Talk:Hunter Biden

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: [1]. 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. [2] 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. [3] 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. [4]

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. [5][6]

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

The allegations currently being made stem from someone who claimed to have been a business associate of Hunter Biden & others. Relying on sources over a year old for a developing story doesn't make much sense, and I don't really see the word "debunked" being used in reference to the current controversy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

And yet, actual reliable sources have already debunked the claims of the scam artist trying to pump up his public profile by accusing the Bidens without evidence. "A Wall Street Journal columnist said Joe Biden was part of Hunter’s business deal. Hours later, its news reporters said the opposite." https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/a-wall-street-journal-columnist-said-joe-biden-was-part-of-hunters-business-deal-hours-later-its-news-reporters-said-the-opposite/2020/10/23/c4f9689a-1532-11eb-bc10-40b25382f1be_story.html IHateAccounts (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Um, isn't "the scam artist trying to pump up his public profile by accusing the Bidens without evidence" a BLP violation? I don't see any reliable source telling us that he's a scam artist or ascribing this motivation to his revelations. May I suggest you delete this inappropriate remark? Wookian (talk) 19:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Just wanted to add a comment to express astonishment at a statement of Muboshgu's above, who said said in part, "...this laptop is an extension of the already debunked conspiracy theory...". Are you claiming that the laptop's digital records are forged? I'm not aware that there's any evidence of that. What does it even mean to say "the laptop is an extension of a conspiracy theory" - which just sounds nonsensical, so please help me understand it? The laptop contains emails, text messages, photographs, and videos. These are either documentation comprising a real record of Hunter Biden's life, or else clever frauds, or a mixture. What is your claim you are advancing here, and with what sources do you back up your claim? Are you advancing a conspiracy theory yourself, without evidence? Wookian (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Wookian, Are you claiming that the laptop's digital records are forged? No, I imagine they are real. Nothing that has been reported on regarding these emails proves any wrongdoing. What does it even mean to say "the laptop is an extension of a conspiracy theory? The conspiracy theory is that the Bidens did Bad Things abroad. The laptop story in the NY Post is an attempt to resurrect that narrative, and fits the pattern of the Wikileaks spread of Hillary's emails four years ago. The GRU hacked Burisma back in January and probably got these emails in the hack, and may well have put out this laptop as their way to disseminate the hacked info. I don't have proof of that, but intelligence analysts are suggesting it. Nothing is known for sure, because an investigation takes time, but the reliable sources are skeptical at best. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu writes: Nothing that has been reported on regarding these emails proves any wrongdoing. I wonder whether that is an expression of personal opinion at this point, since various Senators and journalists are on the record expressing the view that the Biden family accepting influence payments from foreign countries (cf. "10% for the big guy") constituted wrongdoing for an American politician. One may argue that it wasn't illegality, but you used the word "wrongdoing." Wookian (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Wookian, your concerns are more suitable for Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. That's the proper place for this discussion. -- Valjean (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Found another doozie above in a comment by Guy: the claim that Joe Biden had Shokin fired to protect Hunter is still false however you look at it. I think what they meant to say is that there is not definitive proof that Biden was motivated to protect the interests of Burisma when he demanded Shokin's firing. It would be silly to claim that Joe Biden was not motivated in part by that, and advancing such an unsupportable claim as Guy did subjects the encyclopedia to the appearance of bending over backwards in ridiculous deference to political interests. The reality is that circumstantial evidence here is fairly judged as damning in reliable sources. We have documented in the record how Burisma pleads with their heavily bribed(edit: influence-paid) Biden family member to get American pressure taken away from investigating their(edit: i.e. Burisma's) corruption, and shortly thereafter the Biden family delivers (edit: Joe Biden forced Shokin's firing). This is all true. And maybe it was a coincidence and Joe would have demanded Shokin's firing even without enrichment of his family with that string attached. But our most reliable sources on this (i.e. those not deeply invested with the Democrats) are reasonably skeptical of Joe Biden's good faith here. It is just as absurd to believe in the pristine non-corruption of later Ukrainian commentators looking back at Shokin and bad mouthing him as it is to believe that Shokin's hands were pure. Ukraine is widely regarded as a perennial nest of political corruption. Wookian (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Wookian, even the WSJ says so.[7][8] "The Big Guy" appears to be Xi Jinping, not Joe. Likewise "the Chairman". Bobulinski says it means Joe, but it's only his word to back that up. Also, while it seems deals were discussed, it is unclear what deals actually happened, and it's clear that Joe had no part of any deals, and even then, Bobulinksi may have talked to Joe in 2017, when he was no longer VP. So yeah, what "wrongdoing" is there? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Wow! Muboshgu, there's some strong BLP-violating commentary above by Wookian ("heavily bribed Biden family member", "their corruption, and shortly thereafter the Biden family delivers", "enrichment of his family"). This pushing of fringe narratives and unreliable sources must be stopped. It violates our prohibition of advocacy of fringe POV, which also applies to talk pages.

You misread me. The word "their" in the phrase "their corruption" was a reference to Burisma and Burisma's corruption, not the Biden family's. I did not claim that Joe Biden pressured the firing of Shokin in order to protect Burisma due to Burisma's bribes paid to his son Hunter ("influence payment" = "bribe" - that's a fair synonym). I merely criticized any who confidently advance the claim that Joe was not even partially motivated by the enrichment of his family. That latter claim is advocacy of a fringe POV. It's OK to be skeptical and demand proof, however it's not OK to blindly accept and strongly assert a political narrative of Biden family innocence. Wookian (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

This is not an improvement. Koncorde (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd also like to see the URLs for these sources ("as damning in reliable sources", "our most reliable sources on this (i.e. those not deeply invested with the Democrats)"). We have a policy which mentions that editors are expected to have the ability to vet sources, but, due to a specially-crafted topic ban made just for me, I am not allowed to mention the words or idea described in the policy. (You can email me about this bizarre situation.) You know which one it is. -- Valjean (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I had not read the reply to Guy. Wookian, redact your BLP violations or I will. Those particular items Valjean called out are violations as there is no evidence to support those accusations. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I explained how I have been misread in the phrase "their corruption." Hopefully that is satisfactory. It is weird to me that you discount testimony from a direct personal participant in Hunter Biden's Chinese deal as to the identity of "the big guy." Frankly, the claim that Hunter held 5% (edit: whoops, sorry, I mean 10%) for Chairman Xi seems odd. Why would Hunter hold it for Xi? When evaluating sources, I would say that a participant in the deal would be expected to know what is going on. As such, I suggest you turn your attention to the testimony of Tony Bobulinski as it's been reported in many outlets. Wookian (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it is being misread. You are making concrete assertions. I suggest you redact. Koncorde (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

OK, redacted/clarified to change to perhaps more neutral wording. Wookian (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Not really. You are making the same allegations. Koncorde (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu wrote: Also, while it seems deals were discussed, it is unclear what deals actually happened, and it's clear that Joe had no part of any deals, and even then, Bobulinksi may have talked to Joe in 2017, when he was no longer VP. So yeah, what "wrongdoing" is there? It is true that the venture fizzled out. However it is not true that no wrongdoing occurred, nor that the Bidens did not profit from the venture. One of Bobulinski's complaints is that the Bidens were taking millions of dollars from the Chinese behind his back. He expected as CEO to receive capital into the business and operate with it, and expresses frustration that the Bidens were just taking the money. Bobulinski says he wasn't even aware that $5 million came through until he read about it in the Senate investigation report, and was surprised and angered that it was paid directly to a law firm of Hunter Biden's. That seems to pretty directly contradict your quoted statement. Your entire position seems to rest on an assumption that the Bidens are innocent and Tony Bobulinski is telling huge lies. I question why anyone (much less an encyclopedia) should hold confidence in such a narrative as you are pushing. Wookian (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

This is yet further BLP violation. Please stop. Koncorde (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Wookian, is there any evidence for what you wrote, beyond just "Bobulinski said so"? You aren't providing any sources. I did. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The Tony Bobulinski testimony rests on more than just himself, since as he pointed out, he was not the sender, but the recipient of the email that laid out the planned stake percentages. Anyway, Rudy Giuliani is a very strong source here as a commentator and secondary source analyzing the emails and texts. You can read about his history as a US Attorney of taking down organized crime families, all of which gives him credibility to speak to this issue. However, to get very pointed here, there is no reason to discount the testimony of Tony Bobulinski or claim that he is lying. It is not a BLP violation to say that "10% for the big guy" may be a reference to Joe Biden receiving 10% stake in a company funded by Chinese sources tied to the CCP. The balance of evidence in reputable sources suggest that is in fact true, and at this point after Bobulinski's testimony it seems weird to be strongly claiming otherwise. Wookian (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Wookian, so you have no refs to share. Got it. Bobulinski has emails that prove nothing, as "planned stake percentages" are just talk. Where's proof that any deals went through? If you're thinking Giuliani is a "very strong source", then I have a bridge between Manhattan and Brooklyn to sell you. Yeah he took down organized crime, in the 1980s. There are some developments in his career since then. Rather than ref spam you, just go read Rudy Giuliani#Attempts to get Ukraine to carry out investigations, which is well referenced. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu said Where's proof that any deals went through?. It doesn't appear to be all talk, since the Chinese side eventually sent $5 million to Hunter Biden's side. And regardless, even if it was all talk, it is meaningful that Joe Biden met with Tony Bobulinski. The old adage about the coverup being worse than the crime has at least some applicability here. I am aware that Rudy Giuliani is closely allied with Donald Trump. The staff of the NYT editorial team is closely aligned with Democrats. What of it? What matters is their credibility - when they make a claim, are they just throwing out garbage, or are they backing up their claims with evidence. Giuliani has a significant cache of evidence between the laptop and Bobulinski. When a credible secondary source is pushing a narrative using compelling primary source material, it is incumbent on us to acknowledge a significant degree of reliability in that secondary source - as opposed to politically motivated speculation, which is largely uninteresting. Wookian (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

A quick reminder that this talkpage is not a platform to promote partisan claims, conspiracy theories, or disinformation. It is a forum to discuss specific, concrete changes to the article, with reference to reliable sources. Please return to that. In particular, Wookian's dismissal of the New York Times (a clearly reliable source, by Wikipedia's definition) is concerning, since it directly contradicts basic site policy and violates basic editorial expectations. I'd suggest rebooting the conversation with a clear focus on specific reliable sources and specific content changes based on them. MastCell ^Talk 20:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi MastCell, I didn't "dismiss the NYT." The alignment of their staff with Democrats doesn't prevent them from being RS, in fact if you read it carefully, the argument I was making rested on the assumption that the NYT generally serves as a RS. On a given occasion, one RS may be more interesting to an encyclopedia than another, particularly when a secondary source is dealing in substantive primary source material as opposed to speculation or rumor. If the NYT publishes an article that says "Trump is obnoxious" that is probably not very interesting for an encyclopedia. If the NYT publishes an article that makes fact based claims based on compelling primary sources, that should perk up our ears. Similarly now when the NYP, Giuliani, and Bobulinski (as widely reported) have shared compelling primary source materials. That's all I was saying. If the NYT actually refutes Bobulinski, then of course that would be noteworthy for this article. Wookian (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

It's worth noting that somebody has finally gotten around to validating the DKIM signature on email(s) from the Hunter laptop. The curious incuriosity of some media personalities may come to an end, e.g. CBS's Stahl in her interview with Trump insisting the emails "can't be verified." The Pulitzer winning Glenn Greenwald dissented from that view, and he obviously has credibility on the subject from having personally been involved in verifying the provenance of major leaks in the past. Wookian (talk) 03:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

They couldn't be verified when, as the Daily Caller admits, Giuliani had initially refused to provide the Daily Caller with a copy of the hard drive in mid-October, saying that questions surrounding the veracity of its contents were “pettifogging nonsense” pushed by the “liberal press.” That some of the emails are true / real etc is a foundation of the concept of disinformation. The refusal to allow "sources" to verify the content is the reason it was rejected. That the Daily Caller have only done the one email seems... odd... surely the contents of the laptop they have must be a little more than a smoking gun by now? Koncorde (talk) 03:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Wookian, none of those are RS, which ends that discussion. We can only discuss information based on the POV and facts found in RS. Discussion based on unreliable sources risks violating OR, FORUM, and/or ADVOCACY, so reboot and use only RS. Because this is about strongly negative allegations, there must be multiple high quality RS. -- Valjean (talk) 04:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

A reasonable person should accept The Daily Caller as RS for this purpose, and I challenge you to give me any solitary rational reason why not. TDC isn't expressing an opinion that the email is legitimate. They are reporting that Robert Graham, a well respected infosec researcher, has validated the email via DKIM. They would have to be lying or otherwise somehow wildly mistaken to be wrong on this. You can look at Graham's github showing and proving how he validated it, if you like. Also, Graham is a Biden supporter, which enhances the weight of his authentication. Please stop quibbling/lawyering and attempting to avoid dealing with encyclopedic facts. Wookian (talk) 04:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The problem is not that Graham has verified the emails. It's how TDC decides to present the verification. For instance, Graham has just said No. I'm concerned about info, not how people choose to misinterpret it. I think the info is taken out of context and the emails mean nothing important. But I recognize that reasonable people may disagree. and confirmed the quantity of verified emails is somewhere less than 2 Correct. I was wrong implying many emails. I have only seen, and been able to verify, a single email -- though it's the most important one, the one claimed to be a "smoking gun". Koncorde (talk) 04:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Robert Graham's opinions on interpretation of the emails do not seem particularly relevant. Wookian (talk) 04:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll repeat; "The problem is not that Graham has verified the emails. It's how TDC decides to present the verification." They are deprecated for having a very loose relationship with the truth. The comments from Graham - totally not an issue. Very happy he has verified that one email. When his report gets picked up by reliable news sources come back to us. Koncorde (talk) 05:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Whatever point you are trying to make above seems incoherent to me. The question is whether the email is real and authenticated. It is real, and it is authenticated. That there may be more than one interpretation of the email is certainly true. However you still haven't given any reason why TDC cannot be used as a RS to establish that this email was authenticated (proven beyond reasonable doubt to be authentic and not a forgery). Wookian (talk) 05:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The Daily Caller is deprecated. We do not use it as a source for anything, not even their opinion cited to themselves on any subject (other than themselves probably). They are the poster child (along with the Daily Mail) of being functionally unreliable (the DM being slightly more unintentionally funny because they have routinely had different editors for their weekly / online and Sunday editions who hated each others guys and loved running contra-articles, very amusing to see what both caused and cured cancer in the same week). A more reliable source will pick up Grahams credible work and comments and I have no doubt turn out a corroborating piece. Koncorde (talk) 05:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The point is that we do not use unreliable sources like The Daily Caller. Period. Read that article and read about its rating here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. TDC can cite God and we wouldn't use it. We wait until a RS cites God and use that source. We ignore TDC and similar sources. -- Valjean (talk) 05:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

You're still lawyering. That list is not intended to be an inflexible filter, and it isn't even self consistent - CNN (and heck, the NYT) would fail on the same grounds as TDC if the criteria were applied across the board and apolitically. Consider as an example the Trump/Russia Collusion Hoax. The NYT has never come fully clean about their false reporting on that count, nor have they returned the Pulitzer prize they shared with the WaPo for spreading a false conspiracy theory. And many left leaning media outlets simply don't care, because they apply the rules differently to right leaning versus left leaning sources. Any system of rules can be used corruptly to favor one side just by selective application. All of this unfortunate state of journalistic malfeasance is why the (left leaning!) Glenn Greenwald just recently resigned from The Intercept which he co-founded. At the end of the day, you never answered my question and provided a single rational reason why TDC couldn't serve as a reliable source to transmit this well verified, encyclopedic fact (viz., that this email was strongly authenticated). Wookian (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

That is not lawyering. If you would like to challenge the results of the RfC which closed with an overwhelming majority, arguments and all, for option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail be our guest, but that should be done via a new RfC and not on a one-off basis on this talk page. I will also note that your argument about the NYT and other sources came up at the RfC and were explicitly called out as unconvincing in the closing rationale: Two of the three supporters of option 1 point out, essentially, that "the NYT gets things wrong too", which isn't an argument taken seriously by the majority of editors here. In the meantime, if you want to add this claim, find a reliable source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

If we have better sources than The NYT then let's just them instead. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm about to go offline but I wanted to point out that there's a basic problem with the Daily Caller piece Wookian linked to: right now (Archived 2020-10-30 at the Wayback Machine) it says Graham said the only way the email could have been faked is if someone hacked into Google’s servers, found the private key and used it to reverse engineer the email’s DKIM signature but it's trivially obvious that anyone at Google with access to the private key could also have faked the email. Whether anything like either of those two scenarios happened or not, that's an extremely glaring error for a “cybersecurity expert” to make.

So in combination with Trump “cyber czar” Giuliani being involved (spoiler alert: Giuliani has, if such an infinitesimal quantity of credibility is even conceivable by the human mind, less credibility on anything computer-security-related than he does in other fields) and not even getting into Daily Caller reliability or verifiability issues as a source, I would personally want to see step-by-repeatable-step how the “cybersecurity expert” did his analysis before I'd accept any of his claims. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 15:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Original research is out of the scope of article writing, however it seems in the spirit of encyclopedic truthiness to point out that you can examine his github source code and reproduce his results for yourself. Wookian (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

So you were calling upon editors do original research when you requested, A reasonable person should accept The Daily Caller as RS for this purpose, and I challenge you to give me any solitary rational reason why not. Seems like you lost your stomach for rational reasoning pretty quick.

But let me guess, you making claims like Also, Graham is a Biden supporter, which enhances the weight of his authentication in an attempt to do some WP:WEASEL-word buttressing of the credibility of your “cybersecurity expert” doesn't count as OR at all, you're just being super duper rational rather than “truthy”, huh? Pull the other one. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 17:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

We didn't really get that far in the discussion, but Graham has been recognized as a cyber security expert in other outlets recognized as RS by others here. It didn't occur to me that anyone would challenge that part of it. Frankly it is both moot at this point, and whatever you are trying to say here makes little sense to me, so I'm happy to let it go. Cheers. Wookian (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Wookian: "the Trump/Russia Collusion Hoax"??? Really? There went your credibility. That's one of many Trump disinformation conspiracy theories. (Check out Category:Conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump for many more.)

FACT: The Russians interfered in the election to help Trump win. Trump still denies it, even though he knows it. McMaster, who would know, says "Trump Is ‘Aiding and Abetting Putin’s Efforts’" Now look up the definition of treason during a military attack. (Hint, the GRU are Russian military, and the interference, which is ongoing, is a Russian military attack on the United States. That is what Trump is helping. You don't have to believe me. Ask any former leader (including those appointed by Trump) of our top intelligence agencies about this. They have been very public about it.) -- Valjean (talk) 15:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

"Not a forum," I guess. What I wrote was candid but not intended to be controversial per se, and if you'd like to discuss this elsewhere we can do so. Wookian (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

DNI, DOJ, FBI in apparent agreement

This article [9] 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."[10] 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 (Personal attack removed). 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael-Ridgway (talk • contribs) 11:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

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)

I agree, the lede should refer to the China allegations and also to the recent claims by Bobulinski. Pakbelang (talk) 04:18, 29 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)

It isn't about being an "objective wikipedia editor", it's about following our guidelines objectively. What people want us to do is abandon the rules to force some WP:FALSEBALANCE into an article and / or fundamentally tread into the area of duplicating uncorroborated claims in a biography that can do material harm to a persom in the current day. Wikipedia is not here to provide some up-to-the-minute profile on every person mentioned on the TV, or rumours about such a person. We are WP:NOTNEWS. Koncorde (talk) 03:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Michael-Ridgway, what delusional editor "claim[ed] to be an 'objective' Wikipedia editor"? (I actually know of one very experienced editor who claimed to be "neutral". I wouldn't normally describe her as delusional, but on that point she is.) I have written an essay related to this that you might find interesting: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. No one is completely neutral or objective, but we should strive to edit as neutrally as possible by not changing/censoring/neutering the bias of a source when we use it. -- Valjean (talk) 15:34, 29 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)

This Wikipedia article is a disservice to encylocpaedias. In no way shape or form has this story been debunked, and nor is it being pushed by the right wing alone. This absolutely must be presented with weight to the possibility that it is NOT a conspiracy theory. Alexandre8 (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Replaced "debunked" with "alleged" The "debunked" language dates back a year, before any attention was paid to the HB allegations. Renewed allegations are drawing focus to the story again, and no investigation has been reported as "debunking" the unsubstantiated allegations. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Speculation about stuff being "alleged" is not how WP:BLP works. We are meant to conservative in our writing of articles, that includes WP:BLPGOSSIP, particularly around what is functionally just a political smear campaign by any other name. Duplicating speculative reporting from unreliable sources is a major no-no. Koncorde (talk) 03:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Koncorde: If that's the case, then leave it out, but don't contrive language not used by the sources. "Unsubstantiated," "unverified," and "unproven" are consonant with the reliable sources that have reported on it. "Debunked" is not. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree, the term "debunked" goes beyond the language used by reliable sources. Pakbelang (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Hunter Biden is the subject of debunked right wing conspiracies. This is an objective fact. That does not mean someone somewhere does not have some otherwise crazy conspiracy that they will not accept has been debunked, is implausibl3, or no reliable source will tackle because it is unfounded.

What is being asked here is for the statement to be replaced with the equivalent of "there is no evidence these new allegations have been disproved". That is pretty much the dictionary definition of "When did you stop beating your wife?". It's utterly inappropriate for a BLP subject. Koncorde (talk) 04:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The sources are not calling them "debunked." It's appropriate to document allegations, even if unproven, in a BLP. WP:PUBLICFIGURE. It's not consistent with WP:V to use language not reflected in the sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The sources about what? That Hunter Biden and Jim Biden, two businessmen, have business dealings? What are you asking to be described as "debunked"? Because I think you are asking us to insert unfounded allegations made in tabloid press in breach of WP:BLP's core principles. We are not tackling subjects not covered by reliable sources. We should certainly not be speculating on a smear campaign without calling it what it is - a smear campaign - and that would still not change the debunked right wing conspiracies unless someone can tell us, in reliable sources, what the new conspiracy theories are.

Seperately WP:V does not say we can't call a spade a spade just because reliable sources call it "unfounded allegations unsupported by objective facts or reality" or words to that affect. Koncorde (talk) 12:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Koncorde: The sources [11] describe allegations that Hunter Biden and Jim Biden were engaged in influence peddling,'' not "doing business." The story may or may not be dubious, and it doesn't appear to be proven, but it is simply not described as "debunked" and it is a stretch beyond what the sources have said to describe it as such. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

My search of that article comes up blank for anything approximating the words you just used, or allegations thereof. The only reference to any allegations about either Biden are a vague reference to an email that (with their emphasis) is "said to" have been sent to Hunter. So the WSJ aren't touching that story with a 10 foot barge pole. Koncorde (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I provided a citation to Snopes, one example. Where is the "debunked" language coming from? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The link you provided is to a WSJ article. If you are talking about the Snopes article you put in as a citation to overturn all other reliable sources then this is the one you meant. If we take, I don't know, about 15 seconds to read the first few sentences we immediately run into a big red flag, to quote: Trump and his supporters, meanwhile, have advanced a widely discredited theory that Biden pushed for the firing of Ukraine’s top prosecutor to protect his son and Burisma from investigation. Biden did indeed press for the prosecutor’s firing, but that’s because he was reflecting the official position of not only the Obama administration but many Western countries and because the prosecutor was perceived as soft on corruption. meanwhile at the end of the article it states Biden’s campaign, meanwhile, pointed to the recent Republican-led Senate investigation that found no evidence of wrongdoing on Biden’s part with regard to Ukraine. It also pointedly noted the involvement of Giuliani, saying his “discredited conspiracy theories and alliance with figures connected to Russian intelligence have been widely reported.” who was the source of this laptop and emails btw? Rudy something? Best mates with a couple of blokes, Lev and Igor that have admitted being involved in something? Another good friend an agent of Russia? Also claims to have a laptop. Strange world. Wonder if they are related. Koncorde (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Hunter Biden's alleged laptop, Post Story, and related topics

...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 did 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 have 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 allegedly 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) ^{Added "allegedly" 19:00, 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. [12]

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)

Another user User:Michael-Ridgway was just blocked 48 hours for similar conduct. @OrangeMike: was the blocking administrator so maybe they should be aware of this situation. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: This is not a good look. Michael-Ridgway's comment was much more egregious a violation than anything I see from Atsme. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Soibangla: No, it does not. Atsme said "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". Stating beforehand that this is a "matter of national security" is prima facia factual given the FBI's and other agency's involvement. That said, the "Joe lied to the American people" needs an "allegedly" or some other qualifier before it. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

EvergreenFir In fact, it has not been established that the FBI seizure of the devices has anything to do with Hunter Biden, regarding national security or anything else relating to him. soibangla (talk) 18:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay but it's still not a BLP violation imo. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, I hope my addition suffices, although quite frankly, I was always of the mind that politicians are fair game for claims of lying. To quote Will Rogers: “If you ever injected truth into politics you have no politics.” A more modern version was published by CBS News: Here are three things most Americans take as an article of faith: The sky is blue. The pope is Catholic. And politicians are liars. Joe Biden has been an American politician for nearly half a century; therefore, 2+2 = no need for citing RS. It has also been drilled into my head via participation at Talk:Donald Trump that public figures don't get the same level of protection afforded other BLPs; regardless, I was happy to accommodate your request. What I did not anticipate when I first arrived at this TP were the unprovoked false allegations & PAs against me. I was hoping Soibangla and IHateAccounts would dropthestick, but they didn't, and I chose to mute them...and here I am. Hopefully, your presence and that of Valereee will help tone things down to a more collegial level. Soibangla's WP:CRYBLP and accusation that I made a "baseless assertion" about H. Biden's “dealings with a communist country“ alleging that what I said "constitutes a malicious smear and BLP violation" is a blatant PA against me. I had already included references that suppport my position on this TP, less the "sky is blue" arguments, but for good measure I'll provide the link that supports the fact that China is ruled by the communist party, and the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Report, states:

BHR was formed in November 2013 by a merger between the Chinese-government-linked firm Bohai Capital and a company named Rosemont Seneca Partners. Rosemont Seneca was formed in 2009 by Hunter Biden, the son of then-Vice President Joe Biden, by Chris Heinz, the stepson of former Secretary of State John Kerry, and others.

That report was analyzed (& corroborated) by secondary & third party sources including The NYTimes article which states:

"The $1.5 billion figure to which Mr. Trump referred on Thursday appears to be the amount of money that a Shanghai-based private-equity company, BHR Equity Investment Fund Management Co., aimed to raise in 2014. The company, which says its biggest shareholder is the state-controlled Bank of China, pools money and invests in companies, many of which are also state owned.

Hunter Biden has been a member of the board of BHR since it was formed in late 2013. In October 2017, after his father had left the vice presidency, he bought 10 percent of the firm, investing the equivalent of $420,000."

I hope the above will eliminate any further spurious allegations against me. I just want the BATTLEGROUND behavior and tendentious editing to stop and make way for productive collegial discussion with the acknowledgment that there is more than one POV. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 22:57, 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)

Atsme, this is where you completely undermine your position. There is no "Russia collusion hoax". The Mueller Report documents collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, in considerable detail.

The report states that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was illegal and occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion" but was welcomed by the Trump campaign as it expected to benefit from such efforts. It also identifies links between Trump campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government, about which several persons connected to the campaign made false statements and obstructed investigations. Mueller later stated that his investigation's conclusion on Russian interference "deserves the attention of every American". It failed to establish the criminal charge of conspiracy due in large part to systematic and determined obstruction by Trump and his associates.

To call this a hoax is to call into question your fundamental competence to edit in this area.

I've laid out above what we know to date. First, the underlying claim that Joe Biden intervened to protect Burisma is categorically refuted. We know that the Russians hacked Burisma, we know they pulled a near-identical stunt on Emanuel Macron in 2017, we know that the purported emails were known and in circulation in Ukraine in May 2019, we know that the entire provenance of the "laptop" is identified as implausible on multiple levels by technical websites as well as news sources, we know that Fox bailed on it because they thought it was bullshit, we know that the New York Post's own writers refused to put their names on it, that multiple requests by other sources for access to the data to verify it have been refused, we know that the release was coordinated by Giuliani and Bannon, the former an associate of known Rusian agents and the latrter under indictment for fraud. And as a sresult, reliable sources treat the whole thing with massive skepticism, and we follow them in that. As we should. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Guy, it looks more like you undermined yours, but Talk:Hunter Biden is not the place for off-topic discussions. I will not engage here, despite your unwarranted PA. Take it to my UTP, if you wish to go down this slippery slope. Atsme 💬 📧 23:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, it's not a slippery slope. Denying that Russia intervened in 2016 and that the Trump campaign welcomed this is simply not supportable. Not only is it the focus of half of the Mueller report, it is also the basis of Roger Stone's conviction and Rick Gates' guilty plea, to name but two. It's a fact pattern backed by every serious intelligence agency at the time and since, as well as by bipartisan reports from both the Senate and the House. The look of anguish on Shep Smith's face as he reported both the facts and the denialism being promoted right then by his own colleagues was the first clue that he was not long to remain on Fox. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Guy - WP:NOTFORUM, wrong venue. Atsme 💬 📧 10:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, irony: like coppery, but harder. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, since you're talking interference, and I'm talking collusion (Trump campaign) - apples and oranges - but that's not a greenlight to keep driving. Atsme 💬 📧 15:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, you keep talking about the Russia hoax as if that's not conspiracist bullshit. Probably not a great idea in a reality-based encyclopaedia. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:51, 26 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)

That's horribly worded and full of WP:PEACOCK considering there's barely any investigation so far and numerous sources aren't reliable ones. Quite frankly any mention of "debunked" is also just WP:PEACOCK considering that the claims have not been debunked and it's not up to Wikipedia to tell readers these claims were proven false. I propose we remove any mention of the conspiracy claims altogether as it's a violation of WP:BLPCRIME. The very mention should not be in Wikipedia concerning a living person and if neutrality is going to be maintained, there shouldn't be any words about "doing nothing wrong" or "baseless" or "debunked." Those are peacock words for allegations and scandals that have not been determined.WePFew (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

It's appropriate to reference spin-off articles. It's not appropriate to tell editors that these topics are not permitted to be covered at this article, especially considering the article already dedicates space to each of the above. This is merely an opinion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but when did it become appropriate for a couple of editors to unilaterally declare what content is appropriate at a page? Per WP:TPG, it is inappropriate to use a talk page heading to make an editorial assertion. I have edited to subheader (with the original in parentheticals) to comply with this rule. @Valjean: I suggest reviewing WP:TALKHEADPOV. A neutral statement regarding the topic is appropriate, not an assertion about it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:05, 29 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)

Thank you. This is overdue in my opinion. I also think protecting the talk page sends the wrong message when a controversial article is attracting strong good faith opinions from all sides regarding the facts as reported by RS. RandomGnome (talk) 02:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@RandomGnome: I was upset about the page protection too but since there seem to be plenty of people who haven't been around for months or years popping up constantly to create Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy violations like this (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHunter_Biden&type=revision&diff=985443845&oldid=985437770), I see how it was even worse before the protection was put in place. Most of them don't cite any source or if they do, they cite things that definitely aren't reliable sources because right-wing echo chamber sites and outlets (New York Post, Breitbart, Fox and so on) are desperate to try to turn their baseless accusations into a media event. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@RandomGnome: also, consider that Talk:Joe Biden had to be protected similarly due to trolls from russian addresses who were leaving things that admins had to fully remove from the page history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHunter_Biden&type=revision&diff=985443845&oldid=985437770 IHateAccounts (talk) 03:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: Thanks. I take your point, but I think we have other tools in the toolbelt to use against political activist editing rather than blanket protection, which stifles debate of good faith concerns over how we're reflecting RS reporting, and worse, clears the path for a small pool of editors to engage in WP:OWN/Multiple-editor ownership. RandomGnome (talk) 03:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

sectioning off content re: Washington Examiner

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.

---

—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 [13]?? 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)

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.

Guy, I'm calling a point of order here - The Washington Examiner is as good as and as bad as all the other biased media that publishes online clickbait. It's not just you, others are incorrectly rating no-consensus decisions about various sources but it's time we get a handle on it. There was no formal RfC that determined TWE to be unreliable - I checked WP:RSN to make sure - so please correct your mistake, and refrain from future POV hats. WP:RSP corroborates no-consensus about its reliability, but that is also just an opinion in a supplement (like an essay), especially in the absence of a formal RfC close. WP:PAG is our first consideration but there is also WP:IAR which brings to mind what Jimbo explained in this discussion about The Daily Mail, not that TWE is anything like TDM. Editors need to be able to discuss proposed material and examine sources that might be used for inclusion of information in this article without the discussion being derailed. Right now, a week before election day, we're seeing issues with media reliability and the publishing of false claims. A classic example is evidenced in this tweet by Kim Strassel about the partisans/media outlets that falsely claimed WSJ news side had "debunked" the WSJ edit side on the Hunter Biden/China story. Add to that, The New York Times & WaPo endorsements of Joe Biden for president, and the 3 defamation lawsuits filed by the Trump administration against The NYTimes, WaPo and CNN. I think it's safe to say we're dealing with biased sources, and may even be reaching into questionable depending on context; therefore, we need to examine material proposed for inclusion if it is to be cited to any or all of those 4 RS in particular. Better yet, adhere to WP:RECENTISM and the bulk of our problems will disappear. Oh, and thank you Valereee for drawing that line and remaining uninvolved. Atsme 💬 📧 23:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

" the partisans/media outlets that falsely claimed WSJ news side had "debunked" the WSJ edit side on the Hunter Biden/China story. That's false. The WSJ news side did indeed debunk Strassel's false opinions (they are often misleading/false nowadays) published at WSJ. Pinging @JzG:

Sources which are "no consensus" are not blacklisted, but deprecated. There are situations where they can be used, but when we can, we should use better sources.

Biased sources that remain accurate can still be used, and that is the case with NYTimes, WaPo and CNN, unlike the Washington Examiner. They are worlds apart. We judged reliability by accuracy, not by bias. -- Valjean (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Regarding the Washington Examiner, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, "but there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims." @Atsme:, what part of that statement needs explaining to you? IHateAccounts (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The part that indicates that "opinion" is the result of a formal RfC that was closed by an uninvolved editor. Provide that diff. Atsme 💬 📧 01:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

NY Post endorsed Trump. Does that mean that their Hunter Biden laptop story is now invalid? I mean, because of the endorsement, not the lack of proof of any wrongdoing. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

It is biased, Muboshgu, especially if it was announced by the editorial board themselves. Have the Biden's filed a lawsuit against them for defamation? Bias does not eliminate a source, but a lawsuit would definitely raise question; therefore, we look closer at context and DUE, and if we can find a better source, we use it instead. With bias, we have to attribute what we determine to be DUE using intext attribution. You do realize that I've worked in NPP for several years now so I know a little bit about RS, and I do have 35+ years as a media professional (retired now), but that does not give me any advantage over any other editor here. It simply means that I have an inkling of experience regarding this particular subject. IOW, I didn't fall off a pumpkin truck yesterday, so please don't address me in such a condescending manner. I have never done that to you or anyone else. Atsme 💬 📧 01:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

And I could lie and claim to be a Ph.D, but I won't do that because it would be about as dumb as your claiming to have "35+ years as a media professional" and about as relevant. The idea that we should take the word of a tabloid known for fabrications because "well the targets didn't sue them over it" is completely ridiculous. As for the Washington Examiner if you don't like the consensus, you're welcome to open a new discussion. Given that it's got 8 prior discussions listed, I don't think I'm obligated to go running off to find one link just so you can start moving the goalposts and demanding another link, then another link, then another link, because you don't like the status. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of lying? Atsme 💬 📧 02:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Newsweek is a reliable source that reported on the matter in the past 24 hours. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, "Unlike articles before 2013, post-2013 Newsweek articles are not generally reliable" - WP:RSP. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, a defamation suit would give publicity to this bullshit, which generally has not broken out of the right-wing media bubble. Wait until after Nov 3 and see if the lawsuit goes down then - they would almost certainly clear the "actual malice" hurdle of New York Times v. Sullivan, and they would very likely survive New York's anti-SLAPP statute, but it would be a distraction right now. And actually while the discovery would very likely be extremely damaging to Giuliani, Joe's style does not seem to be vindictive, so if he wins it is pretty likely that he'll just ignore it and move on.

The best thing to do is to look how responsible right-leaning publications cover it. News reporting in the Financial Times is limited to meta-coverage like "Hack-and-leak vs social media". The WSJ's editorial team published something that promoted the conservative narrative, but were rapidly contradicted by their own news team. And this is exactly what we consistently see here. Your consistent disagreement with consensus on source reliability notwithstanding, the only sources that assert the conservative claims as fact are either conservative opinion writers or unreliable hyper-partisan sites. The overwhelming consensus of actual news reporters writing for actual reliable outlets, regardless of lean, is that this is an attempt to smear Joe Biden through guilt-by-association based on innuendo, facts already known and admitted (e.g. Hunter's drug abuse) and primarily an attempt to revitalise the known false claim that Joe Biden intervened in Ukraine to protect Burisma, a story that the conservative media has been bubbling along with for more than a year despite its comprehensive refutation.

Of course the irony is not lost on the reality-based media: evidence that Hunter Biden benefited form official actions of his father is weak at best, but Trump's family have their snouts firmly in the trough, and unlike Hunter they are part of the administration and/or the campaign team. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Guy, in reply to your ping, I simply stated verifiable facts. See the top of WP:RSP wherein it clearly states: This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. If you are so certain about your opinion, you should be encouraging discussion, not squelching it. I'm simply trying to collaborate within the perimeters of our PAGs, and quite frankly, your behavior is overwhelming. I'm of the mind that tendentious editing and inappropriate shutting-down of discussions to keep notable material out of an article (scrubbing) is a disservice to our readers. The subject matter is certainly not trivial, and WP is not a courtroom where guilt or innocence is determined. We state what the sources say, and like it or not, the allegations were made, they are highly notable, and your argument that the named source is unreliable is a weak one because context matters, and editors never got the chance to add corroborating sources because your actions had a chilling effect. The reason the Biden material is not being covered in your preferred left-leaning sources, such as The NYTimes, WaPo and CNN, is pretty obvious as I've already pointed out above, and has little, if anything, to do with the veracity of the allegations. Again, WP is not a courtroom. Our job is to add the controversial material per NPOV, and if the source is biased, we use in-text attribution. It's that simple. What you are attempting to do, inadvertently or otherwise, is make WP:RSP supersede WP:RS which conflicts with our PAGs and discourages editors from discussing specific material cited to specific sources in context, both here and at RS/N for wider community input when local input is imbalanced, as it is here. I'm not the only editor who is aware of your strong political POV and dominance on this TP, which is further evidenced by the fact that editors keep showing up at your UTP with misrepresentations of comments by other editors. Fortunately, we have 2 uninvolved admins overseeing this TP, EvergreenFir and Valereee, and both have done a good job as neutral referees. I, for one, very much appreciate their presence here because it helps me to be more mindful of my own comments. There needs to be more focus on content and collegial collaboration, and hopefully that will help avoid polarizing character attacks, WP:Tendentious editing, WP:Bullying, WP:Wikilawyering, WP:Editorializing and WP:CRYBLP when controversial material is introduced. Such behavior comprises the perfect "POV cocktail", and interferes with the consensus building process that is designed to achieve neutrality. Atsme 💬 📧 13:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm... "The subject matter is certainly not trivial, and WP is not a courtroom where guilt or innocence is determined. We state what the sources say, and like it or not, the allegations were made, they are highly notable." Atsme, why don't you apply the same reasoning to the Steele dossier article (which you tried to delete)? For some reason you favor documenting this, but not the dossier, even though it's far more notable and there are far more RS covering it. -- Valjean (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: A recent Politico piece is also skeptical of the allegations, but does not call them "debunked." We need to threat the line between allegations treated as dubious or unverified and those that have directly been disproven. I have not seen a consensus among reliable sources that they have looked into it and found them false. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, Wikieditor19920, you will note that at Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory I have been very clear about this: the claim that Joe Biden intervened in Ukraine to protect Burisma is correctly described as false, the claims from the New York Post are not refuted, debunked or whatever, but reliable sources across the political spectrum are highly skeptical. There's a free mix of known fact, known fiction, rather obvious attempts at guilt by association, and the dramatis personae are, to put it charitably, not widely viewed as credible. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, Washington Examiner is a tabloid with high bias and low factual accuracy, it is an unambiguously inappropriate source for salacious content about a living individual. And I hope that you would not seriously argue otherwise.

You use phrases like your preferred left-leaning sources, such as The NYTimes, WaPo and CNN. That is unfair, and also inaccurate - you will note that my comments on this topic have repeatedly referenced the Financial Times and Wall Street Journal. It's not about "my preferred left-leaning sources", it's about credible sources with competent news-gathering teams and a reputation for fact-checking and putting accuracy before ideology. As noted above, WSJ comment pieces promote the conservative narrative, and WSJ news reporters say it's false. Wikipedia is a mainstream fact-based project. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920:"The Wall Street Journal and Fox News have both reported finding no evidence that former Vice President Joe Biden benefited from the Hunter Biden business dealings that have drawn scrutiny.", "“There hasn't been evidence in those emails that any of these deals actually happened, or that Hunter’s relationship with Joe was the deciding factor,” Loofte said. “I'm not commenting on the story itself. I'm just talking about the sourcing. I mean, it's just these emails.”" The Politico article you linked is a synopsis of Bannon and Giuliani's attempts to sell a clearly false story into the right-wing media echo chamber so that it could be laundered upwards into Fox. "But no A-list conservative outlet has published anything living up to those claims. Instead, these outlets have turned their firepower toward other reliable topics: social media bias; deep state plots; and the media’s failure to cover a story they themselves have backed away from, leaving Giuliani and Bobulinski to sell the story to the fringe." IHateAccounts (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccount: Correct—they treat the allegations with skepticism and cite that there has not been a report confirming the allegations. But they do not either debunk them or describe them as debunked. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Guy, in response to your ping, this is 2020, WE is not a tabloid, it's an eZine or online magazine. Your opinion is not consensus and it certainly doesn't represent an official close of a formal RfC by an uninvolved admin/experienced closer relative to the context of a particular statement, which btw I will/always have honored. Consensus can change, and we also have IAR, especially since we've been hearing crickets from the left media about the Bidens. Quoting Jonathan Turley: Instead, media has maintained a consistent and narrow focus. Indeed, in her interview, Leslie Stahl immediately dismissed any “scandal” involving Hunter in an interview with the President on 60 Minutes. It was an open example of what I previously noted in a column: “After all, an allegation is a scandal only if it is damaging. No coverage, no damage, no scandal.” He was referring to The Hill opinion piece - yes, it's opinion but a scholarly opinion, which makes a big difference.

Unsubstantiated does not mean the allegations are false and should not be included. I learned how WP treats unsubstantiated allegations several years ago in the discussions at Talk:Donald Trump and Talk:Steele dossier. The salacious videos of Hunter Biden notwithstanding, the allegations that the Biden family has been compromised is not trivial - it's not even political because it's a matter of national security, and certainly qualifies as DUE. Also keep in mind, there have been no denials by the Bidens that the laptop belongs to Hunter.

See Politico's perspective on the scandal. They quoted Loofte, the senior editor of First Draft News:

“There hasn't been evidence in those emails that any of these deals actually happened, or that Hunter’s relationship with Joe was the deciding factor,” Loofte said. “I'm not commenting on the story itself. I'm just talking about the sourcing. I mean, it's just these emails.”

That led me to this article. The Politico article quoted Bobulinski who appeared on Carlson's show: “Joe Biden and the Biden family are compromised”. Other sources corroborate that claim so WP:V has been met. Bobulinski was interviewed by the FBI under threat of criminal allegations if he lied, so I'd say he's a credible witness. We also have the opinion of Johnaton Turley, a highly credible academic who provided his expert analysis and context. He also published Bobulinsky's statement. Turley stated: This is obviously just one side and the documents do not show a direct role or benefit for Joe Biden. However, it would seem that between the FBI statement and this witness statement, there is ample foundation for media scrutiny." I'm of the mind that Turley's conclusion could probably be included as an academic's opinion with in-text attribution but I don't care either way - if an RfC is called, I'll participate:

I have written for years that Hunter Biden was clearly influence peddling and he contradicted his father’s denial of any knowledge of his dealings. The media can continue to hold its breath for weeks to try to avoid the obvious in this story. That could well guarantee Biden the presidency but it will destroy the media’s credibility for years.

I'm not dyed in the wool on any of it; they are merely suggestions to consider. Atsme 💬 📧 18:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, consensus is as I quoted: "there is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims". This is an exceptional claim. It's also salacious gossip on a living person. Are you genuinely advocating that we should use it as a source? Seriously?

Of course Hunter Biden was trading on his father's name. That's not illegal. Giving Federal jobs to your family members, that is illegal. But Joe Biden didn't do that. Using your public office to enrich yourself or your family is illegal, but there's no evidence that Joe Biden did do that either, he certainly didn't intervene in Ukraine to protect Hunter's company.

You have no idea what Bobulinski told the FBI. He's not under any threat of penalty if he engages in public speculation, as he has been doing, and certainly not on Tucker Carlson's show - Fox's legal defense of Carlson was that nobody takes him seriously.

Wikipedia is a mainstream, reality-based encyclopaedia that takes a small-c conservative approach to biographies. We prefer reliable independent secondary sources. Not opinion pieces, not self-published blogs, not people speculating in interviews (a primary source). Thus far the kind of sources we use for biographies - heavyweight review sources with a solid reputation for journalistic fact-checking - do not reflect any of the conservative narrative as credible. That includes the Wall Street Journal's news desk and the Financial Times, which are as solidly conservative as you can get. So Wikipedia doesn't either. It's a BLP, end of really.

Now, you might be able to make a case for at least some of this speculative stuff in Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory. But not here, not without dramatically better sourcing.

This entire thing is deliberately designed and timed to derail Biden's electoral chances. We are here neither to support nor to prevent that, but neither are we here to assist in the spread of something that has every single hallmark of a deliberate disinformation operation. Reliable mainstream sources aren't biting, and we're sticking with what they say. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Simple request Guy - show me the diff for the RfC that determined consensus - that's all I'm asking. Your POV is not my concern. Atsme 💬 📧 23:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, there are eight separate discussions linked at its entry at WP:RSP, which is what I quoted. "[T]here is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims". This is an exceptional claim. It's also a BLP. Are you genuinely advocating that we should use it as a source? Guy (help! - typo?) 23:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Atsme: says "The Politico article quoted Bobulinski who appeared on Carlson's show: “Joe Biden and the Biden family are compromised”. Other sources corroborate that claim..." but critically doesn't actually cite any sources doing so. Why is that? Surely if Atsme had Wikipedia:Reliable Sources that corroborated the claim, they would be provided? Or when Atsme says "other sources" are they referring to sites such as Breitbart, which "has published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories", or the New York Post, guilty of "a number of examples of outright fabrication.", which are not reliable per community consensus recorded at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources? They try to cite the personal blog(Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_(online_and_paper) of [[Jonathan Turley], an arch-conservative hack who provides no actual evidence beyond reciting the beyond-dubious claims, and the Moonie Times (which "should be avoided"), for a misleading and dubious statement that "Bobulinski was interviewed by the FBI" which addresses nothing and does not actually corroborate any claims. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

IHateAccounts, you make a good point. People don't have to cite URL's from unreliable sources to expose where they are getting their views. That applies to both narratives and individual talking points. Some will approvingly use words and phrases like "fake news", "debunked dossier", "Russia hoax", "alleged" Russian collusion, "Obamagate", and "Spygate", thus revealing they are siding with the false narratives found on unreliable sources. They thus reveal that they are completely at odds with the myriad RS we use for our articles on these subjects without ever directly citing an unreliable source. Sometimes "absence of evidence" is actually "evidence of absence" of RS to use to bolster false narratives. -- Valjean (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Valjean: maybe @Atsme:'s sources just got "lost in the mail" like Tucker Carlson's credibility? https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/10/tucker-carlson-fox-news-lost-package-biden-documents-sneaky-democrats.html IHateAccounts (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

These points you are trying to make don't make sense. "Sue for defamation? Why would they do that to give the story more oxygen? Like Javanka and the Times Square billboard, the Streisand effect is real. They would have to sue for defamation to prove to you that the story is false? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The line of argument "well they should sue if it's false, and if they don't sue it proves it's true" seems like classic victim blaming behavior. In other contexts it might be phrased "well if she was raped, why didn't she report it?" IHateAccounts (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Good analogy. Atsme is right when she says Bias does not eliminate a source, but she says that in a reply to a reply of her comment trashing the NYT, WaPo, and CNN as biased. She knows that the endorsements of NYT and WaPo are from the editorial wing, which is independent of the investigative journalism wing of the publication. Back on topic, Washington Examiner is not great, but it does have its uses. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Only if you've got a puppy that isn't quite housebroken or need to wrap fish from the market. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, {{citation needed}} on that. I have yet to see anything sourced to Washington Examiner that wasn't either redundantly sourced to something better or clearly not fit to be on Wikipedia. Could happen, but not seen it yet. Just another crappy tabloid, avoid. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Guy, calling WE a tabloid is like calling a DVD a record. Their local tabloid ceased to exist in mid-2013, nearly a decade ago. WE is actually an eZine or online magazine. There are over 2100+/- articles in WP with citations to WE. I found 2 real quick examples: Jason Bordoff#2020 Presidential Election, and Rich, White, Straight Men#Critical response. I also researched the added comment in the RSP table for WE and discovered the following:

The original table summary stated: There is no consensus on the reliability of the Washington Examiner. Almost all editors consider it a partisan source and believe that statements from this publication should be attributed. There is consensus that opinions in the Washington Examiner should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims. The Washington Examiner publishes opinion columns, which should be handled with the appropriate guideline.

I totally agree with that summary, but for whatever reason unbeknownst to me, Newslinger changed that text on Aug 28, 2019 and removed opinions in. Why? I did not find a prior discussion, formal consensus or close to justify the removal of that qualifier. His edit summary states: Most of the articles objected to are not opinion pieces. I reviewed the 8 cases listed to confirm if they were indeed what Newslinger represented as not opinion pieces. The following is what I discovered:

fn-8 -- an article
fn-7 -- an opinion piece
fn-6 -- several sources were discussed, not just WE, for the article Media bias in the United States
fn-5 -- Washington Examiner; JzG, you were the OP, and your opening statement reads: “Given the controversial nature of TPUSA, the less than stellar reputation of Washington Examiner, and its known right wing bias, I suspect we probably should not be using this source in this article. I'd also question the use of The Hill. Guy, where did you come up with "less than steller reputation"? There was no-consensus in that discussion - it was split. The Hill was not even questioned, except by you. I don't know where you came up with your opinion about TWE, but we need to know.
fn-4 -- Washington Examiner op-eds - all op-eds in all news sources need attribution
fn-3 -- a BLP - Erick Erickson and The Washington Examiner
fn-2 -- Washington Examiner - clear consensus as reliable
fn-1 -- commentary - - no consensus

That is 4 3 out of 8 discussions that were opinion/commentary. Newslinger's edit summary is incorrect. Perhaps he misunderstood that commentary and opinion are one in the same. Guy, it's time to stop downgrading sources just because they are conservative or right leaning or whatever you want to call it, without providing factual evidence to back-up the claims of unreliable. I agree that there are unreliable sources but they are pretty much the same on all ends of the political spectrum, and editors will be inclined to denigrate those which do not align with their POV. With all due respect to you, my WikiFriend, our personal opinions about a source don't matter - consensus does. And what I'm disputing here is the fact that there was no formal consensus, so please, do not say that I disagree with consensus when there is no formal RfC or community-wide consensus. Local consensus is fine for specific material in a specific source, but we cannot/should not denigrate entire sources based on local consensus, especially when there is minimal participation in the discussion. My reason for bringing it up here? We cannot determine if WE is an acceptable source per WP:RS if it has been misrepresented, which I have demonstrated above, so we need to fix that, or call a new RfC before we discount the source. I'm of the mind that an error was made when the qualifier opinions in was removed. Apologies for the long explanation, but there was no other way I could think of to present it. I was going to hat it to save space but leave open for those editors who want to read the contents and contribute to the discussion. I decided against it. Atsme 💬 📧 01:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The third discussion refers to "Erick Erickson says at least one source in the Washington Post story is pro-Trump", which is a news article, not an opinion piece. Among the eight discussions, five concern news articles and three concern opinion pieces. Any editor is welcome to start a new discussion or RfC about the Washington Examiner (RSP entry) on the reliable sources noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 02:07, 30 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)

Hi, User:IHateAccounts. I am sorry you perceive my contribution to cause you harm. Please help me understand what it is not clear and I will endeavour to rephrase it. I was attempting at making a rational argument and corroborate my points. I am obliged to invite you to be more explicit about your disagreement, so that I can deal with it systematically. Moreover, since you are a fairly new User (joined 4 days ago), let me illustrate how it works: you may reply to this post with further details. All the best, I am sure we can join forces together in this long road towards truth and knowledge.MarcelloPapirio (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@MarcelloPapirio: your text appears as a large square block, literally a Wikipedia:Wall of text. It's unreadable. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts I am sorry for that, but my editing capabilities on mobile phone are limited. I tried to give it a "bullet points" style to make it more affordable to read. However, you must understand that, although some WoTs are frowned upon, when you start a discussion you need some decent beef. Back in the days, I remember making a proposal and then regretting not having explained all points when it came to voting. So I tried to build my case with strong evidence. Since deletion and merging require strong evidence. So, although I regret my WoT made you uncomfortable, it was written bona fide and not with a disruptive goal. I will thus stand my ground and possibly edit the bullet points or numbered list as soon as I get hold of a better device. You must understand not all of us have access to PCs all times, owing to location and availability of resources. MarcelloPapirio (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@MarcelloPapirio: Then I will politely suggest that you hold such long comments until such time as you can enter them in on a computer and format them in ways that are readable, please. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm somewhat in agreement. I don't think it's a bad idea to simply have this as an addendum (and change the wording alleged if allegations MUST be there, because there IS NO DEBUNKING, saying such is WP:PEACOCK) to Joe Biden's page. Quite frankly according to WP:BLPCRIME, there shouldn't even be any mentions of any allegations, and if there is, because there are no verdicts, it should not be listed as "debunked." Quite frankly the only reason the man is making headlines is for his alleged scandals and crimes, so him being notable is only in relation to Joe Biden and how he has allegedly been involved in corruption which has not been verified true (so Wikipedia cannot say it is true) nor false (so Wikipedia cannot say it is false/debunked).WePFew (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@WePFew: factually speaking, large portions of the allegations have in fact been proven false and debunked. Part of the problem with a conspiracy theory is that its adherents just rewrite it whenever it is disproven. "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." That has, since these are a result of right-wing media in the USA desperately trying to come up with something that will "stick" long enough to affect the USA's election, required repeated attention from fact-checkers, news organizations, and editors here to handle the mess. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with OP about a few things, however Hunter has kind of progressed beyond 1E. His initial firing / drug scandal was the 1E event and he really should haven't ever had an article, and I suspect wouldn't have if he wasn't Joe's son. However since then he has become the focus of a prolonged series of conspiracy theories, allegations etc, and has himself done media appearances. This kind of shunts it past 1E quite a fair bit.

Today, Hunter is directly referenced in more than one event. First drug issue, then Burisma conspiracy theory, then the impeachment in Congress, then his own appearances, then Giuliani's dirt digging, then being the subject of negotiations for the impeachment trial in the senate, and now as the subject of possible hack and smear campaign just prior to an election meaning he is intrinsic to the 2020 campaigns of both Biden and Trump. It all stems largely from 1 idea, but it is now multiple prongs of prolonged media coverage. Koncorde (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Some sources may "debunk" the theory but that would not automatically require us refer to it as a "debunked" theory. It is being looked into as we write this article. We should properly refer to it as an "allegation", not a "debunked" theory. Bus stop (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you tell us what the new conspiracy theory is? Koncorde (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Bus stop and User:Koncorde: I deeply appreciate your response (I am still on mobile), but please be advised my proposal is for a whole deletion (or merging), not a wholehearted discussion of whether the conspiracy is real or not. Consider the following: if it is all debunked, it means Hunter has become famous for just 1E. And said 1E is, allow me, menial... It would mean we create a lengthy page for each person who is notable because of a relative and is, incidentally, a drug user. This could have been mentioned as a single sentence in Biden's page. Now, if the conspiracy is true, or at least arguable... Then you fall into the realm of "recentism". TL;DR: either conspiracy is false and he is not notable because of that single scandal, or the conspiracy is arguable... But then the page is about current events and should have a huge huge disclaimer on it.MarcelloPapirio (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your argument, MarcelloPapirio, backed up with policy points and I would agree with you that Hunter Biden has only become notable, as more than the former Vice President's son, since the development of the 2020 presidential campaigns. You could propose it for deletion at Articles for Deletion but I think there'd be a strong vote to Keep it due to the Ukrainian conspiracy theory becoming a news story in its own right. If you were going to propose it to AfD, I'd do so after the election, when this discussion might not be so polarizing.

IHateAccounts, please do not try to shut down other editor's contributions because they aren't in a format you find visually pleasing. Such intolerance is striking for such a new account. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Liz: I wasn't trying to "shut down" their comment, I was hoping they would reformat it into something readable! Walls of text are especially jarring for people who have to deal with mild visual problems and dyslexic episodes. And sprinkling random bolded numbers into the lines makes it WORSE because it keeps pulling my eye off track! IHateAccounts (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

IHateAccounts—you say "your text appears as a large square block" and the text "keeps pulling my eye off track" and you refer to "mild visual problems and dyslexic episodes" and you ask MarcelloPapirio to "reformat it into something readable". A stopgap measure might be to cut and paste the post into a separate window on your computer such as a word processing document and then rearrange the text so that a new line is started for each bulleted and numbered point. And of course you can enlarge and bold the text too. Bus stop (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: I also have a tough time reading large blocks of text on Wikipedia sometimes, especially when using a wide screen. I wrote some CSS and JS to make things a lot easier for me, and you're free to try it out if you think it might help. Basically you just click a link in the top right hand corner (or use the hotkey Ctrl-Y) and it makes the text larger, changes to a serif font, limits the max width of the text on the page, etc. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment—MarcelloPapirio—I just wanted to bring to your attention WP:INHERITED in relation to "2. Being related to a notable person, doesn't make you automatically notable". Bus stop (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
• While I understand the NOTINHERITED and BLP1E arguments that could be made for deletion, the level of coverage we have seen of Hunter Biden should be enough to establish his notability. I am fairly certain an AfD would result in "keep". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. Unfortunately, I believe it too. It would result in KEEP. I think we do really agree about the outcome.

However, as I have seen before on Wikipedia, the keep can be mostly the result of the emotional attitudes of users towards the current events, with little to no bearings in a 10-years time. Look at the history of this page:

- in 2008 it was just a stub, with no actual reasons to exist.

- later on, it became a page in its own right but just related to the drug scandal. I mean... A guy gets kicked out of the army for drug use... And gets a page?

- Finally, the already-existing page got hyped by being popularized on /pol/ and other platforms by MAGA or anti-MAGA users.

And this is how pages are born. Out of Tabloid-like interest. Encyclopedia-worthy... I doubt. Although I concede some maximalist users on Wikipedia are from the "keep-it-all" school and "never-delete".

Anyway, this whole stuff becomes utterly redundant since we have a heavy and burdensome page on the Biden 2020 Campaign, which doesn't even have the "recent" template on top of it.

So yeah, people would keep it, but because of their love of gossip. Not because it is worthy of being in an encyclopedia. You can summarise it all with a couple of sentences. MarcelloPapirio (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Photo

@Muboshgu: Can we perhaps find a better photo to use? That one seems strange, like it was clipped out of a frame of video. It has his eyes in an odd expression and I'm sure something better and more neutral could be found. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

If you can find a photo in the public domain that is better than what we have, great. It's not a great photo, but it could be far, far worse. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Not a lot out there. This looked briefly promising, but it's CC BY-NC-SA, which is not a usable license. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

It's true. Good photos of Hunter are hard to come by. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Michael-Ridgway, it's almost as if he's not a public figure. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Guy, that's a good point, and if he's not a public figure, BLP is much more strict with mention and sourcing of negative content. -- Valjean (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What he means is, photos with a license that Wikipedia can use. The image was pulled from this Youtube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dzWdtHhAvQ and there are plenty of better shots that could be used. Of course it's a crappy 360p video with a ton of artifacts, but Youtube has frame-by-frame so it should be do-able. If someone will help me get the information boxes right I'll even work on it. @GorillaWarfare: or @JzG: can you help with this maybe? IHateAccounts (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: Happy to help if you need it. You should hopefully be able to just duplicate what's being used for the existing photo, but give a shout if you run into any issues. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare:, @Muboshgu:, I have uploaded this. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:R._Hunter_Biden_at_Center_for_Strategic_%26_International_Studies_(Speaking).png I am hoping it is better, can you review it please? IHateAccounts (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I've swapped out the license template and added some categories. Should be all set now. As for the actual photo, I'm not sure it's an improvement on the current one–it's a good bit dimmer (fixable) but it's also clipped from a point where he's mid-speech. I've embedded both in a gallery below for other commenters to review more easily. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I know he's mid-speech, but at least he doesn't look like he's having a staring contest with the camera? Also I've tried to brighten it a bit using paint.net but someone with more skill maybe could do better. Looking at the video it looks like whoever uploaded the first one brightened it too. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• 
  Current photo used in article
• 
  IHateAccounts' suggested photo

"National Railroad Passenger Corporation"

Out of curiosity, why does the infobox use the obscure name "National Railroad Passenger Corporation" rather than the common name "Amtrak"? feminist (talk) | free Thailand 09:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Feminist, probably because that's the legal name. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Other articles on Amtrak executives, including Richard H. Anderson (businessman), Charles Moorman and Joseph H. Boardman, do not use the full legal name for Amtrak. If this is the only reason for using the obscure term, it should be changed. feminist (talk) | free Thailand 11:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

June 15

19 years, 11 months and 11 days

Regarding the International Business Times does anyone know if IBtimes.sg is actually them (or an imitator) and if Parwinder Sandhu actually writes for the company?

I'm not going to post the story until verifying that but I can't be the only one curious about if this is misinfo or not. WakandaQT (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

That would be a good question for WP:RSN Atsme 💬 📧 16:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

IBT is Generally Unreliable, I am going to stretch to say so are all affiliates. Koncorde (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Koncorde, especially for this. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

According to https://www.ibtimes.com/corporate/about, ibtimes.sg is for the "Singapore Edition" page, it's part of IBTimes and should fall under what Koncorde pointed out. Generally Unreliable. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Tony Bobulinski

The section debunking Tony Bobulinski is a bit dated and needs a bit of a touch up. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Michael-Ridgway, or removal, as being a rather obvious grievance-based hatchet job. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Michael-Ridgway, you are returning from a block related to this subject, so you should be very careful. If your "touch up" is based on unreliable sources, then you're in violation and could get blocked for a much longer time, and likely also get a topic ban from AP2 and BLP. (Notice the notices and warnings you got on your talk page.) -- Valjean (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

BHR details

Reference 15, the "about us" page for BHR Partners, is a dead link, and neither the Wayback Machine copy of it nor the New Yorker article that's reference 16 seem to mention Thornton Group LLC. Reference 18 gives a 404 as well. Anyone feel like tidying up the dull corporate stuff? XOR'easter (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, XOR'easter. We can remove both these dead-link references. Thornton Group LLC is referenced by the Financial Times article. It's behind a paywall but there are free mirrors online.--Pakbelang (talk) 01:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Martin Aspen

XOR'easter added the following:

Also during October 2020, a fake "intelligence" document went viral on right-wing Internet sites. The document, which claimed that Hunter Biden had connections with China's Communist Party, was supposedly written by a Swiss security analyst named "Martin Aspen", but Aspen does not exist, and his online profile picture was created by artificial intelligence software. The fabricated report was shared by WorldNetDaily and ZeroHedge as well as Newt Gingrich and QAnon influencers.

Is this WP:UNDUE? It doesn't seem to have broken out of the right-wing fever swamp. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the NBC story on the fever swamp activities is enough to merit a few sentences. I had considered adding them to Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory instead, since due weight might be easier to establish there, but the Talk consensus over there was leaning weakly against including material not specifically about Ukraine. I myself tend to think that explaining some of the adjacent conspiracy theories might provide good context, but I don't believe I persuaded anyone of that. XOR'easter (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Needs condensing. Way too much info for a misinformation doc of unknown provenance. Koncorde (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd be fine with condensing. XOR'easter (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Just to clarify, are the discretionary sanctions on this page 1RR or "consensus required?" because you seem to be enforcing a "consensus required" in going over the 1RR. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: Both. See the template at the top of this talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: OK, thanks. On this material, I think that NBC satisfies WP:DUE for basic inclusion. My 2c. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Guy, it is exposing that fever swamp, hence its importance. Using RS to debunk nonsense is one of the often incidental functions of Wikipedia. This content is due.

XOR'easter did a very good job. I would add this quote: NBC News stated that "The fake intelligence document" laid "the groundwork among right-wing media for what would become a failed October surprise: a viral pile-on of conspiracy theories about Hunter Biden." -- Valjean (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Valjean, not opposed, but this is Toxic Mess Central so we need to be robust and confident about everything that goes in. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Guy, hence the attribution. That's what we are supposed to do with commentary and opinion. NBC News is an impeccable source, and this happens to sum up what's happening and what's described by RS very nicely, so it's a service to our readers. The wide coverage by unreliable sources is very well-known, and our job is not to use them, but to use the RS which describe the smear they have performed in the service of Trump and Russia. -- Valjean (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Is Hunter Biden under investigation for money laundering or not?--Tataryn (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

References

James Rosen of Sinclair Broadcasting reports

Hunter Biden and associates under investigation for money laundering since 2019.

Why to be skeptical, from Sinclair Broadcast Group:

Sinclair's stations have been known for featuring news content and programming that promote conservative political positions, and have been involved in various controversies surrounding politically-motivated programming decisions, such as news coverage and specials during the lead-ups to elections that were in support of the Republican Party

Oh, and an anonymous source, of course. soibangla (talk) 01:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald resignation from The Intercept over treatment of New York Post dossier by the media

Hi folks,

I think this is relevant to the debate about whether all claims of corruption or collusion with respect to the Biden family's activities in Ukraine are "debunked conspiracy theories". Greenwald is a respected investigative journalist and has resigned from the Intercept over the attempt of staff to censor this article.

I still think the vocabulary in the lede is NPOV, as many others seem to think. I don't think the opposite view has consensus at all. "Allegations" would be more neutral. Some of these allegations may be debunked, but not others. MonsieurD (talk) 13:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks very reliable, wow. Glucken123 (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

MonsieurD, s/censor/not print/ - because it was bullshit. See their response. Which is of course in line with every other mainstream RS, none of whom consider this "October surprise" to be credible. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

MonsieurD, Greenwald used to be a "respected investigative journalist", but in the last couple years he has deserted that position in favor of fever dreams about Trump's conspiracy theory that he is the victim of a "Russia hoax". This last firing for his extremely shoddy betrayal of all journalistic ethics should put a nail in the coffin of his previous reputation. The Greenwald we see today bears no resemblance to the man we once knew, and we can't trust his word or his work anymore, so he can't be a source anywhere but in his own biography, and then not in a self-serving manner, IOW, any of his statements about this must be balanced by the RS debunking of them. That's how we treat unreliable sources here. They do not get the last word in their own biography, and they often don't get any word elsewhere. Greenwald's due weight has been reduced to a negative number. Sad. -- Valjean (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@MonsieurD: See also: Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory#Glenn Greenwald Article on Hunter-Biden Emails. As I said there, A self-published post of an article that a reliable source refused to publish is not a reliable source.... If you want to use the article itself as a RS, we cannot—in fact, The Intercept has explicitly said that Greenwald balked after being "asked to support his claims and innuendo about corrupt actions by Joe Biden with evidence". GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I think this is clearly a case that justifies WP:IAR. It is quite disconcerting to read the responses that are discounting or discrediting, not just a Pulitzer winner, but the journalist who founded The intercept. Why are editors approaching this important event in such a non-neutral manner, and actually taking sides? Is it WP:POV creep? I don't see any justification to target, polarize and discredit two notable award-winning journalists; in fact, it's a BLP vio, and one that can be easily argued because there is credibility all the way around, including the rebuttal by The Intercept, the events published by Matt Taibbi about Glenn Greenwald. What Taibbi presented to the public is highly credible, and it's corroborated material, not some discredited grudge post on social media. I'm of the mind that this deserves our attention from a NPOV. Atsme 💬 📧 17:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Greenwald appears to be discrediting himself. Editorial oversight is not "censorship". What has Taibbi presented that is "credible" and "corroborated"? That's not snark, I haven't read his Substack or seen any news coverage of Taibbi's coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)