Who pays attention to his rambling? Dimadick (talk) 04:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

What is all the money for? What are all the shell companies for?

What is the biden family business?

This page is as corrupt as the Biden administration and should be removed. 72.142.65.10 (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Conjecture and hearsay is unbecoming. This thread should be archived as it is not a serious attempt to improve the article, but rather an attempt to push a biased narrative. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

No evidence? https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-allegedly-paid-5-million-by-burisma-executive 2601:48:8101:4720:6859:E2:8BEA:634E (talk) 03:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

That article is incorrect, the 1023 did not say that soibangla (talk) 03:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to correct my statement. The article is not incorrect. It is a huge lie of epic proportions. soibangla (talk) 03:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you point to something specific that is incorrect in the article? SalClements (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:FOXNEWS is not a reliable source on this subject. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

"Labeling this as a conspiracy theory should lead the reader to disbelieve it." - That would be letting your personal prejudices improperly bias the editing of wikipedia. The article should not lead the reader to disbelieve something just because the evidence has yet to prove an accusations is true. Disbelief would be appropriate if and only evidence disproved an accusation. The reader should be led to have skepticism about unproven allegations, but not disbelief. The article needs to be rewritten accordingly. SalClements (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Not all content is "conspiracy theory"; title and content need changing

This is an umbrella article for "allegations that Joe Biden, while he was vice president of the United States, engaged in corrupt activities relating to the employment of his son, Hunter Biden, by the Ukrainian gas company Burisma."

Under that umbrella, is the work of the United States House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family, an article mentioned in the lead, and an investigation which is also exploring bribery, Biden and Ukraine.

The Oversight Committee's investigation is ongoing, and is currently receiving significant media coverage. Moreover, reliable sources describing that committees work use the term "allegations", not "conspiracy theories":

• Axios, on June 14, 2023, refers to "unproven bribery allegations involving the Bidens and Ukraine."
• The Independent, on June 15, 2023, refers to "allegations of bribery from his time as vice president".

Because the Oversight Committee's investigation is included briefly in this article, the title of the article, and some descriptions within the article, does not accurately reflect all of the content, and certainly violates WP:POVTITLE. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The only thing that has changed is that Republicans won the House and decided to use their majority to make another Hillary/Benghazi committee to smear their opponent. The "allegations" are a slightly morphed version of the same conspiracy theory. Its just changed from having the focus of "Biden fired Ehokin" to "the big guy" getting money. No evidence had been produced, so how is this not the same conspiracy theory? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I have removed nor did a Republican House Oversight Committee investigation by May 2023 and its reference to fully constrain the article to the Ukraine conspiracy theory. Readers can refer to the Comer investigation article for as yet unproven allegations. Hope that suffices. soibangla (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

First, Muboshgu, please leave your personal opinions out of this discussion. Reliable sources have been provided. The name and some content needs to be changed. Second, Soibangla, removing pertinent content which has been appropriately placed into an article is disruptive. Please revert your edit. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

That's not my opinion. McCarthy himself noted that House Republicans set up the Benghazi committee to hurt Hillary politically. This is the same. Two recent sources don't undo the past elements of conspiracy theorizing. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe my edit adequately addressed your concern about distinguishing unproven allegations from conspiracy theories. Did it not? soibangla (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Soibangla: You removed pertinent content and a link which had been appropriately placed into an article. Please revert your edit. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

From what I can tell, this thread you opened made a distinction between the Biden-Shokin-Ukraine conspiracy theory and the ongoing Comer investigation which includes that but is also broader than that, including China and Romania and such. By removing the content about the Comer investigation, I believe I drew the clear distinction you requested. soibangla (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Soibangla: In the article United States House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family, the word "Ukraine" or "Ukrainian" is mentioned 11 times, in ten different paragraphs. That article also contains a link to this article. Removing a link and discussion about that article--in response to my concerns above--was not appropriate. Please revert your edit. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused, you want to change the title of this article because of the link to the other article, but now that the link is gone you want it back as to keep pushing for consensus to change the title? Please correct me if that's not accurate. DN (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Darknipples:A previous version of this article said, "A joint investigation by two Republican Senate committees released in September 2020 did not find wrongdoing by Joe Biden, nor did a Republican House Oversight Committee investigation by May 2023." After I wrote my comment above, User:Soibangla simply removed the link to the Republican House Oversight Committee investigation. I guess that editor believed that was the easiest way to avoid having to discuss changing the name of this article. You are welcome to revert the edit, so we can begin this discussion. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I've seen multiple RS that use the term "Conspiracy theory" on this topic, throughout this article, and in the article you mentioned. While both articles have similar topics, they aren't the same. If you want to build a consensus to change the title here there are better ways of doing so. While Soibangla's edit may not address your issue with the title, using a separate article to sway consensus over another is not necessarily admirable either, if that was your point. DN (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

As a discrete unit, this article remains about a conspiracy theory, not merely unproven allegations. The Comer article is broader in scope and may include parts of this conspiracy. That's why I removed the Comer content here to draw the distinction you requested. I don't know how else to clarify this to you. I gave you what you wanted, but if what you really want is to change the title of this article to "allegations" based on Comer's feeble results thus far, including bribery which is not pertinent to this article, I will resist that. Please stop pinging me, it's a nuisance. soibangla (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Magnolia677, we have two different articles that are tangentially related, this one and United States House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family. When the Oversight Committee's investigation finds clear evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden in direct connection to Ukraine and his son, then, and only then, will this article be retitled and change its focus. So far, the conspiracy theory has been based on false and misleading allegations. We need proof that they are true before we need to change the focus and title of this article. We are not there yet. Be patient, your wish may end up being fulfilled. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Valjean: Should a link and information about the United States House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family be included in this article? Magnolia677 (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Now they both link to each other in their See also sections. The idea of a section about each other isn't totally off-limits. What would you propose? Done properly, both articles could have sections about each other, as long as they are minimal (like a short paragraph) and do not violate WP:COATRACK. Since the idea is controversial, I suggest you propose such content on the respective talk pages. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me)

@Valjean: Great idea. Instead of all that though, let's just reverting this edit that was made about an hour ago? That content had been in for over a month. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I would not object to you restoring the removal I made to accommodate your request here, as I originally added that content. soibangla (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I have an idea. Maybe it will work...or maybe not. What about creating a section to deal with investigations of the claims, and then put that content there? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

sure, as long as it's constrained to what Comer has specifically said about the subject of this article, but not wander off into unrelated stuff like bribery. that's all in the Comer investigation article. soibangla (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Either way, if the intent here is to change the title, then that needs to be addressed in a more genuine and explicit manner. If the issue has now turned into a means of making each article less contentious with the other, I will support. DN (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, yes, that is why I started this discussion. Now that information about the House Committee has been added back, and because media reports about Biden, Ukraine and bribery are not being presented as "conspiratorial", with even left-wing media are calling them "allegations"; and because the first line of this article states that it is about "allegations that Joe Biden, while he was vice president of the United States, engaged in corrupt activities relating to the employment of his son, Hunter Biden, by the Ukrainian gas company Burisma", continuing to name this article using "conspiracy" would certainly violate WP:POVTITLE and be misleading for readers. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

How about calling it "Biden–Ukraine corruption allegations". This would dovetail into the first line of the article, and would support both the conspiracy content, and the unproven allegations currently being investigated. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Comer is investigating a broad array of allegations. This article is about a discrete and established conspiracy theory. Anything beyond a brief paragraph linking to directly related aspects in the Comer investigation would be confusing at the least, and actually misleading by blurring what we know with what we don't know. And that's exactly how conspiracy theories grow and spread. soibangla (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I removed the line about the Comer committee to make the distinction between a discrete conspiracy theory and a broader set of allegations, as you requested. If your intent of restoring that line was to leverage it as means of changing the title of this article to merely "allegations," I will oppose that. soibangla (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the intent here bares too much resemblance to an attempt at a Trojan Horse for me to support a title change. It has less to do with addressing context and more to do with a perceived POV issue. I will let others weigh in on this tactic as well. DN (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Hell no. A section, not a title change. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no valid reason to change the article title, the source of all of this, as it has always been, is unhinged conservative talking about alleging various and sundry dealings by the Biden family. All without evidence. Zaathras (talk) 03:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

"unhinged conservative talking about alleging various and sundry dealings by the Biden family" It is good old-fashioned mudslinging. And the old proverbial saying remains accurate in the 21st century: Give a dog a bad name and hang him. The slanderers have done a good job of destroying Biden's reputation. Dimadick (talk) 07:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Magnolia677 Did you make a false claim in your edit summary that there was a consensus to re-add this just so you can claim the title needs to be changed? DN (talk) 03:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose change, title is attested in RS. Andre🚐 03:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  Oppose change If anything a new section on FD-1023 Conspiracy or Alleged FBI Informant conspiracy Jgmac1106 (talk) 12:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Clearly this "name change" proposal was premature. Comer plans to subpoena more people and records in order to unravel the family's complex web of financial dealings, and probe the alleged bribery scheme involving Biden when he was vice president. So let's revisit this "conspiracy" stuff when that's done. Thanks for your time. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Please be sure to avoid WP:PROCEDURALLYFLAWEDCONSENSUS if you decide to return. DN (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure Darknipples, I'll be sure to take your advice on how to edit. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that it's premature. The article is not about a hypothetical influential secret organization. Also, an allegation not having been proven true doesn't justify labeling it as false, so the way that the article is written currently was premature. If the allegations are proven to be untrue, then and only then will it be proper to state as fact that they're false. OckRaz ^talk 06:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

• Approve Change For the reasons listed above. The various rationalizations above merely highlight the increasingly blatant POV pushing from ideologues. Lexlex (talk)

  "The various rationalizations above merely highlight the increasingly blatant POV pushing from ideologues." This sounds like you are attacking editors personally instead discussing the argument. DN (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  That is not what it sounds like. OckRaz ^talk 06:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

  What does it sound like to you? DN (talk) 06:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• Approve Changefor the reasons cited by Magnolia677. --Loltardo (talk) 02:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Change Magnolia677 is clearly violating POV by suggestingf that the House Oversight Committee is actually investigating anything, rather than just wasting time and taxpayers' money. I see no reason to legitimize its propaganda. Dimadick (talk) 08:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• Approve Change This article is about an unproven allegation of some sort of misconduct (what laws may have been broken would depend on elements of the accusation which aren't defined), and the allegation might qualify as a "criminal conspiracy but that is unclear." Even if it were entirely clear that every version of the allegation concerns a criminal conspiracy, the combination of "conspiracy" and "theory" together would still be misleading. The phrase refers to "a belief that some secret but influential organization is responsible for an event or phenomenon." An unproven allegation about a bribery scheme definitely does not fit that definition. "Biden–Ukraine corruption allegations" is a far better title. There was never any justification for using the word conspiracy in the title in the first place. OckRaz ^talk 05:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

OckRaz: This article is about a specific allegation made years ago that has been shown by multiple reliable sources to be false. The article does not encompass other allegations made in recent months, including bribery. For that, see Comer investigation of Biden family. soibangla (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe that I understand your position. You claim there's justification for the article declaring that the Biden-Ukraine allegations are false rather than unproven. As I understand it, that justification is merely that this "article is about a specific allegation... shown... to be false." That's effectively a circular argument for justification and would require a further justification for why we should take such an approach to defining the subject matter of the article. There's no reason to accept the premise that the subject matter for the article ought to be circumscribed so that it doesn't focus on theories about Biden engaging in corrupt activity involving Ukraine, but only the particular versions of this theory that include falsified details (eg, motive to protect your family vs to enrich family or prosecutor investigating family member vs prosecutor potentially hindering foreign business deal).

I don't think that approach makes sense if your goal is to create a reference work that will be as useful as possible for the typical reader. If someone just wants to get up to speed on what "Biden-Ukraine corruption" refers to (and depending on your perspective it could be a controversy or political scandal or partisan accusations made without proof), then your preference regarding how to divide the information into different articles will be most unhelpful. Instead of finding an article designed to give an overview of Biden-Ukraine corruption allegations, they'd have to sort through two separate articles for no good reason that I can discern.

What is the justification for dividing the allegations into two categories, as you propose we should do? Why does it make sense to take just the set of allegations that can be definitively ruled out and give them their own article, but then put the Biden-Ukraine allegations which remain an open question into the same basket with completely different allegations and the activities of a congressional committee. It has the appearance of editorial gerrymandering. If anything, the accusations that are an open question ought to be treated as of greater importance and being more noteworthy than discarded allegations. Your approach gets that relationship reversed. OckRaz ^talk 14:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I hasten to add that while information from the recently released 1023 form has generated significant heat in certain circles, it remains raw and uncorroborated intelligence that originated from a dubious source, Mykola Zlochevsky, and remains unconfirmed by reliable sources. At this point, it's somewhat akin to relying on the Steele dossier. soibangla (talk) 07:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

re: "generated significant heat in certain circles" - I'd say it's generated heat everywhere, depending on your definition of heat. It's certainly raised the temperature politically. However, the recent news isn't relevant to the claim I'm making: this article is wrongly titled because there's no conspiracy theory, merely an accusation about a crime. I don't think that it's reasonable to say that every allegation of a crime with multiple participants (ie, a basic criminal conspiracy) will meet the ordinary definition of conspiracy theory. You seem to disagree with me. Where do you see a shadowy cabal in this scenario to justify the use of the term, "conspiracy theory?" OckRaz ^talk 14:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

re: "relying on the Steele dossier" - I'm not relying on the 1023. I would need evidence if I were claiming that the corruption allegations are true, but I am just pointing out they've not been shown to be false. However, the comparison was interesting because I looked at the article for the dossier, and I found that the lede contained this link:

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

"Since Donald Trump was a 2016 candidate for the office of President of the United States, myriad suspicious links between Trump associates and Russian officials and spies have been discovered by the FBI, Special counsel, and several United States congressional committees"

If you oppose changing the article title from the current "Biden–Ukraine conspiracy" then would you support renaming this other article, "Trump-Russia Conspiracy?" After all, the allegations of collusion between a political campaign and intelligence agencies of a foreign power to install a Manchurian candidate, would meet the definition of a conspiracy theory and not merely the definition of a criminal conspiracy. OckRaz ^talk 14:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I've never liked the term "conspiracy theory" and I wish the world could adopt a better one to describe phenomena like this. Maybe "stupid crazy rumor?" But in my experience here we categorize articles like this on a scale of significance: incident → allegations → controversy → scandal → conspiracy theory. This article is not about mere allegations, it's about "a series of false allegations" that have been repeated by many for years, including now by Comer, with a new bribery twist from a dubious source. So "conspiracy theory" is the only bucket this topic reasonably falls in, though I'd prefer "stupid crazy rumor." At some point it's possible we may need to merge the article with the Comer investigation article, but I don't see we're anywhere near that. We have lots of folks who have come here, and likely will continue coming here, asserting that new evidence proves it's not a conspiracy theory anymore, the 1023 and the IRS guys and what Comer said on Hannity prove it's all true, and we need to rewrite the article, and the title should be "Biden massive bribery and money laundering scandal." We're not there. We're not even at a point to creep in that direction. soibangla (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

"This article is not about mere allegations, it's about a series of false allegations" - That's a problem since that the accusations about Biden and Ukraine haven't all been disproven. You've just demonstrated why this article needs to be re-titled and the lead paragraph rewritten. If there were only disproven allegations we could leave it as is, but we're not there. We're not even at a point to creep in that direction. SalClements (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The specific allegation in this article has been shown to be false. More recent allegations are pending in Comer investigation of Biden family. Please read that. soibangla (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose change Concur with Valjean. We'd need to see some conclusive evidence and reliable sources change the status quo consensus. I don't see it. BirdValiant (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  Why do you need conclusive evidence that an unproven set of allegations is true before you can change an article saying the accusations are false? That sounds pretty unreasonable to me. SalClements (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• This isn't an RfC If it was, it would be malformed at best. DN (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
• The appropriate thing to do is to narrow the description of the article to the specific conspiracy theory that the sources focus on (like this edit, which I approve of.) An article about "allegations that Joe Biden, while he was vice president of the United States, engaged in corrupt activities relating to the employment of his son, Hunter Biden, by the Ukrainian gas company Burisma." isn't really workable because the topic is too vague; what does "corrupt" mean? It's a campaign slogan, rather than a specific description for events that sources can discuss (and, indeed, a lot of the campaign-trail table-pounding related to it doesn't specify what accusations are being discussed, just a vague sense of "corruptness".) We should nail down the specific accusations in the lead so that we can focus on sources that discuss those accusations. --Aquillion (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  Problem is, even a few years in, I don't think there are any specific accusations. Just the idea that the Bidens got rich off Burisma somehow. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I think that there was a specific allegation (most of the sources in the article discuss it), it was just easily proven wrong - the false allegations that Joe Biden, while he was vice president of the United States, withheld a loan guarantee to pressure Ukraine into firing a prosecutor to prevent a corruption investigation of Ukrainian gas company Burisma and to protect his son, Hunter Biden, who was on the Burisma board. That's specific, narrow, and something the sources discussed in-depth, with far more than enough sustained coverage to support an article on it alone. When sources talk about the Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory, that's more-or-less what they mean. I think the issue that people are having above is that there's also this overlapping much more vague perception of corruption, which often aren't specific enough to falsify, which lack the same level of coverage, or which are a random dumping ground for unrelated theories connected to Biden and Ukraine - but I don't think that that's what most of the sources here are focused on and I don't think it's workable as an article. --Aquillion (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there was that specific allegation, but I thought they've moved on from that to the "Bidens directly profiting" allegation. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Biden corruption

Investigation by the house is ongoing. 172.194.138.190 (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Source? It is a good idea to provide a source. Cwater1 (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2023

Please remove the "Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory" link in light of recent information reflecting it is not just a "theory."

Alternatively, please remove the terms "false," "falsehood," and "falsehoods" from the Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory link. 173.216.47.62 (talk) 06:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

[4] soibangla (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

 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. There isn't any wikilink that is linked and/or named as "Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory", you need to be more precise in your request. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Burisma Payments, 28 July 2023

Please include Hunter Biden's compensation from Burisma in a relevant section. IRS investigator Joseph Ziegler testified to Congress under oath that Biden and his firm Rosemont Seneca received $6.5 million dollars from Burisma. SOURCE Fx6893 (talk) 10:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

No response on this for a week, so I'll try to put it in myself.

To determine appropriate placement of this information, I note that references to four other investigations are included in the first section. (Namely, a "United States intelligence community analysis," "a federal criminal investigation," "a joint investigation by two Republican Senate committees," and a "Republican House committee investigation.") As this relates to an IRS investigation, I'll put a short sentence about the payments uncovered just beneath the references to the other investigations. Fx6893 (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

....and it's deleted. For posterity, I've included my edit below:

"An IRS investigation identified payments of $6.5 million from Burisma to Hunter Biden and his firm Rosemont Seneca, as revealed in Congressional testimony." Fx6893 (talk) 05:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

It's rarely appropriate to add something to the lead first. In an article subject covered as heavily as this one, going to a YouTube video record of congressional testimony is unnecessary. Are there any secondary sources that covered that moment? That Hunter was paid for his work with Burisma was never in dispute. As best as I can recall, Hunter has said so quite frequently. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

No Longer false claims

Devon Archer said Joe was on the phone with Bursima officials.

please change. 2600:8805:C980:9400:968:C044:3FD0:2ABE (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

False claims are still false. The false conspiracy theory was that Joe Biden had Viktor Shokin fired to benefit Burisma, not that Joe Biden said hi to Burisma people over the phone. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Everything you said was wrong 2600:8805:C980:9400:A84A:8722:5E95:EFDA (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

READ: Devon Archer interview transcript released by House Oversight panel: Archer agreed that Hunter Biden was selling the “illusion of access” to his father. ... Archer also testified the younger Biden “occasionally” put his father on speakerphone with business partners and others. Goldman emphasized afterward that “they never once spoke about any business dealings.” – Muboshgu (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Bump SPECIFICO talk 16:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

"media organizations" that mention this article

First off, the 1RR restriction does not apply to the talk page, @Miner Editor. Second, I think we should be more judicious about listing media that mention this article. I put "media organizations" in quotes in the subject line because the addition in question is to Glen Greenwald, a truly rare bird that has a Reliable Source Noticeboard RfC discussion specifically about him, and not a source. While that discussion is about using GG in article-space (which is now largely barred), IMO he is enough of a discredited hack that a link to his writing does not belong here, either. Zaathras (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The Template:Press documentation says The purpose of this [template] is to contextualize talk page discussions about ongoing coverage of editorial disputes, and press coverage listed here may come from sources otherwise considered unreliable. RCP is a media organisation. For me, this article is the first hit on google news when I search "biden ukraine conspiracy". There is no valid reason for removing the template. Mottezen (talk) 05:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

the 1RR restriction does not apply to the talk page The "Active Arbitration Remedies" were put in place to address edit warring over contentious topics. I can find nothing which limits that to the article space and I believe it applies to metadata about those contentious topics such as this. Miner Editor (talk) 09:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

This talk page is not covered by any arbitration enforcement restriction. If it were, it'd be logged at WP:AELOG. You can see the log entries from the admin who added both restrictions to the article in the 2020 log, but there is no entry for this talk page in any year. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, now I'm confused, because I'm not finding an entry for the "Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory" article itself in those logs. Miner Editor (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Ctrl-F should get you there in the 2020 log. The restrictions were logged on 29 and 30 October. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

We're aware of what the documentation says, Mottezen, the point raised here is the specific unreliability of frequent Wikipedia critic Glenn Greenwald. Larry Sanger is also a noted crank and Wikipedia critic who has penned articles for various sources, but we wouldn't dream of citing him like this in an article talk page. Zaathras (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Allegation of Editorial Overreach

WP:AE or WP:ANI are the venues to discuss editor behavior, not article talk pages. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have a rather serious allegation against a regular editor of this page, soibangla. I hope we can discuss it in a professional manner. This editor has been deleting edits, and there are complaints about it here on the Talk page. Last week, I requested on the Talk page that payments made by Burisma to Hunter Biden's firm should be included in the Article (see Burisma Payments topic above). I received no feedback for a week, so today I included in the article a single sentence to that effect. Eighteen minutes later, my edit was deleted by the editor named above on the stated basis that it was irrelevant. This article was created to describe the "Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory," clearly defined in the original Article version: The conspiracy theory asserts 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, who then extorted Ukraine for $1 billion to fire a prosecutor so as to prevent Hunter Biden from being investigated for corruption. The amount of the "large sum of money," which has now been given more clarity by an IRS investigation and sworn to in Congressional testimony by a Federal agent, is certainly relevant. Based on an overview of other such deletions, I believe there is a pattern of editorial political bias in this Article which is in contravention of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View principle. Fx6893 (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC) If you have a misconduct concern, here is not the place to bring it up. I was about to revert your addition. It's rarely appropriate to add something to the lead first. In an article subject covered as heavily as this one, going to a YouTube video record of congressional testimony is unnecessary. Are there any secondary sources that covered that moment? That Hunter was paid for his work with Burisma was never in dispute. As best as I can recall, Hunter has said so quite frequently. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)