Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10: 30 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.

The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Q: Why is this presented as a conspiracy theory when the New York Post and others say it is true?

A: The factual reliability of the New York Post has been discussed multiple times by editors, and there is a consensus that it is not a reliable source. The core components of the conspiracy theory have been known to be false since 2016.

Q: Didn't Joe Biden withhold US aid to get Ukrainian President Poroshenko to fire the Prosecutor General?

A: Viktor Shokin was widely regarded as corrupt. There were demands for his removal from within Ukraine as early as June 2015, before any international involvement. The US policy seeking his removal was bipartisan, and the US was joined by the European Union, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Shokin was removed after an overwhelming vote of the Ukrainian Parliament in March 2016. Extensive investigations showed no evidence of undue influence.

Q: But wasn't Shokin investigating Burisma?

A: No, the entire problem was that he was not investigating Burisma, or multiple other companies. The investigation of Burisma was on hold, and there is evidence that Shokin was pursuing investigations only when the companies refused to pay bribes.

Q: What about Hunter Biden's laptop?

A: The authenticity of the laptop has not been verified. The provenance of the laptop, its contents, and the circumstances of how the laptop came to public scrutiny is questionable. Repair shop owner Mac Isaac, a Trump supporter who passed the laptop to Giuliani and the FBI, was not able to identify Hunter Biden as the person who gave him the laptop. Mac Isaac’s accounts concerning the laptop have been inconsistent and sometimes contradictory. Hunter Biden is unsure whether the laptop is his, but said there could have been a laptop stolen from him, or that it could be that a laptop of his was hacked. No information purported to come from the laptop has implicated Joe Biden in any misconduct. The FBI acquired the devices via a grand jury subpoena in December of 2019, though it was unclear if the seizure related to an investigation of Hunter Biden. The law enforcement assumption is that the laptop is Biden's.

Q: Wasn't Hunter Biden unqualified for the Burisma job?

A: Hunter Biden had experience as a corporate lawyer, as executive vice president of a bank, and in government. He was hired to advise on corporate governance, although he did not have experience with Ukrainian regulatory affairs. It is not a stretch to assume he was hired in part due to his name, but this does not mean nepotism was involved – he was not hired by a family member.

Q: Didn't Hunter Biden have drug and alcohol problems?

A: This is well known and openly acknowledged - Joe Biden even discussed it in the first Presidential debate.

Q: Aren't you representing mainstream media as the truth, when conservative media says a different thing?

A: Editors measure the reliability of sources against a standard set of guidelines, including news organisations. A source's political orientation, liberal or conservative, is not a factor. Editors then aim to give due weight to sources that are known to be reliable, while avoiding giving undue weight to sources that are known to be less reliable (for more information, see WP:WEIGHT). Our policies do not state that extraordinary claims and fringe theories, such as the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, need to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity (see WP:VALID).

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

On 14 September 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Joe Biden–Viktor Shokin–Burisma conspiracy theory. The result of the discussion was not moved.

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

Ukraine Low‑importance

	Ukraine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative views Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Presidents / Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

International relations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Before requesting any edits to this protected article, please familiarise yourself with reliable sourcing requirements.

Before posting an edit request on this talk page, please read the reliable sourcing and original research policies. These policies require that information in Wikipedia articles be supported by citations from reliable independent sources, and disallow your personal views, observations, interpretations, analyses, or anecdotes from being used.

Only content verified by subject experts and other reliable sources may be included, and uncited material may be removed without notice. If your complaint is about an assertion made in the article, check first to see if your proposed change is supported by reliable sources. If it is not, it is highly unlikely that your request will be granted. Checking the archives for previous discussions may provide more information. Requests which do not provide citations from reliable sources, or rely on unreliable sources, may be subject to closure without any other response.

Clear bias in language

Several portions of this article have very clear bias in word usage, it’s clear this is not neutral and clearly propaganda.

example: John Solomon portion is only consists of cheap attacks that fit the narrative to dismiss his work. Why did the people working in this page fail to include his work that provides evidence that Ukraine indeed was facing extortion from Biden, in relation to his son, and falsely attributed this to Shokin being corrupt. Actual documents and fact prove Solomon’s reporting accurate I will be adding this to the article if no credible objections

source: https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/eu-memo-directly-undercuts-joe-bidens-narrative-about HammerofFacts (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's your problem: you believe John Solomon. He lied to all of us, but you still believe him.[1] – Muboshgu (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reality has a well-known liberal bias. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meeting an accusation of bias with an admission of it - even if flippant - is not appropriate. MWFwiki (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11 year pardon

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c99x07ny8lro

I think it's worth highlighting that the pardon provided was for 11 years when it's covered by mainstream sources as well as a point of debate. 87.212.120.73 (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There’s literally video of Joe saying it

https://youtube.com/X3A4qPMS8R4?si=r8J7odow1trLhdpr

the first sentence of the article is false, he literally admits to the exact accusation on video using almost the same words as the article’s first sentence

Article should be changed to reflect this 2601:644:4881:BEB0:FD33:2574:6F37:9458 (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have misinterpreted that video without the proper context. See the FAQ at the top of this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those FAQs show clear editorial bias, both in the framing of the questions and the construction of the answers. Look at the second FAQ, which supposedly addresses the commenter's question:

1. **Framing of the Question:**

The questions are written in a way that inherently conveys skepticism toward the premise. For example, instead of neutrally asking, *"Did Joe Biden withhold US aid to get Ukrainian President Poroshenko to fire the Prosecutor General?"*, the editors use the negatively framed *"Didn't Joe Biden withhold..."*. This rhetorical structure dismisses the question before engaging with it, creating an impression of bias.

2. **Failure to Answer Directly:**

The yes-or-no question is not answered in a yes-or-no manner. A direct and factual response would begin with, *"Yes, Joe Biden did withhold US aid..."*. Instead, the answer redirects attention elsewhere, potentially obscuring the central point.

3. **Misrepresentation of Shokin’s Reputation:**

Instead of answering the FAQ, it launches into the claim that Viktor Shokin was "widely regarded as corrupt". This narrative only emerged *after* the controversy surfaced, with anonymous actors within the Obama/Biden administration accusing Shokin of corruption. Were one to look at actual contemporaneous evidence, they'd see a very different picture. For instance, the **2015 European Commission Report** evaluated Ukraine's progress on anti-corruption reforms, specifically citing that the "anti-corruption benchmark is deemed to have been achieved" during Shokin's tenure. Here is the full report for reference: https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2023-09/EU-SixthReportUkraineVisaLiberalization.pdf

Fx6893 (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You used AI to write that.

Justthenews.com is John Solomon (political commentator), who's work on this has been discredited.[2] I'm not further rehashing what we have rehashed here for years. It's in the archives. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and one of Solomon's key sources just pled guilty to lying about it. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead and the section on Smirnov need to be updated.

Currently the lead, referring to the allegations of Alexander Smirnov, includes this passage: "A confidential informant told the FBI that Burisma's owner said he was coerced to pay bribes to both Bidens to ensure Shokin was fired, though the informant was indicted in 2024 on charges he had fabricated the account."

That informant, Smirnov, has now (Dec. 2024) pleaded guilty. The lead and the "Bribery allegation" section should be updated accordingly. Here's one relevant link:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgnl7qdvjno

I also think the lead should include the note about Smirnov getting his false information from Russian intelligence officials (which is mentioned in the "Bribery allegation" section). That seems like a very important point. NME Frigate (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this page needs to be updated with Smirov's plea. If someone doesn't get to it before I do, I'll add it. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, here's the AP News report about the guilty plea:

https://apnews.com/article/alexander-smirnov-guilty-plea-biden-informant-fbi-62a3b7acce0345303f812ca6d0206b10

which is also archived here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20241219205823/https://apnews.com/article/alexander-smirnov-guilty-plea-biden-informant-fbi-62a3b7acce0345303f812ca6d0206b10 70.95.164.137 (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fake News from Wikipedia

WP:FORUM TarnishedPath^talk 03:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Even with video of POTUS Biden bragging about his bribery. He shows he is above the law. Further illustrated by cleansing his son's last 11 years of any laws broken or that would have been found to be broken. I hope this can be challenged in court.

This must be corrected: "The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of false allegations that Joe Biden, while he was vice president of the United States, improperly withheld a loan guarantee and took a bribe to pressure Ukraine into firing prosecutor general Viktor Shokin to prevent a corruption investigation of Ukrainian gas company Burisma and to protect his son, Hunter Biden, who was on the Burisma board.

Video link (CSPAN): https://www.c-span.org/clip/campaign-2018/user-clip-biden-tells-story-of-getting-the-ukraine-prosecutor-fired/4820105 152.130.15.108 (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of this very article explains why what you've written here is a misreading of what Joe Biden said. For example, right in the second paragraph of this article, there's this:

"Joe Biden followed State Department intentions when he withheld the loan guarantee to pressure Ukraine into removing the prosecutor who was seen as corrupt and failing to clean up Ukrainian corruption, in accordance with the official and bipartisan policy of the United States, the European Union, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. A confidential informant told the FBI that Burisma's owner said he was coerced to pay bribes to both Bidens to ensure Shokin was fired, though the informant was indicted in 2024 on charges he had fabricated the account."

(And as noted above, that confidential informant, Alexander Smirnov, has now pleaded guilty.) NME Frigate (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article's premise has been changed multiple times by the editors in an shell game to obscure the Bidens' corruption. This article, as originally written, clearly stated: "The conspiracy theory asserts that Hunter Biden was paid a large sum of money by a Ukrainian firm, Burisma Holdings, to take a job for which he was unqualified, as a means for Burisma to influence then-vice president Joe Biden, who then extorted Ukraine for $1 billion to fire a prosecutor so as to prevent Hunter Biden from being investigated for corruption."[3] All of this has since been shown to be true.

However, the editors don't like it when their pet "conspiracy theory" turns out to be factual, so they've gone back multiple times to alter the definition of the theory to something that they feel they *can* disprove, such as claiming it involves bribes from the Ukrainians directly to Joe Biden - which were never suggested in the original. It's revisionist propaganda, like erasing political enemies from historical photographs. And sadly, that's what Wikipedia has been reduced to, and I wish we were better than that. Fx6893 (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing of what you wrote is true, except that a previous edit from four years ago says what you say it says. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seems there was and is wrong doing according to report

https://www.congress.gov/event/118th-congress/house-event/115597/text 2603:3015:1CE9:100:846E:B618:7FF4:5F59 (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The provided link opens a transcript of a hearing and not a report. A transcript is a WP:PRIMARY source subject to the Wikipedia policies outlined in the link. Legislative hearings typically involve unfiltered partisan accusations that may not be firmly grounded in fact, so it is typically more encyclopedic to use a quality WP:SECONDARY source that analyzes the hearing. Carguychris (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]