Talk:Hunter Biden

"Right-wing conspiracy theories" are a strawman

Sorry, guys, I log in here about once every 4 years, so I am a total Newb. Please edit out anything I type here as an offhand edit for commentary purpose only. Really, I will not be offended. I'm by no means a "professional wiki editor", and I do not even remember how many years it's been since my last login. But, holy fucking shit. The "right" is trying paint the media as some kind of "Orwellian demagogue" and here we are strictly trying to control the dialogue. What the fuck are we doing? We proclaimed Wikipedia as "the people's voice", yet here we are almost proving some mother fucking Tucker Carlson's view of a "controlled" media by deflecting any scrutiny of Hunter Biden's (by now undeniably) involvement in some Ukrainian oil company's Board of Director activities. We CAN'T deflect this. It is too well known. There HAS to be some other way to explain this other than "debunked" claims. Eventually, someone is going to say "Debunked HOW?", and we are going to look like idiots if we can't come up with anything other than, "because we, and lots of people, SAY SO." There is (or must be) plenty of evidence that shows that there is no connection between that laptop and HB other than his signature on the work order. We can't just "dodge" this. When the public come here and see that everything that's been written on the "free and open" discussion is, golly, locked from being edited, we are going to look biased, if not complicit. Wiki's own credibility is on the line here. There has to be a better way to handle this.

The article makes it sound like the conspiracy theory that "Biden wanted the prosecutor fired to protect his son" is the brunt of the criticism against Hunter Biden. It's not — the accusation being levied first and foremost is that Hunter got the Burisma job only because he's the son of Joe Biden, as a way for Burisma to have greater influence on the US government. That has not been debunked, and the fact that Hunter has very little qualification to sit on the board seems to support this narrative.

By attacking the strawman in the description at the top, the article makes it sound like no impropriety is taking place. I propose the last paragraph to be changed to: "Biden has stirred up controversy by serving on the board of Burisma Holdings, a major Ukrainian natural gas producer, from 2014 to 2019. He has been accused of getting this job only because of his connection to Joe Biden, as a way for the company to gain more US political influence."

Mirek2 (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

If the brunt of the criticism is about potential nepotism then that is in and of itself weak sauce - "rich powerful mans son gets well paid job" is barely a criticism or a controversy (otherwise we'd be here all night dealing with Trump, Trumps kids and their partners, and Trumps donors).

As for his qualification and suitability: He is both an attorney and professional consultant employed to lead on corlorate governance best practice. Find one reliable source that says he is not qualified for that job based upon his past experience, qualification and background? You can't, because his background and qualification would lend itself to that role.

There are sources that discuss if it was appropriate, but these largely predate the conspiracy theories and are largely criticism from within the Democrat base so not some grand controversy. Koncorde (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The brunt of the criticism is an improper business relationship between Burisma and Biden Jr. It's not a simple nepotism story, it's a potential corrupting Ukranian corporate influence story. (Imagine if Donald Trump Jr. was hired by a Russian energy company, allegedly to get access to Donald's father.) And it's this foreign influence story that has NOT been debunked at all — in fact, it's being actively investigated. --Mirek2 (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

If potential corruption was enough, we wouldn't have any senators. If any senator voted for or against something that some lobbyist donating to a campaign wanted, that would be potential corruption. They all say that they are not influenced by such donations. There is plenty of evidence of Trump making decisions based on donors, why not talk about them? Gah4 (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that these things should also be talked about! Fortunately, there is a "Conflict of Interest" section on the Donald Trump page that does exactly that. As conflict of interest seems to be reason enough to warrant mention in the Donald Trump article AND as it is the primary thing being discussed about Hunter, it should also be worthy of mention on this page. --Mirek2 (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The accusation that Hunter Biden took a well paying job with Burisma so he could influence his father into stopping the investigation / prosecution of Zlochevsky doesn't pan out when it is well documented why the prosecutor was fired. Which leaves what? Koncorde (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the accusation about the prosecution of Zlochevsky. That's the strawman that I mentioned. I'm talking about the conflict of interest concerns, which would be confirmed if the recently released hard drive leaks prove to be authentic. (Hunter has not yet confirmed nor denied the legitimacy of the leaks.) Mirek2 (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

the accusation being levied first and foremost is that Hunter got the Burisma job only because he's the son of Joe Biden is incorrect. Nepotism has been ubiquitous in this world since forever, but that said, there isn’t even evidence of nepotism here, but even if there were and that’s all this is about, it wouldn’t be worth any attention. The real reason Hunter Biden has received any attention is to fabricate a transparent political smearjob against his father, and I suspect everyone will suddenly lose all interest in Hunter Biden within days now. soibangla (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

As I explain above, I'm not talking about simple nepotism. I'm talking about a conflict of interest — the "as a way for Burisma to have greater influence on the US government" part of the partly quoted sentence is important. Mirek2 (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

This isn't a Trump vs. Biden point. This is an objective point, that in no way shape or form has he been exonerated of wrongdoing, but that is how the article reads. The bias here is so obvious, and only leads to further polarization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.7.233.239 (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

He hasn't been exonerated because he hasn't been charged with anything. Instead the unsupported conspiracy theories have been debunked, repeatedly. Do you think if there was evidence of Biden (either) committing illegal acts it wouldn't have been presented already? Instead Trump was impeached and not a single witness called mentioned any legitimacy to the accusations against either Biden (nor where there any whistle blowers). Etc etc. This is not polarizing unless you want to believe that the smoke from Trump campaign is somehow evidence of a raging fire for Biden. Koncorde (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

That's an absurd argument of silence. Just because he wasn't charged with anything or there were no witnesses does NOT mean the allegations were debunked. Debunked means to literally show completely false, as in not true. An unconfirmed allegation that's also not falseified is not "debunked." That's loaded language and honestly violates wikipedia guidelines for negatively loaded language described in WP:PEACOCK. Using the word "debunked" when it clearly has not been falsified is a clear display of puffery. The allegation has carried serious noteriety and has not been falsefied, wikipedia should reflect that and not reflect your own personal disbelief of it. --WePFew (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Should we change it from debunked to fringe or simply right wing conspiracy theories? I think half the country would not agree with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allsparkwars1 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

We say "debunked" because that is what they are. Wikipedia is not censored in the interests of political correctness. XOR'easter (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Debunking means proving them wrong. That standard has not yet been met. Nonsense articles that Rudy Giuliani 'may have talked to Russian agents!' isn't proof, especially since those articles are not even provably connected to this story, which is still developing. You can claim skepticism, but the way you all are acting like they are citing meetings with Hunter Biden on the same day he was photographed on the other side of the planet... that hasn't happened.2600:8801:207:9D00:512F:704D:BC2C:4E28 (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

So what standard is their for the accusations to be proved true? Meanwhile it's not about proving them wrong, it's about identifying gaps in the logic, the shoddiness of the evidence, the changing sequence of events, the crudeness of the allegations, and of course the ability to verify the evidence and (in this particular case) NYP's own editorial standards being less than reliable.

Hunter Biden is free to meet with and work with anyone he wants to, but particularly another employee of the company he works for.

The allegation is that he enabled the colleague to make contact with Joe Biden. This is something JB has historically denied and continues to deny, and that we know the NYP did not attempt to verify the claims of the email with Biden. The other email content actually debunks some of the theories already passed around by confirming the chain of events relating to Hunter and Burisma. Koncorde (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

Mirek2 is absolutely correct. Today we learn that a hard drive containing Hunter Biden's emails was delivered to the FBI, and a copy to Rudy Giuliani's lawyer, and another copy was obtained by the NY Post. The Biden campaign does not dispute the authenticity of the contents of this hard drive, which also contains private photos and videos. Emails recovered from the hard drive make it clear that Hunter Biden was selling influence, and access to Joe Biden. So, far from being "debunked", the concerns that Hunter Biden accepting a position on the board of Burisma was improper (at a minimum, something that created a conflict of interest for his father) were justified. This article puts a straw man argument in the first paragraph in order to make it seem like any concerns about Hunter Biden's actions were debunked. The conspiracy theories are not enumerated, so the wording misleads the reader into thinking that all concerns of improper actions are conspiracy theories that are "debunked". I've proposed to change the wording to this sentence many times (to ... has been the subject of concerns...), but a brigade of reputation defenders has fought valiantly to keep any negative information out of this article. https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/ Tvaughan1 (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

So are we confirming that Ukrainian government agencies were trying to corruptly shakedown Burisma, including the creation of formal legal investigations after earlier attempts failed.

That this dated back to 2006, and the letter dated requested Hunters assistance only happened after he got the job?

And the man in charge, or at least a significant party to the corrupt charges, was subsequently fired?

And that the demand for him being fired came from multiple national agencies, of which Joe Biden led the negotiations to eventually oust the prosecutor?

But an email to Hunter Biden asking him for help is evidence of him acting inappropriately? Koncorde (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The US Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is investigating to validate the information provided by the whistleblower. The emails revealed that Hunter Biden introduced the then-vice president Joe Biden to a top executive at Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings less than a year before he pressured government officials in Ukraine to fire prosecutor Viktor Shokin, who was investigating the company. The Post report revealed that Biden, at Hunter’s request, met with Vadym Pozharskyi in April 2015 in Washington, D.C. “Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure,” the email read. An earlier email from May 2014 also showed Pozharskyi, reportedly a top Burisma executive, asking Hunter for “advice on how you could use your influence” on the company’s behalf, the Post reported. So it is clear that "debunked conspiracy theories" is not a fair, accurate or WP:NPOV summary of the situation as we know it today. Tvaughan1 (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The New York Post is not a reliable source. As mentioned below, their reporting on this specific matter has already been called into question. "Debunked conspiracy theories" continues to be a fair and NPOV description. XOR'easter (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Being called into question is not tantamout to debunking — far from it. Hunter has yet to deny the authenticity of the leaked files, and there is no evidence that was put forward that would disprove their legitimacy. Mirek2 (talk) 22:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

New york post is a reliable source. How about we rename Trump Russia Conspiracy Theories? New York Times said there was nothing going on.2600:8805:C880:3D7:24F5:23DD:1EDF:7B53 (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Might as well just change the paragraph to "debunked alt-right conspiracy theories circulated by the evil Orange Man and his racist, homophobic, transphobic cabal". It's hilarious that anyone would still act like this is an objective article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.108.234.137 (talk) 12:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

There are alot of dated citations in this article. Also, the laptop allegations may not have been authenticated yet, but they certainly have not been debunked. "Debunked" is not an accurate description of the current allegations against Hunter Biden. Jb1919 (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

No information has come to light to debunk the conspiracy theory that either Biden did anything illegal or corrupt regarding the Ukraine or Burisma. The laptop is merely an extension of the previous conspiracy theory. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The objectivity of this article is more objectively refuted with each passing day. I'd post the articles that makes that clear but I'd get smacked down and my comments would be deleted as they have been already this week. Happily, no one turns to Wikipedia to determine whether the accusations against Joe and Hunter Biden are true. Sad for those of you who spend so much of your lives on the premise that the opposite is true. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of talk pages is to discuss the article. Mostly I am against removal of talk page discussions, but if they don't make positive suggestions for changes to the article, they can be removed. Otherwise, you need some WP:RS for changes you suggest. Gah4 (talk) 12:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Is the Wall Street Journal a reliable source? How about National Review? My positive suggestion is for someone with the clout to post unreverted to find a reliable source for the boatload of information that is out there about Hunter Biden's dealings in Kazakhstan. At present there is not a single mention of the word Kazakhstan in this article. That fact alone is a major indictment of the objectivity of those of you who control this article.Michael-Ridgway (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

New York Post story

The New York Post recently ran a story that claimed they have obtained emails which show Hunter Biden arranged meetings between Joe Biden and a senior official from a Ukrainian energy firm. There are questions about the emails' authenticity and the reliability of the story in general. In the interest of WP:BLP and since NYPost is not considered a reliable source, let's not add information about this story to the article until there are better sources. – Anne drew 19:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I concur. XOR'easter (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Seems to be a very odd series of events, too. What are the odds that Hunter Biden, who lives in California, would take his computer that contains information where he talked to the 2nd most powerful man in the world to a small computer shop that is not even in his own state? No reliable sources have confirmed these events. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The AP writeup makes it pretty clear that the authenticity of the e-mails is very much in question. And according to the NYT,

Last month, United States intelligence analysts contacted several people with knowledge of the Burisma hack for further information after they had picked up chatter that stolen Burisma emails would be leaked in the form of an “October surprise.” Among their chief concerns, according to people familiar with the discussions, was that the Burisma material would be leaked alongside forged materials in an attempt to hurt Mr. Biden’s candidacy — as Russian hackers did when they dumped real emails alongside forgeries ahead of the 2017 French elections — a slight twist on Russia’s 2016 playbook when they siphoned leaked D.N.C. emails through fake personas on Twitter and WikiLeaks.

XOR'easter (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The NY Post story appears to be a medley of baseless claims and questionable evidence. Politicised news have no place in Wikipedia. Glucken123 (talk) 09:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• The background is also, to put it charitably, wildly implausible. Oh, sure, it's possible that a computer store would go to right wing hacks rather than the well-known and easily contacted family that would very obviously be able to pay their bill, but it's rather more likely that Rudy Giuliani, whose associates include known Russian intelligence agents, has been given data stolen by the GRU - because that is exactly what happened with WikiLeaks in 2016, and the Russians are not exactly known for changing a winning formula. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The background is implausible? Really? The Bidens haven't refuted that it was Hunter's computer, nor denied the basics of the facts laid out in the emails. But even if they had (or now have), it cannot be said the claims have been "debunked" or that they are a "right wing conspiracy". It might be alleged to be a right wing conspiracy, but there's no proof of that. For Wikipedia to claim with zero evidence that it's debunked, and a conspiracy, is a dereliction of its duty to present information fairly. We can say the claims are unproven, but not that they are debunked or a conspiracy --Itsgeneb (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. Additionally, it is useful to look at Washington Post's investigations into the matter. NY Post has been complaining about social media censorship (which I also found a bit extreme - especially on Twitter), but on the other hand there is absolutely no doubt that most of the "evidence" presented in the article seems false, misleading and the result of hacking (again!). Therefore, I agree with you that NY Post's leaving us with no choice here. This is garbage. Glucken123 (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

"Absolutely no doubt." Well there you have it. The matter is resolved. Without evidence. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Similar situation to the Steele Dossier, in my opinion. Nobody wanted to publish the dossier, but after Buzzfeed did then the mainstream outlets reported that Buzzfeed reported it. The claims in the story could be dubious, but it wouldn't be appropriate to not report on the subsequent firestorm of stories from many reputable sources. The overall impact of this story on history is massive, because let's not forget that Trump was impeached because of his actions regarding the allegations. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC) Mr Ernie (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, no, not the same at all. The allegation that Hunter Biden influenced his father to get Shokin removed to protect his employer has been extensively discussed in the past, and is well known to be false. Removing Shokin was the official policy of the US, EU, IMF and World Bank. All of them were calling for Shokin's removal before Joe Biden ever got involved. The first motion to remove Shokin was introduced in July 2015 by Yehor Soboliev. Removing Shokin made it more likely that Burisma would be prosecuted, not less.

We should cover the story, but we should follow the reliable independent sources, which point this out, and also point out that the source of the purported (and unverified) emails is very likely the Kremlin. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. We can't bury any mention of this, because it actually is hugely important, but not necessarily for the reasons the NYPost is reporting. There's also the secondary effect it is having on "censorship," as Trump's campaign twitter and the House Judiciary twitter have been locked for sharing it. That is YUGE - a company limiting what official government accounts can share because of potential misinformation. The articles I linked have good details.

And yes, it is the same as the Steele Dossier, including the potential that Russian disinformation could be behind this too. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, it's not hugely important, it's actually very trivial. But it's in the news and it looks weird not to discuss it.

US involvement in Ukraine has been less than stellar (e.g. Rick Perry acting as fixer for donors to get a multi-million-dollar gas deal), but the claim that Joe Biden did anything to protect Hunter's income has been extensively investigated and is false. Unlike the idea that the Trump regime has pushed for Ukraine to open an investigation into Hunter Biden and Burisma, which they had repeatedly not done due to lack of evidence. No doubt they are disappointed that the investigation only covers events before Hunter Biden joined the board. My personal belief is that the involvement of serious people like Aleksander Kwaśniewski probably represented something of a turning point in Burisma, though he himself ias a - ahem - colourful character. Hunter Biden was actually tasked with looking at corporate governance policies in the firm. But I'm not an expert on Eastern European oil and gas oligarchies. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I’m not sure what you are responding to. I’ve never claimed Hunter Biden did anything inappropriate. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, the New York Post story has been shared over 321,000 times on Facebook and accumulated 1.2 million engagements [1], so whatever they said they were doing about "throttling its spread" was probably not a very drastic move. Twitter was following a pre-existing policy they've had for two years and which has impacted left-leaning sites too. I would be hesitant to write article text about this until the partisan sound-and-fury had been analyzed and given context by good secondary sources. XOR'easter (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it should be added if it was Don JR or Eric the admins and editors would be having meltdowns..Guitarguy2323 (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

We know about Don Jr and Eric's actual corruptions and are not "having meltdowns". Stick with discussing Hunter Biden on this talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Guitarguy2323, you think the editors of Fox would be enraged if it turned out that Trump's children were using the family name to score business deals overseas? Guy (help! - typo?) 22:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

In Wikipedia's list of sources, reliable and otherwise, National Review gets a yellow background. This headline appears in today's edition of the National Review: "Hunter Biden Business Partner Confirms Email Showing Joe Was Offered Ten Percent Stake in Chinese Business Deal." The business partner in question is said to be named Tony Bubolinski. His full statement was not included in the article but can be found on a completely unreliable news source by doing a Google News search on Tony Bubolinski. I was unable to find any fully qualified reliable sources where the name Tony Bubolinski figures in a single archived article. So to respond to one or more "absolutely no doubt" comments that might figure in this article, I have "absolutely no doubt" that the New York Post is providing the world with factual information at the present time. As you can imagine, I am always saddened when Wikipedia gets something so completely wrong. Happy editing. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 14:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The beginning is slanted and contains opinion

The following discussion 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.

---

" He has been the subject of debunked right-wing conspiracy theories concerning his business dealings in Ukraine"

Considering this is once more in the news, to use language like "debunked right-wing conspiracy theories" is paper-thin, and obviously BIASED. In other words, this is DNC propaganda. Why is it "right-wing"? Why is it a conspiracy?

THIS IS PRE PACKAGED DNC TALKING POINTS

Did Hunter's lawyer write this, complete and total hackery? how dumb do you think we are?

Does the DNC edit your site nowadays?

This bias is so blatant, you have ZERO credibility any longer There is plenty behind the Hunter Biden story, you recite DNC talk points This is outrageous, do you think we are retarded?

I'm in journalism I dont vote I dont care but this is BLATANT propaganda and disinformation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seekingtruth1776 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

If you are in journalism you will understand the need to verify the things you report or else you are just boosting the noise of the biggest voice. Wikipedia does that by relying on the coverage of already well established media sources with decades, if not centuries, of history covering news factually.

Also you should vote. And you probably should care too. Koncorde (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fox news addition

The paragraph added re Burisma bribes has two refs, Reuters and Fox. WP has found Fox not to be reliable for science or political topics. Reuters is reliable but that article says right off: "Ukraine alleges $5 million bribe over Burisma, no Biden link." I have (again) deleted this section. The first editor that deleted it was correct. Gandydancer (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

How is Fox News not a reliable source? Mother Jones and Media Matters are used here everyday — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guitarguy2323 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussions leading to community consensus about all of these sources can be found via WP:RSP. XOR'easter (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I just want to point out the obvious bias that is occurring on this supposedly "unbiased" platform. FOX is considered to be biased. The New York Post is "unreliable". However, MotherJones, The Daily Beast, Playboy, PolitiFact, and Slate, among many others, are considered to be reliable. Apparently, if a paper has a clear left-ward slant, they are reliable. If they have a right-ward slant, they are unreliable. This bias is continued in the lead of this article. Some editors on this page have said that "He has been the subject of debunked right-wing conspiracy theories" is somehow a factual and unbiased statement.

I'm unsure how this story could possibly be debunked when there is now new evidence reopening the debate about Hunter Biden's business dealings in Ukraine. To reflect the now open debate, the lead should be changed to read "He has been the subject of controversies about his claimed acceptance of money in return for providing intimate access to United States Foreign Policy." This is clearly the less-biased of the two options. Writing the statement this way doesn't assume he is guilty, doesn't mention Joe Biden, and doesn't assume the accuracy of the accusations. But unlike the original statement, it does indicate there IS clearly a controversy and that Hunter Biden is at the center of it. That is objectively true.

As multiple editors have now agreed, the New York Post story has not been verified, but it also hasn't been debunked. So the lead is clearly false until this changes one way or the other. NationalInterest16 (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

As WP:RSP makes clear, the Wikipedia community has deemed plenty of left-leaning sources unreliable for our purposes. And per our policy on Biographies of Living Persons, unfounded allegations are not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia articles. Nothing that has transpired this week has made the existing text inaccurate. XOR'easter (talk) 22:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

NationalInterest16, I was personally responsible for getting Occupy Democrats deprecated. It's not about political lean, it's about factual reliability. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

We don't have to wait for the NY Post article to be "debunked". The claims are sketchy at best, and the background on it makes it appear to be Russian disinformation given to Derkach, who then gave it to Giuliani, who then went to a Murdoch-owned rag. There are no needed changes to Hunter Biden's article to make at this time. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

"Sketchy at best"? We now have the Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee investigating the emails. Not to mention, we don't even have a denial from the Biden campaign that the meeting didn't take place. They have also not denied the veracity of the emails. Again, if there is an ongoing investigation by the US Senate and FBI, clearly the story is not "debunked". "Debunked" would assume the investigation has been completed.

The lead should at least be changed to show that an investigation is ongoing. That would be a fair and unbiased approach. I agree that we can't jump to conclusions, but that should be true in both directions. Assuming the story is correct is jumping to a conclusion. Assuming the story is false is jumping to a conclusion. Let's not do either. NationalInterest16 (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

We know for a fact is that Burisma was hacked in January. The metadata on the files allegedly from this laptop shows that they were created after the laptop was allegedly dropped off at the repair shop. The guy who turned in the laptop has contradicted himself several times already. This whole story stinks of dezinformatsiya. The allegations appear to many, including U.S. intelligence, to be fabricated. The Senate committees are led by Republicans, who are up for election in 18 days. Hardly impartial. Suggesting that there is anything legitimate to any of this would be WP:UNDUE weight and include a nasty smear, just to appear "fair and unbiased"? No, adding the suggestion that this is real would be quite biased. Links:

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/technology/521156-us-intelligence-analysts-predicted-stolen-burisma-emails-would

https://www.ibtimes.sg/hunter-biden-forensic-data-reveals-emails-were-created-months-after-laptop-was-dropped-off-repair-52517 – Muboshgu (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

NationalInterest16, The Senate Committee is run by Republicans. Only a bipartisan report from the full committee has any objective merit. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

That does not debunk or discredit anything, hence IB Times not NY Times. That date is the system date\time when the file was exported to PDF. Which could be any date or time currently set on the system. Even assuming it is accurate, it debunks nothing beyond the pdf copy was made a year ago or before the alleged Burisma hacking. Nothing involving the Post story has been debunked or discredited yet. When that does happen, it will be front page news and not on some random purposeful disinformation twitter feed being furthered on WP talk pages. PS given the censorship the Post editor cited six examples of fake news being furthered by social media w/o censorship,five were adopted by WP as gospel, i have seen at least 47refs to them in just three days. The never to be deprecated RS never issued corrections or retractions and yea if the last name was Trump, not only would this be included and expanded to ten different pages but even after they were conclusiely proven false, they would still be on the site ie Manafort met Assange et al.2601:46:C801:B1F0:EAF2:E2FF:FECD:3EEA (talk) 10:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

When dealing with WP:BLP we are careful to include, and exclude, unverified information until it is verified. The burden of proof is upon those wishing to add the content that the content is covered in reliable sources and says the thing that they want to say. At present the sources claiming that the emails are valid are both deprecated due to their inherent unreliability, and also intrinsically linked to certain people. Meanwhile reliable sources have been warning of this for months, and at present are not discussing any related idea that there is a Hunter Biden related controversy: they know Hunter worked in Ukraine, they know he had a drug problem, and they know he was trying to make money with his uncle and his family (all long documented).

Instead their focus is upon the controversial aspect of Giulani's involvement. Koncorde (talk) 12:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hunter Biden/Ukraine

Emails were published that prove Biden met with the Ukrainians. This article claims that Biden’s connections to Burisma are a merely a “debunked right wing conspiracy theory.”

For the sake of Wikipedia’s credibility, neutralize the overt left leaning bias displayed by this article. Lightuponthenations (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Nothing published to date proves anything untoward. We know that Joe Biden "met with the Ukrainians". He was implementing a US foreign policy strategy that everyone, including Republican Senators, supported. XOR'easter (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know, the article never claims that Hunter Biden did not meet with Ukrainians. The article mentions a conspiracy theory on two occasions: that Hunter Biden is the subject of right-wing conspiracy theories, and that recordings released by Andrii Derkach do not support the conspiracy theory that Joe Biden wanted the Ukrainian prosecutor fired to protect his son. Which of these mentions are you complaining about here? AlexEng^(TALK) 22:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Lightuponthenations, There's no need for us to see any Russian-hacked emails to know that Biden met with Ukrainians., The press were there. He went to Ukraine to promote official US (and European Union and International Monetary Fund and World Bank) policy of removing the corrupt Viktor Shokin from office. In doing so he made it more likely that Burisma would be investigated. The first motion to remove Shokin for corruption was in July 2015, months after he took office, and he was kicked out by an overwhelming majority vote int he Ukrainian Parliament in March 2016, after not much more than a year, during which time he did not prosecute a large number of corrupt people (or indeed some murderers). Coincidentally he accumulated very large sums of money and jewels and multiple passports during this time. I am sure the two are unrelated.

What we don't know is why a laptop containing documents purporting to be private emails of Hunter Bidens ended up in a computer shop in Delaware shortly after reports that the GRU had hacked data from Burisma and others. Giuliani seems to know a lot about it, but I am sure none of it came from his buddy Andrii Derkach, because Giuliani is way too smart to talk to Russian agents, right? Guy (help! - typo?) 22:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• Update: White House knew that Giuliani was being fed Russian disinformation. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/giuliani-biden-ukraine-russian-disinformation/2020/10/15/43158900-0ef5-11eb-b1e8-16b59b92b36d_story.html?fbclid=IwAR2fxZmSKYAElKPdwLTNStclV_oGJrTaA8f_ICnz7NhTk-WgOjWATr4Q1KY Guy (help! - typo?) 23:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
• Suspect provenance of the "Biden laptop" [2]. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Unless there is some *proof* that the data from the laptop was faked -- then this isn't a "conspiracy theory". People (including WP approved news sources) should have genuine concern about the the implications and direct evidence shown from data on the laptop. You can argue against the authenticity of the data, but unless you can show ANY TYPE of evidence that it isn't legitimate, then the reference to "conspiracy theories" should obviously be wiped from the page. This is costing WP, and the editors of this page, credibility. Jlb071 (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)jlb071

Unless there is some *proof* that the data from the laptop was faked -- then this isn't a "conspiracy theory". That isn't how conspiracy theories work. CT's are successful because they misrepresent factual data and create fanciful narratives that appeal to a particular base of individuals. The arguments are superficially convincing because of the veneer of legitimacy offered with their evidence that is typically cherry picked.

Like this.

You are asking all RS to take at face value the idea that a well connected man would take unencrypted incriminating data to a small repair shop to have it recovered at the exact same time as the President was being impeached, then fail to pick it up when all pressure was being placed upon the Democrats to have Hunter testify. And all this against the backdrop of a known hack of Burisma?

You are then asking them to believe the FBI (under the control of Trump loyal appointees) somehow hid the content of the drive and took no action because they are corrupt, while at the same time the President started pushing Iran/ China to the fore and minimising Russian involvement in such campaigns. This against the backdrop of Democrats being excluded from sexurity briefings, and the FBI and CISA both issuing a statement warning people about foreign actors.

Finally a compromised Giuliani (as warned multiple times) who we know from Trumps own defence of his actions last year in sending him to work with foreign agents, and his existing ties to people like Lev Parnas and his known links to Derkach (declared a foreign agent by the Treasury), is the one who mysteriously presents the data to the NYP, an organisation with a well established failing editorial standard.

Now, that is a conspiracy theory that hasn't been debunked. Koncorde (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Jlb071, there is an old saying: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The evidence here is extraordinary only in its use of Rudy Giuliani, a figure whose involvement would cast doubt on a claim that the sky is blue. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The evidence so far in support of the emails, a receipt showing Hunter Biden dropped off the laptop, a direct source supporting the veracity of the emails, the FBI stating the emails are not Russian disinformation, the DOJ stating the emails are not Russian disinformation, the owner of the shop testifying under penalty of felony perjury that the laptop is Hunter Biden's, actual photos of Hunter Biden from the laptop, and no denial from the Biden campaign about the veracity of the emails. What will it take for these emails to be considered "real"? Would Hunter Biden stating under oath that they are real be enough? NationalInterest16 (talk) 04:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLP requires that any dubious claims be sourced, even on talk pages. Multiple RS have expressed skepticism of the New York Post's article. The WP:BURDEN is on editors wishing to add content to show that it's appropriate and gain consensus. Everyone, NationalInterest16 included: please stick to RS and avoid rhetorical what-ifs. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The "what ifs" are being perpetrated by those labeling the allegations "debunked" and "right wing conspiracy" - not by the NY Post or Fox News or the many dissenting voices on this Talk page and elsewhere. The claims are just that - claims - which the Director of National Intelligence affirmed and for which the FBI (plainly no friend of the president or the right in general) took the extraordinary step of saying they had nothing further to add to the DNI's statement. It is thus a stunning overreach to label the accusations as debunked. On what basis are they debunked? Even the Bidens have not directly denied the statements in the emails. Recipients of the emails have publicly validated they either sent or received those emails. What is the evidence, other than there's a consensus of leftist WP editors who agree that anything damaging to Biden must be described as illegitimate? Where is the evidence to legitimize the smears made against Giuliani in this Talk page? WP is making a mockery of itself. Let's acknowledge the facts - an abandoned laptop, which by all available evidence appears to have belonged to Hunter Biden, was provided to the NY Post which reports that it contained extensive information that, if true, would appear to confirm allegations that Joe Biden illegally influenced the Ukraine government to fire a prosecutor in order to protect his son's $1 million per year position on the board of Burisma. That is the allegation, made by a reputable newspaper, supported by the DNI, validated in effect by the FBI, and undenied by the Biden family. It's consistent with past misbehavior by Hunter Biden. Why would WP thus claim that the allegations are debunked? It's absurd, and it smacks of a desperate maneuver by left-leaning WP and major media organizations to claim otherwise. --Itsgeneb (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The reason that there is so much interest in this article is because Hunter Biden made a lot of money in foreign countries while his father was vice president. This raised suspicions that Hunter was trafficking on his father's name and high position in the US government. When asked about this, Joe Biden said that he had never spoken to his son about his international business dealings. Is there consensus among the editors for this article that this statement stands unrefuted as of 10/22/2000? Here's the current wording from the article's lede. "Biden served on the board of Burisma Holdings, a major Ukrainian natural gas producer, from 2014 to 2019. He and his father have been the subjects of debunked right-wing conspiracy theories pushed by Donald Trump and his allies concerning Biden business dealings and anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine." To me, it sounds like something straight out of the Ministry of Truth only made plausible by the Ministry of Truth rejecting out of hand any source that the Ministry of Truth rejects as "unreliable." Michael-Ridgway (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The reason there is so much interest in this article is because his father is running for president. The "but her emails" approache worked against Trump's previous opponent, and so they are attempting to replicate the strategy. The insinuations made through this laptop story are dubious at best, and this fact check by the Tampa Bay Times does a good job of putting the China stuff into context. As this is a highly contentious BLP of an election-related figure less than two weeks prior to an election, we're going to be really conservative about what we add to it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Further, isn't it time to update your characterizations of the "debunked right-wing conspiracy theories?" (Isn't that redundant?) The deubunked right-wing conspiracy theories, as everyone knows, now claim that these corrupt dealings took place not only in Ukraine but also in China, and in Kazakhstan. So if I add China and Kazakhstan to that statement, am I going to get reverted? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Chinese Communist Party

Has Hunter Biden had dealings, directly or indirectly, with the Communist Party of China? Also, it seems notable to mention the October 15, 2020 New York Post article (which mentions ties between Ye Jianming, the Chinese businessmen Biden dealt with in big-money deals, and the Chinese military and government) as well as Facebook and Twitter's banning of users from even posting about this story. Link 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

As already pointed out on this page, the story itself was shared hundreds of thousands of times on Facebook, and it has widely been discussed on Twitter (multiple hashtags on the topic trended for hours today). The New York Post is a tabloid, not a reliable source. XOR'easter (talk) 02:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@XOR'easter:Yes, but there is a federal investigation going into it. That should be considered encyclopedia-worthy, don't you think? www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/feds-examining-if-alleged-hunter-biden-emails-are-linked-foreign-n1243620 Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 20:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

EDG 543, I think you're misunderstanding that NBC News article, which makes no mention of China or communists. The FBI is investigating the origin of this "information", not any of Hunter Biden's ties. As the article concludes, In January, it was reported that Burisma’s networks had been breached by Russian hackers. That is what is being investigated. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

You are correct about China, sorry about that. However, I still don't see how this isn't notable. The title of the article tells what the investigation is: "Feds examining whether alleged Hunter Biden emails are linked to a foreign intel operation." Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 20:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you meant to ping me, not XOR? The feds are investigating the connection of these laptops to foreign agents through disinformation campaigns. At this point it is not clear that Hunter Biden owned or ever used any laptops that were brought to that repair shop, so this would be premature at this point. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

"Alleged Hunter Biden emails" soibangla (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, yes, my apologies. Sorry if it seems like I'm just trying to stir up trouble, I'm not. I just thought that with a federal investigation going on and there being absolutely no mention of it seems a bit fishy. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 23:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

EDG 543, no worries, I didn't think you're stirring up trouble. It's just that there's no clear information about how this investigation connects to Hunter Biden. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, it is allegedly his laptop, which is the connection. But you are right, I have done some more research and the investigation is still underway and hasn't proven Hunter's connection or if the laptop/emails are even legitimate. Once the investigation concludes, we will know the answer. Until then, we wait. Thank you for being civil, I really appreciate people like you. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 01:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Wall St. Journal - The Biden Family Legacy - Tvaughan1 (talk) 02:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Kim Strassel? Really? HAHAHA! soibangla (talk) 02:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Kim Strassel is perhaps the best investigative journalist in the world. She was consistently right about the Trump/Russia collusion hoax, while sources that Wikipedia deems reliable (WaPo, NYT, etc.) were consistently lying, as the Mueller investigation proved. The left-leaning group of Wikipedia editors protecting this article is embarrassing. Your attempts to deny the existence of relevant, factual, reliable information is clearly anything but neutral. This can't continue. This article has become the subject of worldwide ridicule for Wikipedia.Tvaughan1 (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tvaughan1: We do not use opinion pieces as reliable sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Kim Strassel's article is relevant for the facts it details. She, and the WSJ are reliable sources. It is clear what is being stated as fact, and what is her opinion. This is absolutely within Wikipedia's WP:RSOPINION guidelines.Tvaughan1 (talk) 06:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing that you said there is accurate. Every single word is wrong. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The supposed "neutrality" of this article is a joke. The work of you and the other reputation defenders, along with a widespread mainstream news blackout of the story, and social media blocking of any negative information about Joe and Hunter Biden has become the new story. User:Jimbo_Wales must be proud.

* https://www.afr.com/world/north-america/checking-on-biden-conspiracy-wiki-watcher-helps-decide-what-you-see-20191004-p52xlp

* https://www.rt.com/usa/503926-hunter-biden-debunked-wikipedia/

* https://thepostmillennial.com/wikipedia-runs-cover-for-bidens-says-claims-against-them-were-debunked

* Breitbart article... wikipedia-editors-censor-hunter-biden-bombshell-call-new-york-post-unreliable-source/Tvaughan1 (talk) 06:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Tvaughan1, RT.com?!?! Russian state media? Wow. The Post Millenial is also red on WP:RSP, and freaking Breitbart..... Seriously? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The Wall St. Journal is publishing relevant, notable facts which are corroborated by multiple sources. The former CEO of SinoHawk Holdings authenticates the email which show that Joe Biden was going to receive an equity stake in a venture with Chinese oil company CEFC. https://www.wsj.com/articles/hunter-bidens-ex-business-partner-alleges-father-knew-about-venture-11603421247 Tvaughan1 (talk) 06:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tvaughan1: stop copy-pasting copyrighted material (WP:CV). And yes, we know what Bobulinski claims. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm quoting only the relevant facts for discussion. Since the WSJ is behind a paywall, most Wikipedia editors can't read the article. So, now that you know that Bobulinski verifies the authenticity and the meaning behind the emails that show Joe did discuss Hunter's overseas business dealings, are we ready to remove the ridiculous "debunked right wing conspiracy theories" language from the top of the article? That is a ludicrously biased summary of the situation. Tvaughan1 (talk) 06:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Newsweek says that WSJ says: provide no evidence that Joe ever used his political standing as a former vice president to aid Hunter's business dealings in China. Seems to disagree with what you say. Gah4 (talk) 06:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Bobulinski verifies that he met with Joe Biden, and the topic was what you would clearly call "overseas business dealings". So it's clear Joe lied when he said he never even discussed such matters with his son (which is ludicrous on its face). This is corroborated by articles in the NY Post and Fox News. The Bidens (and you) can argue that these foreign "investors" would have wanted to make such deals with Hunter and his other business partners if his father wasn't the Vice President (or former Vice President), but that is also ludicrous. At a minimum, we know that the laptop is authentic, and we know that the emails involving Hunter Biden and Bobulinski are authentic. And yet, the laptop and a description of the contents of the laptop and the controversy surrounding the laptop are not mentioned in this article. Tvaughan1 (talk) 07:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Tvaughan1 Agree. Time for the lead to be rewritten based on the new evidence. NationalInterest16 (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Bobulinski claims that he met with Joe Biden, but he only claims it when talking to non-reliable tabloid the NY Post, and Fox News's politics division (not reliable for politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources) specifically because he knows they won't behave to normal journalistic and ethical standards. And no, we do not "know that the laptop is authentic", nor do we know similar about the claimed emails, given that fake emails salted into hacked materials are a tactic the Russians were caught using before in the 2017 Macron e-mail leaks disinformation scheme and that the timeline of supposed custody of the "laptop" makes absolutely no sense. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Tvaughan1 & NationalInterest16:

On Thursday evening Kimberly Strassel, a Trump-booster for the Wall Street Journal opinion pages, published a column claiming that text messages from a business partner of Hunter Biden “raise questions” about Joe Biden’s involvement in a deal with a Chinese company. Hours later, the news side of the Wall Street Journal shot down some of those questions. [3]

soibangla (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Another misdirection from the brigade. No disagreement on any facts, which remain clear. The laptop was dropped off by Hunter Biden, who signed a receipt. Neither Hunter Biden or Joe Biden dispute the authenticity of the laptop and its contents. The only "conspiracy theories" that have been debunked are those claiming that the laptop was the product of Russian disinformation. This is just sad and embarrassing for Wikipedia.Tvaughan1 (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The laptop was dropped off by Hunter Biden, who signed a receipt is not established fact. Neither Hunter Biden or Joe Biden dispute the authenticity of the laptop and its contents. It must be enormously frustrating that many are not taking the bait and giving the story oxygen, a story that even Fox News passed on because it reeked. And there is no misdirection: the WSJ news division once again contradicted what one of their opinion writers, in this case a member of the editorial board, wrote. soibangla (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a WP:BLP, not a court. We do not operate by the standard of "well, they didn't deny it". So far, it appears that everything here are claims by Bobulinski. We can add material that Bobulinski makes these claims (assuming consensus), but can cannot say anything more. At the moment, these are allegations (cf., Joe Biden sexual assault allegation and Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations). Nothing can be said in WP:Wikivoice. From what I can tell, the laptop stuff is all about China (right?) and the debunked statement in Wikivoice is regarding Ukraine. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

For the moment, the Bobulinski claims have not been covered in any credible media (probably for good reason). The pivot to screaming that it's about "china" when the NY Post was claiming earlier that it was all about "Burisma", is interesting only in the political-science sense that "Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth" to quote Conspiracy theory. Debunk or falsify the theory as it currently exists, and the adherents will just try to move the goalposts and rewrite it to try again. Absent any Wikipedia:Reliable sources coverage that didn't simply involve saying "well Fox News says", adding the Bobulinski claims should either not be done at all until such coverage develops, or needs to have a disclaimer in giant red blinking neon lights. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Fox News has reported on this extensively since day 1. "There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims." So Fox News CAN be used as a source. Anyone claiming that Fox News is lying in their reporting about the receipt for the laptop has quite a burden of proof to meet. My point here on this talk page is that all who are working to block any and all mention of the laptop can't make up your own "facts" that purport the laptop to be Russian disinformation, or purport another source for the laptop. That's not a good faith discussion about the relevance, notability and reliability of the story. EvergreenFir - Editors like me aren't advocating for any conclusions in this article in WP:Wikivoice. But no mention of the actual concerns and evidence supporting those concerns is clearly not neutral. Tvaughan1 (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

As of today, the FBI has agreed to interview Bobulinski regarding the information, and Bobulinski has handed over the mobile devices that allegedly have proof of the inappropriate dealings. So it's false to claim that Bobulinski is only talking to FOX and the New York Post about this. Regarding the receipt, as EvergreenFir was kind enough to point out, this isn't a court room; however, it is additional evidence supporting the veracity of the emails. A reasonable person could question the veracity of the emails if there was no supporting evidence, but this starts to change as more evidence emerges.

To recap the evidence for other editors, we have a receipt with Hunter Biden's signature, the store owner has testified under penalty of felony perjury that the laptop is Hunter Biden's, we have pictures from the laptop that are of Hunter Biden, the FBI has said the laptop is not Russian disinformation and the DNI has said the laptop is not disinformation. Furthermore, we now have a secondary source, Bubulinski, who says the emails are real. Again, this is not a court room, but the preponderance of the evidence clearly points to the emails being real.

Since the evidence points to the emails being real, and the emails clearly document issues about Joe Biden's involvement with his son's business dealings in BOTH Ukraine and China, the lead of the article should be changed from "debunked right-wing conspiracy theories" to "He and his father have been the subjects of renewed controversy concerning Biden business dealings and foreign policy in Ukraine and China". This does not presume guilt, it is in WP:Wikivoice, and it avoids many of the problems that the current lead does; namely that the current lead has been the subject of repeated controversy, that the original sources don't use the term "debunked", and that the original sources are now extremely outdated. Additionally, this change is entirely accurate considering that the controversy has dominated news coverage for a week now and was brought up by an NBC moderator during the Presidential Debate NationalInterest16 (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

"Ex-Hunter Biden associate's records don't show proof of Biden business relationship amid unanswered questions", "Tony Bobulinski had claimed the former VP was involved in discussions about his son's dealings overseas", "Fox News has reviewed emails from Bobulinski related to the venture — and they don't show that the elder Biden had business dealings with SinoHawk Holdings, or took any payments from them or the Chinese." https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-biden-tony-bobulinski-joe-biden-unanswered-questions

It's interesting how neither NationalInterest16 nor Tvaughan1 can bother to provide links to the stories they claim back up their statements.

"But so far the Bobulinski allegations seem like bubkes. At 10:47, minutes after the debate ended, the Wall Street Journal, part of the same media empire as Fox News and the Post, reported, “Text messages and emails related to the venture that were provided to the Journal by Mr. Bobulinski, mainly from the spring and summer of 2017, don’t show either Hunter Biden or James Biden” — the former vice president’s brother — “discussing a role for Joe Biden in the venture. Even if Bobulinski is telling the truth, that Joe Biden knew about the China enterprise, it’s not clear what the scandal is — he was a private citizen at the time and not yet running for president. Trump has elevated an unsubstantiated assertion that Biden had knowledge about his son’s legal and failed business venture to a “crime” for which he “should be in jail.” To put in context how absurd this allegation is, one of the first things George W. Bush did after he left the White House was deliver a paid speech in China. Somehow he remains at large." https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/23/hunter-biden-wins-the-debate-431558

The "preponderance of the evidence" does not say any such thing. We do not know yet the provenance of the laptop, nor of any emails contained within. The accusations these two are trying to make, suspiciously trying to avoid giving precise links to the pages they claim or providing links to known problematic sites, are getting over the line of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy in my estimation. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

the store owner has testified under penalty of felony perjury that the laptop is Hunter Biden's - I never heard that one before. Show me a source that says he has testified under oath. According to Fox News, Mac Isaac "can't be 100% sure" who dropped off the laptop. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Change debunked to disputed in header

Debunked is obviously false, there's non trivial evidence from reliable media outlets, and keeping it as such is openly partisan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.5.219 (talk) 02:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Completely agree. The matter has not been debunked, an in light of recent information coming to light it is certainly inaccurate and arguably partisan to state this is debunked in the article. BR549.2 (talk) 03:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you please point to the reliable media outlets and their articles, thank you. Koncorde (talk) 03:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 03:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

What Koncorde said. XOR'easter (talk) 05:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

None of the sources given for the "debunked" line actually say the story is debunked. They say the story lacks evidence. Additionally, those stories were written before the latest emails have been released, providing new evidence that the original story may actually be true. So we are using the word "debunked" based on outdated sources that do not actually use that term. NationalInterest16 (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

NationalInterest16: Please explain what, exactly, in the recent story is new evidence that the original story may actually be true. The story appears to say "we've got the laptop! we've got emails! we've got pictures!" but what exactly in the emails implicates the Bidens in wrongdoing? The possibility that Hunter introduced Joe to a Burisma board advisor? Feh. soibangla (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that "debunked" is unsupported by the cited source. MainePatriot (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• 'Debunked' seems to be supported by the sources (every one cited there unequivocally says the conspiracy theories about him are "false", eg. [4] At a campaign rally in Iowa, President Donald Trump cited an unsubstantiated news report to revive a widely debunked false narrative about Joe Biden’s work in Ukraine on behalf of the Obama administration), and I'm not seeing anyone producing the non trivial evidence from reliable media outlets you're claiming exists. --02:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Multiple articles do say "false" in the headline. None of the articles substantiate the claim that the allegations are false. They state there is little evidence that they are correct. Just so everyone's clear on the allegations, Republicans were claiming that Joe Biden adjusted US Foreign Policy to enrich his son (and possibly himself). The original evidence for this claim, provided by the current sources for the lead, is Hunter Biden was not qualified for the role, that he got the role because of his last name, and that no one has been able to verify what his role actually was with the company. Additional evidence would be that the issue was raised with Joe Biden by ethics advisors in the White House and Joe Biden chose to ignore the advisors. At the time, this was certainly not enough evidence to claim that Viktor Shogun was fired to benefit Joe Biden and his son, hence why all the articles say the allegations are unsubstantiated.

Again, the articles provide no evidence supporting the idea that the allegations are "debunked". The debunked line we currently have in the lead appears to be something that we added without any supporting sources. It has also been a repeated subject of controversy on this page because numerous editors have pointed out that is clearly WP:Bias.

The emails have provided additional evidence that has now been corroborated by a third-party source who is a former business partner of Hunter Biden. The emails indicate that Joe Biden met with a top Burisma executive, refuting a previous claim by Joe Biden that he had never taken part in his son's business dealings, and that the results of the meeting would be crucial to the renewal of Hunter Biden's employment with the company. Additional emails indicate that Hunter Biden and Joe Biden received direct compensation for Joe Biden's foreign policy directives in China. This has also been corroborated by the former business partner of Hunter Biden. If proven true, this would be a violation of the emoluments clause.

I think it would be going too far to say that these allegations are proven correct, but in the face of this new evidence, we certainly cannot reasonably claim that the allegations have been debunked. Therefore, the lead should be changed to "He is currently the subject of investigations into his business dealings in Ukraine." That statement does not presume guilt or innocence, it simply states the facts in a neutral tone as an encyclopedia should. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NationalInterest16 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Is he under investigation? Cite sources please. Here's one from today: Documents obtained by Fox News show the subpoena was linked to a money laundering investigation in late 2019, though it is unknown whether the investigation is still open or if it directly involves Hunter Biden. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 October 2020 (2)

Change "He and his father have been the subjects of debunked right-wing conspiracy theories pushed by Donald Trump and his allies concerning Biden business dealings and anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine" to "Allegations of corruption were made with respect to Hunter Biden's use of his position at Burisma Holdings in Ukraine"

Sources :

• https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/10/16/twitter_facebook__hunter_biden_big_tech_as_big_brother_144467.html
• https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/about-that-hunter-biden-story/

I would add the New York Post's article, but since this source is not WP:RSP, I omitted it to avoid criticism. MonsieurD (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Asartea ^{Trick | Treat} 15:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

1. Those are not RSes.

2. Per the rules, edit requests can only be made for uncontroversial content changes, so get consensus first, right here on the talk page.

3. This article also applies to Joe Biden, not just Hunter Biden.

4. The identities of "who" is pushing these conspiracy theories is important to mention. -- Valjean (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Modifying the lead section

Hi folks,

I think the lead section is WP:POV. The allegations of corruption are not conspiracy theories. They have been documented in maintream media, especially with the NY Post dossier. I know the the NY Post is not WP:RS in general, but I would plead WP:5P5 on this. I don't think the term "conspiracy theories" is warranted anymore. "Allegations" would be way more neutral than "conspiracy theories".

The main source:

• https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/

Other sources about this :

• https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/10/16/twitter_facebook__hunter_biden_big_tech_as_big_brother_144467.html
• https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/about-that-hunter-biden-story/
• https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-biden-emails-chinese-energy-firm-burisma-executive

Note that the last one is WP:RS MonsieurD (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Nothing you have said or cited supports your complaint. SPECIFICO talk 16:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The fact that mainstream media considered reliable sources on Wikipedia (i.e. Fox News) considers the allegations credible enough to cover and does not qualify them to be conspiracy theories supports my complaint. MonsieurD (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

False premise, false conclusion. Fox and NY Post are corporate siblings. Not RS. SPECIFICO talk 16:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

MonsieurD, WP:RSP says There is consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science.' Fox News and the NY Post are both owned by the Murdoch's, who skew to the Republicans. Besides, what is the allegation? I clicked on that Fox News link. They're throwing things around to make it look nefarious, but there's no apparent wrongdoing here. Given this is a WP:BLP, why would we use it to insinuate negative things about the subject that are dubious at best? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok then. New source from The Hill which is WP:RS. https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/521336-feds-investigating-if-alleged-hunter-biden-emails-connected-to MonsieurD (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

You may not use this talk page to promote WP:UNDUE or false BLP content. SPECIFICO talk 17:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

What is false and according to what source? The New York Post dossier is discussed in reliable sources without being flagged as conspiracy theories by them. We should go with what the RS say and I have provided evidence that the RS support my point. MonsieurD (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

More WP:RS here (Snopes). It's not described as a conspiracy theory here either. I just want to remind everyone that I do not ask for the allegations of corruption to be presented as facts, but to swipe off the mention of them as conspiracy theories. It is a moderate point for the sake of neutrality. There is evidence. It's covered in RS. Wikipedia shouldn't brush it off as a conspiracy. MonsieurD (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

NBC News: President Donald Trump on Wednesday seized on an unverified report about Joe Biden's son Hunter, using it to repeat his often-told conspiracy theory about the Ukrainian energy company Burisma. Plenty of sources call it a conspiracy theory. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

MonsieurD, er, do you understand that source? The Feds are looking into whether the release is part of a foreign influence operation, because they already know that Fancy Bear has been working on hacking Burisma and Hunter Biden, and they already told the White House last year that Giulinai is being used as a conduit for Kremlin disinformation. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes I do. But even if Russia was instrumental in providing the information, if the emails are real, then it's not a conspiracy theory. Asking where an information comes from is not the same thing as asking whether it's true.MonsieurD (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory is that the Bidens did anything inappropriate with Burisma and the Ukraine. The emails, which may be legit if they were indeed hacked by Russia from Bursima, appear to include nothing to suggest improper behavior by either Biden. So, it's still a debunked.conspiracy theory. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Not to mention that Hunter doing something inappropriate doesn't mean that Joe did. Well, we already knew that Hunter had a drug problem. A photo of Joe with a crack pipe might be news, if reliably sourced. It is way too easy to fake photographs, not to mention e-mails. Gah4 (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

MonsieurD, absolutely nothing has changed with the terming of Joe or Hunter Biden doing anything wrong in regards to Burisma or the Ukraine. Some emails and text messages were released that, if authentic, prove that Joe Biden loves his son and supported him through his addiction. The metadata on many of the other documents makes them appear to be forged. Reliable source discuss this as possible Russian disinformation. Here's one: [5] – Muboshgu (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

This is blatant WP:Bias, and this article needs some major changes to bring it in line with the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oea the King (talk • contribs) 01:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC) — Oea the King (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Talks of this being debunked are obviously false and should not be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.5.219 (talk) 22:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

MonsieurD, we deal with this much more and better at Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. I suggest you check there before you dig yourself deeper here. -- Valjean (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree...though I am surprised to see that there is no disagreement to have this included at the Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign article. Gandydancer (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Just another example of the biased editors on Wikipedia (who are probably bankrolled by the democrats) enforcing a biased viewpoint using their biased RS as an excuse. No one takes Wikipedia seriously anymore when it comes to political topics! 2401:E180:8813:10F4:2869:EC01:C322:6545 (talk) 08:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Where were you during Troopergate? Were those stories true or false? How about that there impeachment last year? I take it the dozens of witnesses could be trusted right? No? But Rudy Giuliani with a hard drive of unknown provenance, suspected forged emails, and the New York Post and suddenly it's not fake news anymore. Koncorde (talk) 09:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

This sentence in the lead has been a clear subject of controversy. How can we claim it is "debunked" when there are ongoing investigations with new evidence still emerging. As myself and many others have now pointed out, we don't need to say the evidence is factual, but it is certainly demonstrating bias to claim they are not factual. For those claiming that there is no wrong-doing and that Joe Biden simply loves his son, the entire discussion is centered around whether Joe Biden threatened to cut aid for the Ukrainians unless they fired Viktor Shogun. If true - that's a crime. We know because there was an entire impeachment hearing about Donald Trump pressuring the Ukrainians. These emails are evidence that Joe Biden lied about knowing of his son's business dealings. They are also evidence that Joe Biden may have pressured the Ukrainians to help his son increase his wealth.

Regarding the veracity of the emails, we now have the Director of National Intelligence stating that there is no evidence the emails were planted by the Russians as reported by Newsweek today. We also have FOX reporting that they have a source who was part of one of the email chains claiming the emails are accurate. The Biden campaign has refused to state whether the emails are actually false - instead they keep saying it's a "smear" without actually denying the information in the emails.

Under penalty of a federal perjury charge, the owner told a US Senate panel that the laptop is indeed Hunter Biden's as reported by The Washington Times. Furthermore, this is now an official investigation. Therefore, the lead should at least be changed to say "He and his father are the subjects of ongoing investigations about allegations of corruption stemming from Hunter Biden's business dealings with Burisma". That does not indicate guilt or innocence. We could also say "ongoing Republican-led investigations" if you want to make it clear that Democrats are not participating. NationalInterest16 (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

We've gone over this. Allegations of bad behavior by either Biden are thoroughly debunked. That includes the Viktor Shokin allegations, which were debunked before impeachment started. It is important to be clear that these allegations are "false" or "debunked" or whatever synonym you prefer. The only investigations being discussed are the FBI investigating who planted the laptop in Delaware, and potential sham investigations the Senate Republicans want to hold against social media for throttling the story. The emails may be legit, as Burisma was reportedly hacked by Russia in January, but there's nothing in them that proves bad behavior by either Biden. The laptop is highly suspect. This is a BLP and we won't be insinuating what Giuliani wants insinuated here, not without proof that at this point does not appear to exist. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• The fact that mainstream media considered reliable sources on Wikipedia (i.e. Fox News) considers the allegations credible enough to cover and does not qualify them to be conspiracy theories supports my complaint. Fox News is not considered a reliable source for politics on Wikipedia; per WP:RS/P, the most recent RFC failed to reach a consensus, which defaults it to yellow / low-quality. When its reporting is contradicted by higher-quality sources we cannot use it, nor can we cite it as a source for WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims with political ramifications. Beyond that, none of the sources above suggest that the underlying conspiracy theory has evolved or changed. --Aquillion (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 October 2020

The following discussion 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.

---

Please remove the "debunked" conspiracy text. It has not been debunked nor 100% confirmed. The statement should read that his past business dealings in Ukraine and China are currently under investigation for possible corruption. That is the only undisputed fact right now (Investigation is being conducted by Senate Homeland Security Committee and the FBI). 69.127.240.166 (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The allegations have been known, and known to be false, for at least a year. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

That reply is pretty weak given the New York Post story was published last week. New evidence should lead to reassessments. MonsieurD (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Except the NYP is deprecated because it is unreliable, and all other reliable sources are treating this story as either an extension of prior smear attempts, or directly questioning the evidence and its source. Koncorde (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Leaving aside the allegations themselves, there does appear to be significant debate and conversation on the talk page regarding the specific use of the word 'debunked'. Would it be appropriate at this point to hold a vote to see where consensus lays? RandomGnome (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

RandomGnome, I believe there is such a debate going on as we speak on the Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory page. Could be good to have here as well, unless we just want to consider that consensus to cover all Biden/Burisma related articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

MonsieurD, the "evidence" is dubious and we won't run something like that, giving it false equivalence, in a BLP. We err on the side of not including something like this. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not claim that the evidence is enough to say there is corruption, but I do claim that the evidence is enough to stop disqualifying all allegations of corruption as a conspiracy theory. That's the neutral thing to do. As it stands, the lead is not neutral because it discounts ideas that have not been debunked, but only put in question. MonsieurD (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I concur Gem fr (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

any evidence of a conspiracy by rightwingers? Then why push this, then?

I won't enter the matter whether the claim of corruption are true, false, or "debunked". Nor the matter that they are pushed bu Trump and right wingers (the obviously are). However, to claim this is a "right wing conspiracy theory" IS a conspiracy theory. So you need more than left wingers claim to push this conspiracy theory into Wikipedia, as it is right now. A more neutral writing, such like

He and his father have been accused of corruption concerning Biden business dealings in Ukraine[1], charge they dismiss by claiming they were actually fighting corruption. These accusations are being pushed hard by Donald Trump and his allies in the final weeks of 2020 Presidential election.

would be factual, saying no less, without the "we know the truth" (we don't!) implication of "conspiracy theory" and "debunked", that actually hurt Wikipedia. Have a nice day. Gem fr (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources already cited in the article describe it as a conspiracy theory whose political slant is obvious. XOR'easter (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

This is just NOT true. All the given source about a "conspiracy" date back to 2019, before the laptop emerged, so they are just as outdated as an Aristotelian Cosmogony. The most recent (factcheck.org) is far more cautious, on the "this is unproven and no investigation so far as been launched" line; the word "conspiracy" do not even appear in their piece. Then again, the idea that this is a right wing conspiracy to push debunkend conspiracy theory is unsupported and cannot appear in the headlines as it does.Gem fr (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The reliable sources are dubious about the provenance of the laptop. So why would we give more credence to the laptop than reliable sources do? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

This is not the point. YOU have to prove this is a conspiracy, as you claim (ie, not just "dubious", but fake and planted). And you have no source for that.

The most recent Gardian piece on the matter do not use the word "conspiracy" either. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/20/trump-barr-special-prosecutor-joe-biden-hunter-biden

So, then again, where are your reliable sources to delete the POV flag? Gem fr (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

At present the laptop is an extension of the original conspiracy. It even has the same people involved. It is still framing the same argument, just now it's trying to point at certain emails and saying "look, this proves corruption!", but Ukraines own investigation into Burisma says otherwise, and there is nothing fundamentally wrong with dealing with China (ask Trump). Koncorde (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Just support your claim at that 1) the laptop DO NOT change anything. 2) this is a Trump / right wing conspiracy. The currently used sources just do not support that claim. I found none other (but, there are so many, I might have missed).Gem fr (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Koncorde is 100% correct here. Giuliani and Derkach saved this last bit of their Burisma smear for mid-October. It doesn't change anything. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

So you just inadvertently admitted you believe in a conspiracy theory, according to which "Giuliani and Derkach saved this last bit of their Burisma smear for mid-October", without any piece of evidence and no source. Of course, this makes sense and MIGHT be right (politics is the realm of conspiracies if any)... but you cannot push this here without source, as you do. We don't want some conspiracy theory believer pushing their claim here, you know... I am sure you can contribute in many other field where your political beliefs won't interfere: please step down, if you care more about Wikipedia that about Biden (and to it also if you care more Biden than Wikipedia :-) ). Take care. Gem fr (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not a conspiracy theory to point out what was already pointed out in the impeachment process. Andrii Derkach passed along anti-Biden materials to Giuliani. This is proven. It takes time to verify or discredit the laptop, and we won't get the official FBI answer on it until after the election. We don't call the laptop "disinformation" in our articles because it hasn't been proven to be yet. Given that it fits in with the already debunked conspiracy theory pushed by Giuliani, it would be a disservice to our readers and violate NPOV to give it any credence. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Not the point. Now do "Giuliani and Derkach saved this last bit of their Burisma smear for mid-October.", which was your claim, and IS a conspiracy theory. Gem fr (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] etc. etc. etc. Koncorde (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Very much the point. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I just check your first link, and it is just unrelated to your claim. I warn you this is spam and could get you banned. Please just provide a source for your claims or quit, thanks.Gem fr (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Did you read it? It talks about Giuliani, Derkach, and Hunter Biden. It could be more relevant. The sources, taken as a whole, detail much of what has happened. The GRU hacked Burisma, fed the documents to Derkach, who got them to Giuliani. Now, I have to warn you that throwing around baseless claims like this is spam and could get you banned are more likely than not to WP:BOOMERANG. Koncorde hasn't committed any blockable offense, that I'm aware of. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I did read, NOWHERE stand anything meaning "Giuliani and Derkach saved this last bit of their Burisma smear for mid-October."; and then, I noticed it date back to 2019, meaning it could just NOT make a reliable claim about "Giuliani and Derkach sav[ing] this last bit of their Burisma smear for mid-October." (hell, why oh why "save" it then, instead of using it already when most useful?).

If you had a source, a single one would suffice. Providing time-losing unrelated content is both spam and proof you have none (still). But then again, I assume good faith and let you provide a source, or just admit you were wrong ("nobody's perfect")Gem fr (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Just gave you a wealth of articles demonstrating Giuliani and Derkach have been working towards something for months now, and you think they somehow only just started this new thing today? And I guess Derkach got the second laptop only yesterday too? Koncorde (talk) 23:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

So you, too, are in full "conspiracy theory" mode, thanks for acknowledging. But that is not supporting your claims in anyway.Gem fr (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

What would a source need to say to support that POV in your opinion? What "smoking gun" outside of 16 months of Giuliani openly soliciting foreign aid (and 5 years for Trump) would verify the reliable sources perspective of the sequence of events? Koncorde (talk) 01:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Gem fr, you are making demands for sources, Koncorde provides eleven, you look at one and are unsatisfied and so now you are making more demands? You can't reject evidence provided to you if you don't examine it. Don't make more demands without looking at what has been provided. This might take more than 10 seconds of your time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I did examined the provided source, and just debunked above that it supports Muboshgu's claim that "Giuliani and Derkach saved this last bit of their Burisma smear for mid-October." This is just not true, full period. And I lost quite some time, not 10 sec, on this spam, provided by a conspiracy theorist (see above). And checking that I debunked it would NOT require more that 10 sec from you OTOH: a 2019 piece just cannot seriously support a claim regarding something that happened a few days ago. Gem fr (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I recommend reading Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory#Background really carefully. soibangla (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

If this article has a source supporting the claim, please provide it already. I just don't care the issue to dig into this shit (AFAIK, politicians of any color CAN be trusted to be smear each other with true and untrue corruption claim; just bc X would be conspiring to pull dirt on Y does not mean that Y is clean and the dirt not real). I do care about WP used to push political propaganda by conspiracy theorists stonewalling their unsupported claims and damaging WP in the process.Gem fr (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

So let's sum up

• the article use 8 sources (which is WAY too much!) to support the disputed claim "He and his father have been the subjects of debunked right-wing conspiracy theories pushed by Donald Trump and his allies concerning Biden business dealings and anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine."
• the first source, from factchecks.org, just does not support the claim: it does not use the word "conspiracy", and does not even claim this is for sure false. It just states "here is what we currently know, pending investigation underway" (good material If I may comment)
• ALL the others date back to 2019, and could be acceptable a month ago, but just cannot anymore with the recent "laptop" event. I did not check them all, but for some reason I did check the gardian and it happens that it seriously changed its coverage, not using the "conspiracy" language anymore in its latest piece (link above). Which is very telling, considering its strong anti-Trump stance.

So we have a claim *without ANY source*

In any case a "citation needed" tag would be required

BUT

Not only this is unsourced, but it directly violates the policy

"Contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

Bc this is contentious material regarding Trump and friends (living persons last time I check)

it should be removed immediately.

I don't do that bc I know the article is very sensible and people, not all out of good faith, would just be enraged, but I will

Unless, of course, some recent source actually supporting the claim is QUICKLY provided

Please note that using a less offensive language will help sourcing (I made a proposition in the introducing sentences, That I read in a reliable source), but feel to change what you thing is needed -- as long as it is sourced)

Thanks a lot for the attention, take care.

Gem fr (talk) 04:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

There are multiple sources because people, like yourself, rock up every few weeks and start stuff like this. So:

• I am not aware of a policy that says we can have too many reliable sources (just like nobody has a clue what you mean when you say someone can be banned for giving you too much to read which you then ignore).
• You have repeatedly admitted to only reading one of the sources. It doesn't say what you want it to say and soooo we have a claim without any source.
• We have no idea what you actually expect the sources to say about more unverified claims, other than you want to change the focus of the lede to the laptop contents (which you have not provided a reliable source for) and that you think that the laptop un-debunks the debunked conspiracy theory (which remains debunked, because the existing sources cover the actual course of events, and Trump was impeached for his efforts).
• There is absolutely nothing contentious about the claim Trump is pushing conspiracy theories (there are yet more sources in the body of the article for further claims).
• We are not tackling the current "laptop" claims until there is actual reliable sources covering recent events. You seem to want us to use unverified claims from Giuliani and Trump to overturn months of efforts to spread a conspiracy.
• The NYP article "alleges" and "claims" and "infers" and "purports" a lot but is an unreliable source by wikipedia standards to use to change the article, it also doesn't make the allegations that Trump and Giuliani are making. Fox News coverage is using the exact same quantified language because it cannot verify the claims (although it verifies an email, though not the meaning of the content)[18] but isn't stopping Trump from repeating the same conspiracies.[19]
• Currently there are a wealth of sources discussing the apparent unreliability of the claims[20][21][22]
• The conspiratorial nature of the theories[23][24][25][26][27](and more opiniony pieces[28][29])
• The long term plan to release the information close to the election.[30]Giuliani apparently held the information for months and released it less than three weeks before the election. Giuliani has long been involved in efforts by the president and his allies to highlight Hunter Biden's work overseas to damage Joe Biden and boost Mr. Trump's reelection campaign, and in 2019 met with a Ukrainian lawmaker who has been deemed an "active Russian agent" by the U.S. government.
• And of course the depth of the conspiracy:[31] He added that the FBI didn't send the information it had to Congress because "there's a small group at the top of the FBI that hates Trump. And they haven't been rooted out. They haven't been taken out. They're still there. And they hate this country."

And much more will be revealed over the next few weeks, in whichever direction the veracity of the laptop content goes, but that would still not change the fact the conspiracy theory is about Joe Biden interfering in Ukrainian prosecution to protect his sons business dealings - which is demonstrably false. Koncorde (talk) 08:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

You make it hard to "presume good faith", and you obvious don't do that. I'll try to make it short (and please do it next time). You are right, this is not an official policy, but, still: spamming lots of irrelevant pieces, even from reliable sources is not providing "too many reliable source", it is an old rhetorical device to provide for the lack of actual proof (Cf. Schopenhauer), which is why one or two actual evidences are better (IMHO the piece of factcheck.org is good, unfortunately it just do not support the claim). Here's your clue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam#Citation_spam. And please quit stating "Trump was impeached for his effort"; being impeached only means being accused, he was then trialed by the senate, and found not guilty; meaning your claim is (officially) DEBUNKED (well, that is the official story for sure, may be not the truth, but here we are): so stop pushing this conspiracy theory. Likewise,I am not aware of any investigation against Giuliani, so pushing the story that is is some Russian asset is just a conspiracy theory too. It start to make quite a number of conspiracy theory you are pushing, isn't it?

How can it be so hard to provide a source from 2020 October that actually support the sentence, if the claim is right? It is all over the news, FGS

Just do that, and everyone well be happy (well, not everyone I guess, but, whatever).

Have a nice day, sirGem fr (talk) 10:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:REFSPAM properly at some time, HINT: it has has nothing to do with using lots of legitimate reliable sources. It is clear you neither want to provide any sources to support your claims, or read any that do support our interpretation of the reliable sources. Then you want to type 333 words, but complain when someone types 500 to refute your claims and provide you with the very thing you insist does not exist - including an actual quotation, from a source, saying the very thing you wanted to see a reliable source say.

As for Giuliani, he literally went on live TV crying about being investigated (both in association with Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman) and for other myriad things. Derkach isn't one of those reasons at present.[32][33][34][35][36][37][38] Koncorde (talk) 10:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

What "claim" am I supposed to provide source for? I did not edit the article, just put a tag it obviously lacks. Your hating Giuliani is just irrelevant, I wont discuss it, and it is concerning you want to have this irrelevant discussion.

Just provide a source (ie, quote it. If you need a fucking interpretation original work to conclude from it what it does not actually say, sorry, no) supporting the discussed sentence (and, then again, no, a 2019 piece just don't cut the deal for the recent story, especially when the provider changed it recently!).

Or change the sentence in a decent, not offensive, way (can you seriously claim that my proposition far above is so bad?)

Gem fr (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

There are multiple sources above. You are choosing not to read them, or read the quoted bit.

You are claiming that the conspiracy is not debunked. Please provide a source that says "actually it is true that Joe Biden fired the prosecutor in order to protect his son".

I never claimed that and still don't. Your claiming otherwise says it all. You are blinded by your bias and prejudice, reading stuff that were just not written nor implied, and you for sure do that in the sources just like you read it in what I wrote. Gem fr (talk) 11:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

And you asked for information about Giuliani, and I provided it. Saying you now aren't interested makes me think I am wasting my time trying to help you.

And yes, your suggested sentence is editorialising and gives credence to unfounded claims by the Trump Campaign not supported by the reliable sources - which is definitely a BLP violation. Koncorde (talk) 11:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I never asked about Giuliani either. In what fantasy world do you live?Gem fr (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

You said Likewise,I am not aware of any investigation against Giuliani, so pushing the story that is is some Russian asset is just a conspiracy theory too. I took that as you need furnishing with that evidence, so I gave the sources to help you. Koncorde (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Ye. whatever. You obviously have a tendency to read what is not written nor implied. It makes you unreliable when you claim something is in a source, so please, just properly quote it (and, again, NOT outdated 2019 material: the matter is currently hot and you should have no trouble if it were true. So far, you could not provide. (no need to "prove" some conspiracy theorist or the tRump campaign push it, this point is obvious and, and is not part of the issue; should not need to point this out, but...). Gem fr (talk) 12:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The implication was clear, somehow we were being untruthful about Giuliani being under investigation. Sources provided. End of that line of attack.

Still demanding a single source, sources provided, refuses to read them.

Makes unsubstantiated claims and personal attacks.

Way more sources provided showing the thing he wanted, inclduing a direct quote regarding Giuliani holding back the evidence.

Cries again about having to read sources. Demands JUST ONE source that says something. We have no idea what the editor wants the source to say as all the sources support the premise in question.

Anyone else interested in what this guy says at this point?

Gem fr, welcome back after your ten month break. You have no real experience in political articles, and sourcing requirements for articles are different from the Reference Desk, where you mainly edit. You might want to familiarise yourself with the list of perennially discussed sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but you are wrong. I just usually avoid *news* article. Since I am not making any claim here, I don't need source. But thanks again anyway (you are still wrong about your claim) Gem fr (talk) 11:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Your claim is that the reliable sources we have are wrong and do not say what you think they should say, and that some new evidence has changed the situation. Sounds like something you need a source for to support your assertion. Koncorde (talk) 11:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

My claim is just the sources you provide just don't say what you claim they say. I proved it for the first. I proved that a second source I checked, actually changed story. This is proof enough. I won't keep debunking an endless stream of irrelevant stuff you can surely provide. You are the one making the claim, you are the one to rove it, not the other way round. Provide, with proper quotes (throwing 12 links just don't do, and is actually hint you have nothing to support your claim), a proper source actually supporting the sentence if you want to keep it. Gem fr (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Can you prove Biden pressured for the sacking of Poroshenko because Hunter asked him? The answer is No.

Do we provide an entire section and sourcing about the case, and a separate wiki article all about it? Yes.

Have their been independent investigations by both Ukraine and various US entities which confirm no untoward actions and Joe Biden was conducting US Foreign policy at the time? Yes.

Is the conspiracy theory debunked? Yes.

Is the laptop covered in any reliable sources which indicate that it un-debunks the conspiracy theory? No.

Does the NYP even suggest it? No.

End result: no change. Come back with sufficient sources. Koncorde (talk) 12:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

moot point. This is not even in discussion.

What you did in 2019 was may be good then, but is outdated. The single recent source just do not support your claim. All other are from 2019, and at least one changed story. You still have to provide a single quote from a recent source to support your claim.

Irrelevant.

You are pushing the conspiracy theory here

You cannot undebunk what wasn't debunked in the first place. And don't need too.

LOL, yes it does. well that at least what the WSJ think (opinion piece, not proof of anything, of course) https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-laptop-window-on-the-oligarchy-11603235685?mod=opinion_lead_pos8

End result: what is left of your claim? you have no source. Change required. Come back with sufficient sources. Gem fr (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Just one comment, since the above section is very much WP:TLDR: I’d like to respond to User:Gem fr’s comments you believe in a conspiracy theory, according to which “Giuliani and Derkach saved this last bit of their Burisma smear for mid-October", without any piece of evidence and no source. and Giuliani and Derkach saved this last bit of their Burisma smear for mid-October.", which was your claim, and IS a conspiracy theory. The fact that they "saved this for mid-October" actually IS documented; intelligence reports predicted a year and a half ago that they would do exactly that. From Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections: A year and a half earlier, in early 2019, White House officials had been warned that the Russians were planning to leak forged emails in the weeks before the election, and that Giuliani could be the conduit for such a leak.( Source ) This is not a "conspiracy theory"; it is a prediction from the American intelligence community of one way the Russians were planning to interfere in this election. And it came true exactly as they predicted, right down to Giuliani as the conduit. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, thank you, summed it up better than I did. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories

Every article cited here debunking the so-called conspiracy theories don't factor the current revelations that stem from Hunter Biden's own personal device. Making a broad statement that this is all debunked or somehow a product of a conspiracy is completely editorialized and against the precepts of neutrality. Alaman2 (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

As has been stated up and down this talk page, the story about the laptop changes nothing about the fallacious allegations made against the Biden's. Which btw got Trump impeached. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Trump has been cleared by the senate, so your claim is (officially, for what this is worth, but, still, here we are) a debunked conspiracy theory. It is very concerning that such conspiracy theorist claim to be the truth holder and stonewall his debunked point. Why don't you admit you are to biased to edit the article, and trust follow wikipedians to do a proper job? Gem fr (talk) 10:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I do trust in the WP:CONSENSUS of editors here, which is that this laptop is an extension of the already debunked conspiracy theory that the Bidens did anything improper regarding Burisma or the Ukraine. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

You claim that the Burisma allegations are debunked, but it's interesting to compare the tenor of the intro to the Hunter Biden article to the WP article "Steele Dossier" which does not call the absurd Steele Dossier "debunked". In fact, the article states that "many allegations in the dossier remain unverified" as if they're plausible but just need more investigation to confirm them. That's patently absurd. If any document in recent history should be described as "debunked", it's the Steele Dossier, which is presented in WP as a flawed but substantially factual document. For WP to position the Steele Dossier that way, and turn around and describe the Burisma allegations against the Bidens as "debunked" is blatant, unconscionable bias. Once again: we have Joe Biden on video bragging that he forced the government of Ukraine to fire a prosecutor investigating his son's $1 million/year employer/benefactor. I have been a contributor to WP for at least 12 years, probably longer, and it's a tragedy to me to see editors who are so willing to undermine the credibility I and millions of others have worked to build for WP, financially, socially, and editorially. I'm grateful some of the most egregious errors have been removed from the intro (those calling the NY Post article "debunked" and "right wing conspiracy") but this article remains a global embarrassment to WP. Please open your minds and allow it to be made neutral. --Itsgeneb (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Itsgeneb, the Steele dossier has not been debunked. Many of its allegations have been proven to be factual. The Michael Cohen trip to Prague seems to be false, the pee tape part is probably false, and some other parts may be inaccurate as well, but many of its allegations remain unproven. So, this and the Steele dossier are not the same, and the Steele dossier is not relevant to Hunter Biden anyway. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

And we've already discussed, over and over again, how Joe Biden got Viktor Shokin fired with the blessing of the entire Western world, and that replacing him with someone who wasn't corrupt actually put Hunter in more danger, not less. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Clearly, the news organizations who are releasing new information about Hunter Biden, in particular the New York Post, are "slow rolling" the story. To claim that all of the information is debunked when we have no idea how much information has yet to be released creates an appearance of bias on the part of the Wikipedia editors controlling the content of this article. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Michael-Ridgway, no, that would apply if at any point they released anything that wasn't either long-refuted or irrelevant, but that hasn't happened yet. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG You just CANNOT refute that a son in contact with his father talked about his business dealing and asked him to help. All you can do is to fail to prove it happened, and this is enough to be cleared in a trial, but "we failed to prove it" is not the same as "we proved it false" as "long-refuted or irrelevant" implies. Your claim is false. "it was not proved last year" do not preemptively dismiss new material, you need new counter-material to dismiss it Gem fr (talk) 10:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you asking us to prove something doesn't exist while claiming something that does exist isn't proof? Koncorde (talk) 11:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

You already abundantly proved you cannot properly read and have no understanding of logics, it was no need to add to the pile of proof on the matter. But since you deserve a answer anyway: I am asking you step down from the "this was proven false" stance, when it wasn't and just cannot be so. "It wasn't proven true" is enough and correct; of course, this forbid you to support the current words of the article, but, you cannot win everytime, can you?Gem fr (talk) 12:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Gem fr, even if it happened, it would be irrelevant. There was bipartisan support for the US push to oust Viktor Shokin, who was generally regarded as corrupt and was slow-walking numerous investigations including that on Burisma's owners. This was also backed by the EU, IMF and World Bank. Shokin was not fired by Poroshenko but was removed after an overwhelming vote in the Ukraininan Parliament, and it was widely thought that his removal would result in prosecutions moving ahead - getting rid of Shokin increased the risk on Burisma. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

You can be bribed to do a good thing, you know? Or claim you triggered (or averted) an event that would have happened anyway (or could not happen) and get money for that. All these are prosecutable offenses, AFAIK. (again, not telling or implying it any such thing happened. Just stating the logically obvious: claiming it did NOT happen is wrong and useless as far as law is concerned) So your point is moot. Gem fr (talk) 13:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, you first request JzG to prove a negative You just CANNOT refute that a son in contact with his father talked about his business dealing and asked him to help and then go on to ignore the wealth of evidence that exists proving that Bidens involvement in the firing of the Prosecutor had nothing to do with Hunter while declaring unanimous overlord status of objective truth.

You can keep up the personal attacks all you like. They don't bother me, but they do highlight that you have never approached this subject in good faith. Koncorde (talk) 12:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Me: "you cannot prove a negative, your claim is was done is wrong"

Koncorde: "you request us to prove a negative". Well, hard to qualify your reading skills without something you will qualify as "personal attack".... Gem fr (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I read plenty well my own native tongue. Your entire premise rests on the idea that we cannot prove a negative. We aren't going to try to prove a negative when it both can't be done, or when it isn't material. Koncorde (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Gem fr, in theory, maybe, but that's not the claim being made. The claim is that the (bipartisan) US, EU, IMF and World Bank demands for the firing of Shokin, within the context of wider demands to clean up the office of Chief Prosecutor due to long-term corruption, were designed to protect one firm. Which is regarded as nonsense everywhere other than the conservative media bubble. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

This shouldn't say the email scandal is debunked. The FBI literally just got the laptop today. The Biden campaign page says that the FBI is investigating it, and this source is provided: Why don't you people do your homework before reverting my edits and trying to slant the whole page with your opinions? This should be unbiased fact-based site.Captainjackster (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Captainjackster, the FBI is not investigating Hunter Biden. The FBI is investigating if the laptop originated from Russia as part of their ongoing election interference. As has been said elsewhere on this talk page, the laptop is a new angle in the existing story, which has already been debunked, and resulted in the impeachment of the president. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

But why is FBI investigating? US authorities investigating if recently published emails are tied to Russian disinformation effort targeting Biden. Nothing has been reported to indicate Joe/Hunter Biden are being investigated, or any reason they should be, whereas there have been countless investigations into Russian interference. And More than 50 former senior intelligence officials have signed on to a letter outlining their belief that the recent disclosure of emails allegedly belonging to Joe Biden’s son “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” soibangla (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

He is still a part of the investigation, and to call it a debunked right-wing conspiracy theory is biased and childish, since we don't have all the facts. I love that you can throw a little fit and get your way but when I try to insert my opinion it's wrong. The laptop being under investigation means it isn't debunked. Having the part about the conspiracy theories being pushed by Trump and his allies doesn't pertain to Hunter any more than the investigation part, by your logic. Also, Trump was acquitted. If he got impeached, how is he still in office? Captainjackster (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The whole purpose of a conspiracy theory is that you don't have all the facts, but are supposed to believe that something happened anyway. As for impeachment, the same way Bill Clinton got impeached and stayed in office. Gah4 (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The laptop being under investigation means it isn't debunked is exactly how the dirty tricks is are designed to make us believe that. soibangla (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

You understand that what you just stated is an unproven conspiracy theory, right? Then again, politics IS the realm of conspiracies, if any, so your belief is not stupid... but belief it is nonetheless. And belief just do not belongs on WP, expect in rare case AND clearly marked as belief from X. That you believe this AND push it without any source in the core article as incontrovertible truth is a real problem.Gem fr (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Gem fr, no, it's not an "unproven conspiracy theory". Consider the facts:

1. Ukrainians had been wanting to get rid of Shokin since shortly after his appointment, the first vote in the Ukrainian Parliament was in June 2015
2. International pressure on Ukraine to clean up corruption ion the prosecutor's office dates back to at least 2013 and pressure to remove Shokin, specifically, started in 2015, as noted in business papers like the Financial Times.
3. Shokin was not investigating Burisma. The investigation was on hold, like many others, and this was widely perceived as a problem.
4. US pressure to remove Shokin was bipartisan (e.g. including Ron Johnson). It was also backed by the EU, the World Bank and the IMF.
5. Poroshenko did not sack Shokin. Shokin was removed by the Ukrainian Parliament after an overwhelming vote in March 2016.
6. Before that vote investigation into an extortion attempt against a Russian sand and gravel firm found Shokin associates in possession of large amounts of money, jewels and other valuables, and documents and passports belonging to Shokin. There's decent evidence that he used the threat of investigations as an extortion tool.
7. At the time of Shokin's sackings, most sources did not even mention Joe Biden's involvement, it was not considered individually significant in the context of EU, IMF, World Bank and bipartisan US pressure.
8. All this was explored in great detail during the impeachment hearings, with multiple witnesses backing the course of events outlined above.
9. The FBI has warned since at least last year that Russian intelligence are using Rudy Giuliani as a conduit for disinformation.
10. The GRU was reported to have hacked Burisma in January.
11. The GRU has previously run fake email dumps to try to discredit political candiudates during elections, e.g. the "Fancy Bear" operation against Emanuel Macron in 2017.
12. Rudy Giuliani and Steve Bannon were trailing this story far enough in advance that the timing of release is without question a political calculation.
13. Fox News passed on it because it stinks.
14. The New York Post reporter who wrote it, refused to put his name on it, because it stinks.
15. The story of the laptop stinks. Hunter Biden lives in California. The one-man computer shop at which the purported laptop was left is not on any obvious route from the airport to Joe Biden's residence in Wilmington. Apple Stores are a thing. IT advisers are a thing, especially for people under well-known high profile scrutiny. Encryption is a thing. Why did the store not take contact details? Why did the store not follow SOP for an uncollected device and wipe and sell it? Why was the surveillance video wiped? Why was the store owner unable to keep his story straight? Why would any concerned citizen go to Giuliani first and not direct to the FBI or Police? None of it stacks up
16. In any case, see all the numbered points above. Even if the laptop were genuine, which every reputable source currently concurs it is not, the claim that Joe Biden had Shokin fired to protect Hunter is still false however you look at it.

No doubt this is why, feverish commentary in the conservative media bubble aside, nobody takes any part of it at face value. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Where do you think you are? A talk page is not a forum nor a court where we assess what is true or not. You can pile up 10, 20 or 1000 bullet point, it won't change this simple LOGICAL FACT: You. cannot. prove. Biden. didn't. do. it. Full stop. Gem fr (talk) 12:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

1. Prove Biden didn't do what?
2. You are again asking us to prove a negative. Koncorde (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh please, go back to school and learn to read, this is enough. I was just stating you cannot prove a negative, while you claim is was done. Gem fr (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you write in English as well as you think you do. You keep asking us to prove a negative. We keep saying that we are not trying to, nor would we want to, try and prove a negative - here instead is a wealth of evidence showing that the root accusation, and what would be a blatant conflict of interests, has never been corroborated, and in fact subsequent investigations have cleared Biden.

Even if Joe Biden did in fact talk to his son (which you cannot prove, or supply a source to verify such an assertion) all other evidence points at the facts of the case being very different. Koncorde (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

"We keep saying that we are not trying to, nor would we want to, try and prove a negative"(ie, that Biden is innocent)+"subsequent investigations have cleared Biden" (ie, the negative has been proven) is a contradiction, so choose up and make up your mind. But I don't care. You are arguing a lot, but what you (or any of us) think is just irrelevant. Sources are all. You cannot quote any so far that support your claim, and you even present source that do not do that as if they did (without quote, of course). Gem fr (talk) 14:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

(you are right on the "nobody take it at face value" though; well, "nobody" may be not true, of course, but you are right anyway; I'll require more cooking to eat it, for myself)Gem fr (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, looks like cooking is underway. Opinion piece, so, not enough, but still...https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-laptop-window-on-the-oligarchy-11603235685?mod=opinion_lead_pos8 Gem fr (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Gem fr, opinion piece by Holman W. Jenkins Jr., who also writes for National Review. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

well, changing "how the dirty trick is" into "dirty tricks are" after my comment

• is not the way a good faith discussion can happen
• actually turns your sentence into something just plainly wrong: there are many dirty tricks, not all rely on having people believe unproven things
• change your previous plain statement into a... dirty trick of the kind just mentionned !
• do not change what you obviously think nor providing more support to it

Please don't do that again. Instead just admit you believe in a conspiracy theory (that may be true or not, but is not supported by any evidence right now) and that you are biased, and as such, step down and leave the matter to less committed people, who don't support Biden nor Trump. Please. Gem fr (talk) 03:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Don't feed the troll. Glucken123 (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC) Meh, you have to assume at some level they are rational. But I am currently having, what I assume is, a French person butcher the English language, making the most bizarre of contradictory arguments, then saying I can't read. At this point I am out of patience talking to them. Koncorde (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC) I left you a chance, you are proud enough of your alien-biting, racist, personal attack, to revert it back. Fine. Point taken. Gem fr (talk) 14:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC) I literally have no idea what "alien-biting" means, or what you think it means, and neither does google. Congratulations on demonstrating my point. You have a serious WP:COMPETENCE issue. Koncorde (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Speaking as a disinterested third party....."debunked right-wing conspiracy theories" (in the intro) isn't particularly neutral or encyclopedic. At the risk of straying into WP:OTHER, we handle a number of articles on conspiracy theories here without this sort of charged language summarizing it. (When politics comes into it though....) I think a better way to say it is something like: He and his father have been the subjects of a number of conspiracy theories regarding their business dealings The "conspiracy theories" could link to the section within the article where the allegations are hashed out (and debunked).Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Concur the word "debunked" gives the reader the false assumption that this information is in fact "not True" - No one here including myself can not make claim. Both sides of the story must be presented in a fair and neutral way. This is an Encyclopedia not a opinion section. (Addition sourcing showing otherwise ) - FOX 52 (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

No, trying to "both sides" an October surprise would be a terrible POV violation. See WP:FALSEBALANCE. This is a WP:BLP. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I guess what I am missing is: how is calling it a CT in the intro and [later on in the article] briefly presenting the allegation then following that with overwhelming evidence of how false it is (if that is indeed the case, and apparently it is) FALSEBALANCE? Seems to me like the sheer volume and the fact it is branded a CT would be more than enough to avoid FALSEBALANCE.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Rja13ww33, please see Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory and the discussion at its talk page.Guy (help! - typo?) 22:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I see it (and the vote about "false" allegations). I can certainly see the arguments on both sides. But (again at the risk of getting into OTHER), you don't see this in other articles about other prominent CTs. (I.e. "debunked", "false", etc.) Only when you get into politics (especially right-wing CTs) do you see the dice start to get loaded. I think it's a byproduct of too many editors with agendas, but of also a lacking of standards across articles. (The latter being a Pet Peeve of mine.) I am not aiming any of this at you by the way, just gripes in general. Regards.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Rja13ww33, yes you do, especially when they are the subject of persistent and highly prominent rebunking, which is the case here. Oh, and it's not a vote. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I think there is (frankly) more to it than that. You cannot say that this particular CT had had more press than (say) the 9/11 CTs. And none of those articles (the last time I looked) start out with something like "this is all a bunch of left/right wing debunked, false, etc". I mean, lets be honest here.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The difference is there is no single unifying conspiracy theory of 9/11 to write about, the number of people involved (or that might be involved) is staggering if they were true, the complexity almost impossible to fathom of the different layers of knowing / unknowing/ fakery / fraud / cover-up - much of which is mutually exclusive. We can definitely discount the "hologram planes" one I assume? However from wikipedias point of view; of particular concern would be if someone was to go to George Bush's article and try to push the idea that "he was at the centre of conspiracy theories to do with 9/11" that would be a major BLP issue.

If you compare with Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories in contrast however, the CT's are narrow enough and generic enough to deal with by summarising them - and also saying No evidence supports the conspiracy theories, which make a number of implausible claims.[6][7][8] Moreover, many Sandy Hook conspiracy theories contradict one another.[7]. We could equally say that here... except we actually already know the chain of events relating to the Prosecutors firing and we know Hunter was appointed after the period being "investigated" (recent NYP confirm this by supplying the email showing someone telling Hunter about the attempts to extort the company and gin up false accusations / legal actions / prosecutions) meaning there was no personal gain. That he got the job is irrelevant, trading on your fathers name is kinda par for the course, and that he was paid a sizeable salary is also irrelevant. Koncorde (talk) 01:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Well I don't know about how "unifying" the controlled demo theory is....but it's been out there forever and has it's own article here: [39]. And it doesn't have the type of language we see here. It's the same with a lot of popular CTs.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, usually because there is no direct BLP. This paragraph The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the magazine Popular Mechanics examined and rejected these theories. Specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering accept the model of a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.[3][4][5] NIST "found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001."[6] Professors Zdeněk Bažant of Northwestern University,[7] Thomas Eagar, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology[4] and James Quintiere of the University of Maryland,[8] have also dismissed the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. and authoritative sources would very much enable us to use the language if we wanted though.

A better example would be if (like Bush's page) someone tried to go to Larry Silverstein's page and insert "he's the subject of uncorroborated conspiracy theories about him knowing about 9/11". As well as being WP:UNDUE, it would also introduce what is clearly a BLP violation by failing to take into consideration all available sources and evidence says the complete opposite. We would have to say that they were false at the bare minimum. Koncorde (talk) 01:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

"Uncorroborated" obviously being the better language to use (IMHO). After all, the whole point of calling it a CT (in the first place) is because it cannot (as of yet) be proved. There is nothing (I am aware of) in the BLP rules that say we have to use the language we see on political CTs here. I'd also question putting these CTs in the LEAD (and also giving them so much ink in the article) because it gives them weight they don't deserve in many circumstances. That's something I'm surprised the pro-Hunter people aren't saying.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The problem is "Uncorroborated" suggests that there maaaaaaaaay be evidence or information that would corroborate it. In contrast here we have the actual official chain of events which has been corroborated by the US, UK, Germany, EU, and Ukraine themselves and a separate bipartisan investigation by US Congress which found nothing either.

As for should it be mentioned, it is very relevant to Hunter Biden because he is pretty much a nobody that might not warrant a wikipedia article otherwise really (being known largely for being busted out of the Navy, and dating his brothers widow before 2019, neither of which confers notability). The prominence of the section on Burisma, and the detail / involvement in last years impeachment effectively means we have to treat it as a significant event - and as it's incredibly relevant this means it does go front and centre on his bio pretty much.

In 30 years, maybe the whole thing gets condensed down to a few sentences as he has long productive career (or not), but the lede will probably still reference the CT. Koncorde (talk) 02:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Well I certainly don't want to lend credibility to conspiracy theories (I've spent a lot of my time here actually criticizing them as neutrally as possible).....I just think out-and-out calling something "debunked" (especially when it's relatively new) is not a good idea. I think a much more responsible way would be to do it like one of the articles referenced here (in this conversation) does: explain it...then say something like "it is rejected by [insert RS here]".Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not rejected though... it's just demonstrably wrong. Many more sources and details at the main Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory page for context. Koncorde (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Take it from someone who has wasted a lot of time debating conspiracy theorists: the theory is never wrong, the details just need to change. :) (It's like hitting a moving target.) By their very nature, CTs move all over the place.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Source: The Independent: Democrat Senators ask FBI not to investigate Joe Biden corruption claims Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

And why? Because Trump has been publicly pressuring FBI/DOJ to implicate/indict his politcal enemies before the election. "We’ve got to get the attorney general to act,” Trump said in an interview on “Fox & Friends.” “He’s got to act, and he’s got to act fast." soibangla (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Tony Bobulinski, the CEO of the company Hunter Biden was working with just addressed the media about Biden's deal in China, (I'm waiting for other sources to publish), and he said Biden was not telling the truth. This is huge. Remember how we rushed to publish the Steele dossier with all it's speculation, claims of conspiracy, Russian disinformation or whatever else they called it? This is much stronger evidence than BuzzFeed published because here we have an American eye witness, no spies, no foreign operatives - it's the CEO of the company making a public statement, and a reputable guy. He came forward with documents and 3 cell phones. Best thing to do is wait and see if our trusted news sources will cover it now that we know it wasn't Russian disinformation, and had nothing to do with it. Of course, the Bidens and Senator Coons have adamently denied Biden's participation as "the big guy". I wouldn't expect anything less. Atsme 💬 📧 23:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

This and the Steele dossier are apples and oranges. All we know now based on this is that Trump pulled a pre-debate stunt. It's showmanship, just like when he brought Bill's "other women" four years ago. But what does Bobulinski have? The "big guy" email is from May 2017. So, what's the allegation here? Obviously you can't say he tried to use the vice presidency to benefit Hunter if this meeting happened when Pence was VP. Is it illegal for a former VPOTUS to have a meeting? One that may not have led to an idea becoming a deal? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

It's just the wrong man making the wrong money at the wrong time in the wrong country of course. Just like the "rich mans son gets well paying job" accusation, "businessmen do business" isn't a conspiracy theory or controversial other than in the eyes of those who want to suggest it is. Koncorde (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

What I find so deeply troubling about the whole tawdry affair is the fact that the Bidens were working with the communist Chinese goverrnment. No, wait...Trump spent a decade unsuccessfully pursuing projects in China, operating an office there during his first run for president and forging a partnership with a major government-controlled company, The New York Times reported Tuesday soibangla (talk) 00:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Bobulinski, in an appearance before reporters traveling with Trump about two hours before the debate, declined to take questions and, while saying he had documents to corroborate his claims, did not provide them. [...] Bobulinski told reporters that Hunter Biden recruited him to help run an investment firm to be called “Sinohawk Holdings,” backed by a Chinese energy company, and that he personally discussed the plans with the former vice president during an hour-long meeting in 2017, after Biden left public office. But the venture was never funded. [40] That seems ... less than earth-shaking. XOR'easter (talk) 00:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The venture—set up in 2017 after Mr. Biden left the vice presidency and before his presidential campaign—never received proposed funds from the Chinese company or completed any deals, according to people familiar with the matter. Corporate records reviewed by The Wall Street Journal show no role for Joe Biden. Oops. [41] XOR'easter (talk) 03:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

"Fox News (the Post’s corporate sibling) tried to confirm some of the Post’s reporting by interviewing Tony Bobulinski, a man claiming to be Hunter Biden’s ex-business partner who said the former vice president stood to profit from his son’s foreign deals—but Bobulinski did not point to any hard evidence and Fox News cited no other sources to corroborate his claims." https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2020/10/22/the-hunter-biden-scoops-heres-why-the-media-largely-hasnt-picked-up-the-ny-post-stories-hint-its-not-bias/#1cfd81929c41

And this is another example of why Fox is not considered reliable for any news involving politics at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources... I went looking for something else, but no reputable Reliable Source seems to want to cover this (which is a strong indication it's more bullpoop). The Wall Street Journal's news group wouldn't even touch it, so they slipped it out on their "editorial" section and even there, the story subtitle is "corporate records reviewed by The Wall Street Journal show no role for Joe Biden" as Xor'easter just pointed out. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Atsme said This is huge. It was so huge that 24 hours later Fox News mumbled something about lingering doubt just before the story dropped off its front page. soibangla (talk) 01:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories? No. Important events? Definitely. What we have are ongoing legal investigations by the FBI & DOJ relative to alleged money laundering and unethical/illegal foreign business dealings that are based on evidence that is credible enough to warrant these investigations. We can use primary sources per WP:PRIMARY. Example: material in The Baltimore Sun article that can be corroborated with the HSGAC Report. We can attribute corroborated facts from secondary sources, and state actual facts attributed to primary sources, but we cannot provide our own analysis of those facts because that would be OR. Fact: the HSGAC states "Hunter Biden and Devon Archer were paid millions of dollars from a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch for their participation on the board." Fact: the HSGAC states: The direct involvement of Hunter Biden and Heinz in the acquisition of Henniges by the Chinese government creates a potential conflict of interest. Both are directly related to high-ranking Obama administration officials. Re: the Russian disinformation allegations - USA Today stated: The director said the computer is in the possession of the FBI, adding that the bureau's inquiry does not "center" on a possible Russian disinformation effort. Of course most media will spin their articles to align with their POV - it's opinion journalism interspersed with factual reporting. We separate the wheat from the chaff. See the Nieman Report an analysis/opinion article published by Harvard that BuzzFeed was wrong to publish the Trump-dossier, and why that type of journalism went against journalistic ethics. We don't want to repeat that mistake, especially in light of the mess we now have to clean up to eliminate the spin and speculation (WEIGHT & DUE) in our articles. Unlike the latter, Biden's case involves confirmed, verifiable dealings with real companies, and now there is witness testimony that is currently under investigation. If we stick to the facts only and eliminate media speculation, we'll have less clean-up work to do later. There are legitimate moral and ethical questions that have been raised about these business dealings along with questions about the legality of those activities. We don't know the results of the investigations, yet - nobody does - so it's mostly speculation at this point. That's why intext-attribution is important. Facts are what matter to our readers - we simply present them in a dispassionate tone, and let them draw their own conclusions. Atsme 💬 📧 13:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

alleged money laundering and unethical/illegal foreign business dealings, says Atsme. Indeed, Fox News reported:

The FBI’s subpoena of a laptop and hard drive purportedly belonging to Hunter Biden came in connection with a money-laundering investigation in late 2019. [42]

The subpoena for the devices was issued by a grand jury, rather than a judge. Was a grand jury empaneled to investigate the Bidens? Or others, perhaps? We don’t know, but there’s this from late 2019:

Federal prosecutors are ramping things up in an investigation related to President Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, The Wall Street Journal reports. Among the charges reportedly under consideration in the subpoenas are obstruction of justice, money laundering, conspiracy to defraud the United States, making false statements to the federal government, serving as an agent of a foreign government without registering with the Justice Department, donating funds from foreign nationals, making contributions in the name of another person or allowing someone else to use one's name to make a contribution, along with mail fraud and wire fraud. [43][44]

soibangla (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Inside the campaign to 'pizzagate' Hunter Biden

Inside the campaign to 'pizzagate' Hunter Biden. Pizzagate-style rumors in 2016 were largely confined to far-right message boards. This year, they are reaching the mainstream with help from a website boosted by Trump. -- Valjean (talk) 01:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

DNI, DOJ, FBI in apparent agreement

This article [45] says "Fox News has learned that the FBI and Justice Department officials concur with an assessment from Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe that the laptop is not part of a Russian disinformation campaign targeting Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden". So apparently not only the DNI is saying this but FBI and DOJ as well. Can this information be added into to the article? If true this is pretty important, it would seem to put to rest claims of a Russian interference campaign similar to what took place in 2016. Yodabyte (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:RS/P, Fox News is not considered a reliable source for politics. According to more reputable sources the FBI is refusing to comment, per its longstanding practice of not getting involved immediately prior to an election; based on this and given Fox News' institutional purpose of advancing right-wing politics, coupled with its established history of publishing untrue or distorted material as part of that goal, it's reasonable to assume that the unnamed "officials" they refer to are simply people who agree with them ideologically and not people with any actual knowledge of the investigation. In any case we cannot cover WP:BLP-sensitive political news from Fox unless a more reputable source picks it up. --Aquillion (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The last Rfc closed by a panel of 3 uninvolved editors stated in summary (my bolding) "for science and political referencing there is no consensus regarding the reliability of Fox News, and it should be used with caution to verify contentious claims. For other subjects Fox News is generally considered reliable". Tha Rfc did not say is was not considered reliable. Id take it any day of the week over your link to a "newspaper" that had to settle a lawsuit for defamation of an underage kid from Kentucky. With all that though, I would prefer to see multiple sources to support this per BLP.--MONGO (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, the Washington Post is considered fully reliable at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and the "lawsuit settlement" you refer to was settled for nuisance value (as in https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/351/ https://lawandcrime.com/media/some-lawyers-think-covington-catholics-nick-sandmann-walked-away-from-media-lawsuits-with-peanuts/) so... maybe your judgement needs a recheck? IHateAccounts (talk) 03:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh great, opinions as to what an unknown settlement was. Really enjoyed the way the anonymous twitter lawyer is cited as one of the "some lawyers". WaPo surely settled now because as these lawsuits work there way through the courts, they didn't want to be the last entity holding the bag.--MONGO (talk) 07:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, IHateAccounts, but no to WaPo being "fully reliable" in this case. Context matters and so does the fact that WaPo's editorial board endorsed Joe Biden for president. The same for The NYTimes, which probably explains why we're not hearing anything about from the left media's echo chamber about the investigation. Aquillion, this isn't about politics, it's about money laundering, and whatever other nonpolitical activity has raised question. What his son has been doing probably doesn't look good for "the big man" but that's political and not what the news is focused on. This is Hunter Biden's article anyway. Atsme 💬 📧 22:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, no, WaPo is fully reliable. Their editorial board is separate from their investigative reporting. NY Times too. You may have noticed this as the WSJ editorial board is spinning tall tales of Biden corruption while the WSJ investigative reporters read the emails and saw no business deals involving Joe Biden. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, see NPOV#Bias in sources which weighs heavily, but also see WP:PARTISAN: When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. If WaPo is not a biased source, then neither is Fox Newsl, c'mon. WaPo's editorial board endorsed Biden - their editorial control is not going to be neutral relative to anything about Biden or his family, and the same for context. We can attribute, but just find a better source. Atsme 💬 📧 01:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Washington Post isn't "biased" just because you don't like the results of responsible outlets that follow standard, ethical journalistic practices and separate their opinion department from their journalistic department properly. Attempting to compare them to Fox is an exercise in false equivalence. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

it's about money laundering Note that Fox News, which first reported that allegation, juxtaposes "Hunter Biden" with "money laundering" in the title of the article, but in the body concedes: "It is unclear, at this point, whether the investigation is ongoing or if it was directly related to Hunter Biden."[46] And there's this, which could mean the devices were seized pursuant to a completely different investigation. soibangla (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

which probably explains why we're not hearing anything about from the left media's echo chamber about the investigation The far more likely explanation is that good journalists have learned from their previous mistakes to not reflexively take the bait whenever folks like Bannon "flood the zone with shit" and thereby give oxygen to the shit and spread the shit. Even Fox News knew it was shit and passed on it until NYP let the cat outta the bag, giving Fox News permission to pounce on it. soibangla (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Yodabyte, the FBI has not said anything (they are not going to "do a Comey" on this one). The DNI and DoJ are both part of the political apparatus, and multiple sources are discounting their statements as a result. regardless, so what? If it's not Russian disinformation, it's still very obviously disinformation. The provenance and timing make that absolutely clear. The Trump campaign appear to be very pissed off that nobody is taking any part of this at face value, but it';s not really our job to fix that for them. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Just adding my twopenneth to echo MONGO's point that Fox News is 'no consensus' on political and science articles. I have seen a number of editors state that it's not RS for these matters, which is not quite correct. I don't know what the policy is on 'no consensus', I would imagine err on the side of caution. Perhaps an experienced editor or admin can fill us in on exactly what the procedure is with 'no consensus' sources, so that the position is clear if an editor wants to quote it. Simply saying 'not reliable' doesn't seem correct. RandomGnome (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

RandomGnome, for "no consensus", if use is challenged you need consensus that it's reliable specifically in context on the article talk page. In this case it's pretty clear that Fox is pushing a heavy barrow uphill, and there are more reliable sources discussing the same matter so all we're missing is Fox's particular spin on the facts - which is no loss IMO. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, also saw that Aquillion answered the question further up the page When its reporting is contradicted by higher-quality sources we cannot use it, nor can we cite it as a source for WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims with political ramifications. RandomGnome (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully, those who state as fact that the information being reported by the very unreliable New York Post is "disnformation" because of its timing were just as emphatic that the Access Hollywood tapes were absolutely disinformation because of their timing. In my mind, Steve Bannon has timed the release of the information to match that of NBC in 2016 on the ground that what's good for the goose is obviously good for the gander. But that's just my speculation. I certainly would never state such a claim as being "absolutely clear."

Not simply because of its timing, but also because of its content. Was the authenticity of the Access Hollywood tape challenged? Bannon: "The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit." soibangla (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Sadly, "flood the zone with shit" works on those like @Michael-Ridgway: who seem to lack media literacy skills. Especially since the Access Hollywood tapes were a result of real investigative journalism, the reporting of which was part of the reason (along with his investigation of Trump's various charity fraud rackets) David Fahrenthold was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Are there no rules to which I can appeal to object to the ad hominem slam above. It would be one thing if I were an anonymous poster but I use my real name.

Hunter Biden's alleged dealings in China (and Ukraine)

A comprehensive quality article from a disinterested reliable source.

[Hunter Biden: What was he doing in Ukraine and China?]

I'll leave it to the rest of you to come to consensus as to whether it contains information that should be in this article at this time. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 05:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

It's a rehash article that doesn't actually add any more information, and doesn't corroborate any of the NY Post's claims. "The BBC Reports the NY Post Tabloid Said" would be ridiculous to try to shoehorn into an article. IHateAccounts (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

You're assuming bad faith. I didn't post it with an agenda. I posted it because it does in fact provide information not found in this article, not because I'm claiming that it corroborates shadowbanned reporting from the very unreliable New York Post. Michael-Ridgway (talk)

@Michael-Ridgway: Thank you for that link. It will at least help those of us trying to wrap our heads around this all. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The lede to this story makes no mention of China, only Ukraine. For people who only read ledes and move on (like Alexa), and given the fact that Hunter Biden flew on Air Force 2 with Joe Biden as part of his business networking adventures, isn't the omission of any mention of China at least nominally suspect? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Michael-Ridgway, what do you propose that we add? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for asking, Muboshgu. I admit that it's hard for me to compose a single sentence that summarizes what is stated in the two sections dealing with China. It's especially awkward trying to do that when the sentence about the Ukraine says that everything ever alleged about Ukraine is debunked right-wing propaganda. The two China-related sections are, of course, BHR Partners and CEFC China Energy. If anyone wants to take a stab at it, that would be great. At a minimum, it seems to me that to make the lede more balanced, some mention of Hunter flying to China on Air Force 2 with the former Vice President should be made. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I mean, with everything that is being reported by media sources reliable and unreliable, this characterization of the criticisms from the right is now very dated.

"[Hunter Biden] and his father have been the subjects of debunked right-wing conspiracy theories pushed by Donald Trump and his allies concerning Biden business dealings and anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine."

This is so January 2020. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you tell us what the conspiracy theories are today? Koncorde (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Not as well as the New York Post can. If you don't tell anyone, I won't tell anyone if you go and read the latest summary article. They're feeling pretty vindicated at this point. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The New York Post is a tabloid. The Onion has a better record for factual accuracy. And... by "the latest summary article" I'm assuming you mean the nonsensical, ridiculous opinion column by a Breitbart hack and his secretary? IHateAccounts (talk) 04:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Millions of people in the United States believe that the email messages are real. The email messages, if true, are very damning. The picture of Hunter with a meth pipe, if not a photoshopped creation, is damning. The picture of Joe Biden with Devon Archer is damning. The picture of Joe and Hunter Biden with two oligarchs in the very corrupt country of Kazakhstan is damning. That picture has been on a Kazakhstani anti-corruption website, apparently since 2018 but has only recently come to the attention of the US news media. But those millions will get no satisfaction from Wikipedia when it comes to reporting on the Bidens. Rather, they will conclude that Wikipedia, whatever that is, is just as in the tank to cover up for the Biden's as Twitter and Facebook and the entire cabal of sources deemed "reliable" by the Ministry of Truth. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 11:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The perpetual rejoinder that the New York Post is a tabloid hardly establishes that what the New York Post is reporting is untrue. It certainly doesn't establish that the emails and photos that the Post is publishing are fictitious creations. You have to be pretty biased to be able to claim out of hand after taking no time personally to investigate their claims that it is not only false but debunked. Anyone who makes such a claim has zero credibility when they simultaneously claim to be an "objective" Wikipedia editor, a claim I would never make. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 11:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Debunk

People were coming at me earlier and saying it's stupid to call the "right-wing conspiracy theories" "debunked", but are we still so sure after Tony Bobulinski's reading of several of the damning emails, which was covered by several major news sources, including Newsweek, The New York Post, and FOX News? Captainjackster (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Captainjackster, so why don't you link to them so we can see what exactly is so "damning"? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiiSq7toqlQ Captainjackster (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Tony Bobulinski says he has been asked to appear at two Senate Committees and will be giving them documents. Why don't we wait until he is on the record or his documentation has been reviewed before giving credence to his claims? Right now, it's just his word. I don't think that Newsweek has examined his emails. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Once again, I'm not asking that we add information that Hunter is guilty of wrongdoing. My only point is that it's not very encyclopedic and it's definitely biased to say that any allegations have been debunked, as there's currently no more proof for them being invalid than there is for them being valid. Captainjackster (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

That's literally not how this works. "Well nobody's proven he isn't a murderer" types of accusations are meaningless and definitely violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. There has to be proof of the accusations being valid and on the balance of evidence, they're either completely debunked or ridiculously implausible. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I am assuming this a new conspiracy theory then? Can anyone outline what this conspiracy theory is meant to entail? Koncorde (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

So you linked to a YouTube video, which I'm not going to watch. (I was requesting written word articles, though I acknowledge I didn't specifically state that.) The title of the Fox News video you linked to is about Bobulinski's "claims" about the Bidens, which remains unverified. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Captainjackster: Even Fox now doesn't buy it. "Ex-Hunter Biden associate's records don't show proof of Biden business relationship", "Fox News has reviewed emails from Bobulinski related to the venture — and they don't show that the elder Biden had business dealings with SinoHawk Holdings, or took any payments from them or the Chinese. " https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-biden-tony-bobulinski-joe-biden-unanswered-questions — Preceding unsigned comment added by IHateAccounts (talk • contribs)

I agree that the wording is no longer accurate, given that the so-called conspiracy theories have been thoroughly un-debunked in recent weeks. I think we should remove the words "conspiracy theories" and write them in a more neutral and accurate manner. Skb7 (talk) 11:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

You're at the wrong article.....

...if you're discussing:

• Hunter's purported laptop & emails
• Alleged corruption by Hunter and/or Joe Biden
• The New York Post
• Fox News
• Burisma/China
• Bobulinski
• Giuliani
• Bannon

...those subjects as related to each other, STOP doing it here. Do it at Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory.

Stop discussing the same subjects in different places.

Some threads above should be hatted immediately. -- Valjean (talk) 02:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Valjean Well I was discussing this here because I was told to, since I wanted to change some biased language regarding the allegations about Burisma and possible corruption in the opening lines of this article, and people freaked out and reverted them, so I was told to settle it on the talk page. Captainjackster (talk) 12:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Valjean, but no. It belongs in this article...unless there was an RfC I overlooked and consensus states otherwise? On what basis are you making such a bold statement, and establishing the rules here, which takes on the appearance of WP:OWN? Atsme 💬 📧 13:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The Burisma content should be reduced to about a paragraph because so much of it is redundant to Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. Right now it's a quantity-of-text example of WP:UNDUE weight here. Simply state that numerous right-wing individuals have made allegations, that none of the allegations have ever been proven and numerous investigations have ruled Biden did nothing wrong, and leave the rest of the explanation for the correct article covering the baseless conspiracy theories in detail. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

IHateAccounts I have a better idea. Let's just delete this article completely and replace it with a redirect that takes readers directly to the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory page. Why create the false illusion that this page creates that Wikpedia takes a single allegation against Hunter Biden seriously. You know, kind of like we do with Donald Trump's debate guest, Tony Bobulinski. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 12:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Michael-Ridgway: "There is a presumption that people who contribute to the English-language Wikipedia have the following competencies:...the ability to read sources and assess their reliability.", as stated at Wikipedia:Competence is required. I think the problem here is that you are having trouble with that skill, and your hyperbolic suggestion to "delete the whole article" is nonsensical. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

What investigations ruled that Biden nothing wrong? Add diffs, please. At this point in time, we don't know what is or isn't a baseless conspiracy theory - again, if you diffs to support what you're saying, please add them. Atsme 💬 📧 20:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Atsme:, you wouldn't be asking such questions if you were at the right article. They are much further along there. At this article, fifth graders are asking questions that have already been answered by college graduates there. That's why discussing this here is worse than just wasting time. -- Valjean (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Valjean - I will take your advice. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 02:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, reporters have looked through the emails and say there's nothing there. "Corporate records reviewed by The Wall Street Journal show no role for Joe Biden." When there's nothing but hearsay to support something, it is "baseless". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, what investigations ruled that he did? Guy (help! - typo?) 22:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, WSJ is behind a paywall so I can't read the whole article, and a small excerpt doesn't give me the depth or context I need. I can access WaPo and The NYTimes. NBC News reported: "The FBI seized the laptop and a hard drive through a grand jury subpoena." This is a matter of national security, so people in the US are very concerned. We're also dealing with a different FBI, so there's no leaking like there was with Comey. I haven't seen anything that confirms the investigation has concluded, so it makes sense that they're still busy investigating and authenticating those emails. To simply dismiss them as if this is not a big deal is a flat earth argument. Hunter's dealings with a communist country whose relationship with the US is historically fraught is a very big deal; China is not an ally. The fact that the biased media denies any wrong doing with as much conviction as they speculated about Trump-Russia collusion is another high flying red flag (no pun intended). Joe lied to the American people when he denied speaking to Hunter about his business dealings, and now there's a witness (the CEO) who publicly stated that Joe lied. Our readers need to know what's going on from an encyclopedic advantage and a neutral POV because I doubt they'll be getting any information anytime soon from the left-leaning NYTimes or WaPo - both of whom have endorsed Biden for president. Here is the the BBC article that provides somewhat of a breakdown. Atsme 💬 📧 01:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Atsme says Hunter's dealings with a communist country whose relationship with the US is historically fraught is a very big deal Hunter Biden didn't do business with the Chinese government, he did business with private investors who sure act a lot like capitalists. It was a garden-variety investment fund. Meanwhile...

President Trump and his allies have tried to paint the Democratic nominee, Joseph R. Biden Jr., as soft on China, in part by pointing to his son’s business dealings there...But Mr. Trump’s own business history is filled with overseas financial deals, and some have involved the Chinese state. He spent a decade unsuccessfully pursuing projects in China, operating an office there during his first run for president and forging a partnership with a major government-controlled company. [47]

soibangla (talk) 02:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

"The FBI seized the laptop and a hard drive through a grand jury subpoena." This is a matter of national security. asserts Atsme, with no basis whatsoever. What about the SDNY investigation of Rudy/associates? Do you think that if they're investigating Rudy/associates for a litany of felonies apparently relating to their overseas endeavors, which Rudy has openly talked about on TV, and American intelligence intercepted him talking to Russian assets, and the IC warned the White House that Russia had targeted Rudy in an influence operation, that they might want to examine a laptop that they know he had been involved with, that is purportedly linked to Ukraine matters? Do you think it might be possible that since it was reported in November 2019 that Rudy/associates were under investigation for multiple felonies that SDNY might have convened a grand jury to investigate and consider indictments, and that's the real reason for the subpoena? I am not asserting that this is for sure, but there is more public evidence to support it than there is to believe there is a national security investigation of Hunter Biden. soibangla (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Stop quoting and stop pinging me - it's not only annoying, it's low-level harrassment and troll-like behavior. You've done it 4 times now. I wouldn't mind if you were providing substantive arguments but you're not. Atsme 💬 📧 02:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Wow. Just...wow. soibangla (talk) 03:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Soibangla: I second that wow. This Atsme character is coming across as deliberately trying to rile others up, especially trying to get reactions and then complaining that they were replied to or that their own words were quoted? Their recent reply to me and their practice of announcing that they have "muted" people just seems to be troll behavior. IHateAccounts (talk) 06:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I ask MastCell and others to consider whether Atsme’s baseless assertion that Hunter Biden had “dealings with a communist country“ and suggestion he could pose a national security threat constitutes a malicious smear and BLP violation. soibangla (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, I'm just advocating standard practice, so AGF and drop the OWN aspersion. You know better. This doesn't mean no changes can be made here, but the primary focus of discussions on this particular, interrelated, cluster of topics is not at this article. Discussing the same topic in multiple venues is strongly discouraged. -- Valjean (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

It's fine to make suggestions, Valjean, but to demand that editors "STOP doing it here" is OWN behavior. I kinda halfway agree with you about discussing the same subjects in different places but if editors are not adding the same material to different articles, I don't see what harm it does. It is better to discuss it to avoid that from happening. Atsme 💬 📧 20:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Atsme: It's also not fine for editors to try to turn a section of this article into a mirror of another article so that they have a better chance of inserting material with a goal of violating the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view or Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policies. The problem with the sheer WP:UNDUE amount of material here is that it's getting into violating those policies, and the policy on Wikipedia:Content forking. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Well then don't do it, IHateAccounts. Perhaps you should consider fixing the Donald Trump BLP, and show those editors how experienced you are in the area of not mirroring another article, or better yet, you could just start deleting all the duplicate material starting with the section, Presidency (2017–present). When you get done with that article, I can provide wikilinks to many more for you to clean-up. And please don't bother pinging me again because I muted you. Your comment to Michael-Ridgway was an unkind thing for you to say, and I'd much rather avoid that kind of behavior. Atsme 💬 📧 02:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Atsme: Well, thanks for confirming with your reply that your only purpose here is trolling. IHateAccounts (talk) 06:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, no, it really doesn't, because every reliable source says it's so fishy that even Billingsgate Market would reject it. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Guy, journalists are not the FBI or DOJ who are conducting the investigation - there are no leaks like there were with the former FBI leadership, so the media is kinda lost right now. As for your "every RS says it's so fishy" claim, I am not convinced because they were unable to recognize the stench of "fishy" for nearly 4 years, despite the smell of a Russian collusion hoax emanating through their keyboards. The crux of my participation on this TP is in this diff so there's no sense in repeating myself. Have fun, and enjoy the weekend!! Atsme 💬 📧 23:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Once again, there is a huge difference between what the press reports and what a federal prosecutor needs to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a federal court that has a very high bar of evidence, especially conspiracy charges which are particularly difficult to prove. The press coverage was overwhelmingly correct and the narrative that the fact Mueller did not find prosecutable conspiracy means that the press got the whole thing wrong is utter nonsense. Mueller report#Press coverage of the investigation soibangla (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

...and even the last item there was confirmed by the press, so it should be removed. -- Valjean (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

My eyes hurt trying to read Atsme's wall-of-text... hey that reminds me of someone else recently. After breaking it down, there's nothing substantive that Atsme said. Lots of insinuations, and lots of cherry-picking trying to create the narrative that Atsme wants (read: the right-wing narrative peddled through the NY Post). Especially when Atsme claims that a "Baltimore Sun article" should be used to "corroborate" a partisan HSGAC report, ignoring the fact that the report has been challenged as fraudulent (https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/media/minority-media/peters-wyden-respond-to-republican-effort-to-amplify-russian-disinformation-and-manufacture-dirt-on-vice-president-biden).

But it gets worse from there, because what Atsme linked isn't actually a Baltimore Sun article - no, it's a New York Times article reprinted by the Sun, and it also says things such as "The New York Post reporter who wrote most of the article refused to put his name on it because of concerns about its credibility, two Post employees have said" that Atsme is cheerfully hoping to have ignored.

Atsme also tries to source-smuggle a Fox News bit, known to be faulty and already discredited on several points, by passing a "realclearpolitics" news-aggregation link instead. I think it's warranted to ask Atsme up front, why is it that you try to pass off aggregation and reprint links like that? IHateAccounts (talk) 06:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposed wording to rewrite Burisma Holdings section

1. Leave 1st paragraph as it is.

1. Replace everything from the 2nd paragraph on with: Beginning in 2019, various right-wing politicians and pundits began advancing conspiracy theories claiming that Hunter Biden's involvement with Burisma Holdings was in some way corrupt. The exact claims of the conspiracy theories change frequently. Numerous investigations into the allegations have found that Hunter Biden did nothing wrong, and none of the accusations have ever been factually substantiated.

Then leave the rest to Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory if readers want to go further. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Assuming good faith

I'm very concerned about people not assuming good faith on this talk. Please stop. I'm not going to try to comb thru every word to figure out who-all needs a warning, but I am (for my sins) putting this talk on my watch and will start giving out warnings from here on in. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're operating in bad faith. —valereee (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

sectioning off off-topic content re: Washington Examiner

—valereee I agree. A user named Valjean removed my previous posting here (and on another talk page) claiming that I violated BLP. The website I linked to was Washington Examiner, a mainstream conservative website which is rated as "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" just below the highest grading at WP:RSP. WashingtonExaminer is not some fringe right-wing website (otherwise I wouldn't have posted it here). So now discussion on talk pages is being censored, not just article pages? Is it OK for me to restore this edit [48]?? Or maybe someone else can because Valjean threatened me on my talk page saying "Do you really want to get blocked as NOTHERE?" I am genuinely confused because all I did was post on a talk page and try to engage in honest good-faith discussion. Any help is appreciated, thanks. Yodabyte (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Washington Examiner is a fringe website with a history of sensationalist headlines and loose treatment of facts, as well as having published op-eds that turned out to be from faked identities. Moreover, ""Anschutz's instructions were explicit – he 'wanted nothing but conservative columns and conservative op-ed writers,' said one former employee."", in the Wikipedia article. The specific content you have been trying to post seems to very much be over the line on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, and I would encourage you to stop. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

That's not what the article on Washington Examiner says: "According to the Columbia Journalism Review, among the conservative media landscape, the Examiner "is structured more or less like a mainstream newspaper—complete with clear distinctions between news reporting and commentary roles. The outlet has one of the largest newsrooms in online conservative media, with dedicated breaking news reporters and more specialized beat reporters, and a full editorial hierarchy." Yodabyte (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Yodabyte, I'm not going to get into content here, and someone needs to remain uninvolved. I will answer the rest at that section on your article talk. —valereee (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Questionable notability

To whom it might concern. I have recently noticed extensive debate in this article. Surely, all of that spring from bona fide attempts to get things right. However, the sheer existence of so many conspiracy discussions, IMHO, does not prove this or that point about the article's content. It merely demonstrates this article should not exist at all. I am aware my opinion is quite radical, but let me outline my case: 1. Hunter Biden is notable for only one event (WP:BLP1E). 2. Being related to a notable person, doesn't make you automatically notable ([[WP:]]). 3. All this page is about Hunter Biden being a victim (WP:AVOIDVICTIM). 4. From what I read in this page, he is a suspect (WP:SUSPECT))? My take is that he is innocent until proven wrong. And this should mow down all debates about verifiability. But I don't want to stress too much on the "suspect" thing. 5. Since you debate a lot about the term "debunked", let me remind you the best term here is "alleged". The example under section WP:BLPPUBLIC perfectly applies to this scenario, IMHO. We do have actual guidelines on how to write stuff. Let us just follow the guidelines. 6. In general, as a WP:BLP1E, we are not even sure the event is there. Quite the opposite. It's a non-event, so far. So I don't see why he should deserve an article for himself. Why not a mention in an article about his father? 7. This article contains too much for someone who has just lead some companies and been involved in a case meant to taint his father's name (suspect until verified). It meets the WP:TOOMUCH threshold. I assume bona fide attempts by authors in order to demonstrate his public relevance. But still... Not really notable. 8. Again, the lack of notability is embedded in the birth of this page, which was indeed created in 2008, but with barely 500 words and severe lack of notability at its birth. It was updated ever since, as it often happens. Most relevant updates are 2019-ish so, IMO, it is a bit as if this page was completely drafted in 2018. Hope you see my pint. 9. Finally, what I believe is the nail on the coffin of this article: WP:RECENT. Of course most events date back to 2016 (if I read correctly) but all the case and allegations are being pushed during election time. I am afraid I do really have to seriously question articles being manipulated or debated in talks pages as it happens. Most of the links that "corroborate" this or that version are just "news". And I know how much media outlets are important in our society and in the American one in particular... But should not we wait for the dust to settle down? CONCLUSION: The only terms under which I would accept the existence of such an article is that Hunter Biden is potentially a WP:PUBLICFIGURE... But believe me, guys, he is far from having a role in the public administration. Final salute: when answering to me, please understand I am not a US citizen so I bona fide find it hard to understand why someone should be included in Wikipedia with a page of his own... And not that of the event or his notable relative. MarcelloPapirio (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

This wall of text makes my eyes bleed. It's completely unreadable. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)