Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

WaPo fact-checker gets very specific

This is a great source we can use. From Kessler's newsletter:

In an exclusive report, The Fact Checker shows that Biden decided while flying to Kyiv in early December 2015 to use the loan guarantee as leverage to make sure Ukraine’s president at the time, Petro Poroshenko, followed through with the request of the United States that Shokin be fired.

You can read our full report by clicking this link:

Inside VP Biden's linking of a loan to a Ukraine prosecutor's ouster^[1]

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

The reporter indirectly mentions the European Council's 2015 report^[2], which examined the Prosecutor General's [Shokin] anti-corruption overhaul and determined that "the anti-corruption benchmark is deemed to have been achieved." Yet the reporter is determined to persuade his readers that the Europeans instead wanted Shokin fired for incompetence and/or corruption, because, if true, that would exonerate Biden from charges that he extorted Ukraine to fire Shokin to protect the Biden family's interests. So the reporter effortlessly dismisses the 2015 report by stating, "But those documents represent a minority view at the time on Shokin, officials said." It is an indicator of the reader's credulity whether they believe the actual contemporaneous reports by world bodies, or the recent revisionist statements of anonymous Biden officials as recalled by this reporter.

This is the same reporter who previously asserted there was no evidence supporting the Hunter Biden laptop emails leading up to the 2020 election, and who, during the 2016 campaign, promoted the Democrat-funded Trump-Russia narrative, accusing Trump of lying about his connections to Russia (four Pinocchios!). This reporter is a serial disseminator of election disinformation. And by putting it in the Wikipedia article, we perpetuate that. Fx6893 (talk) 06:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Kessler isn't a "reporter" in the normal sense, but WaPo's chief fact-checker, so a top RS here. The laptop's provenance has always been problematic and fact-checkers have revised their reporting as new information came to light. That's proper. Just to be clear here, the Trump-Russia narrative turned out to be true because Trump and his campaign did cooperate/collude with the Russian interference in myriad ways. They also knew about it before anyone else and lied about it. It was only "conspiracy" that remains unproven, although there is also evidence for that allegation. Trump did lie about his Russian connections, and denials of these facts are the false conspiracy theory being perpetuated by the GOP and Trump, so don't fall into their trap -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

In March 2016 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, former ambassador to Ukraine John E. Herbst stated, "By late fall of 2015, the EU and the United States joined the chorus of those seeking Mr. Shokin's removal" and that Joe Biden "spoke publicly about this before and during his December visit to Kyiv". During the same hearing, assistant secretary of state Victoria Nuland stated, "we have pegged our next $1 billion loan guarantee, first and foremost, to having a rebooting of the reform coalition so that we know who we are working with, but secondarily, to ensuring that the prosecutor general's office gets cleaned up."[1] Do you have Kessler's previous reporting cited in your second paragraph? soibangla (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Ping User:Soibangla and User:Darknipples. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Soibangla, don't forget this. It's a very valuable and informative source well-deserving of extensive coverage. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Does this contradict anything currently in the article that needs to be changed, or do you think it should be added or used to replace certain RS? Cheers. DN (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

It strengthens the evidence that Joe Biden didn't do anything wrong, and it does it with lots of new details we should include. It is thorough fact-checking research. We should create a whole section on the topic: "Firing of Viktor Shokin". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:27, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

References

^ Kessler, Glenn (September 15, 2023). "Analysis: Inside VP Biden's linking of a loan to a Ukraine prosecutor's ouster". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 15, 2023.
^ https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2023-09/EU-SixthReportUkraineVisaLiberalization.pdf

Title now needs to be changed to the Biden–Ukraine allegations

Impeachment Enquiry has begun. Reaper7 (talk) 09:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Unlike an impeachment where specific charges are made, the impeachment inquiry is a very broad attempt to find something with which to impeach Joe Biden. This article is about a specific conspiracy theory based on a false allegation. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, is this considered a reliable source? Seems so to me. https://oversight.house.gov/blog/evidence-of-joe-bidens-involvement-in-his-familys-influence-peddling-schemes/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.201.113.122 (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

no it most certainly is not soibangla (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

It's just politicians on both sides giving speeches. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Looks to me like a one-sided, partisan report with no effort made to reduce bias. Specific, documented quotes from subjects involved could be used with attribution, but any analysis or conclusions would appear to be politically motivated. Fx6893 (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Republicans control the committee, the document is 100% theirs. soibangla (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

To establish due weight to justify usage here (otherwise it's OR), we need secondary sources that quote from it and provide their framing and commentary. We would use them as the sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

So? That's absolutely no reason to change the title. TarnishedPath^talk 01:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

You mean "inquiry"...Cheers. DN (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 14 September 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Per consensus, common name applies. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 10:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory → Joe Biden–Viktor Shokin–Burisma conspiracy theory – "Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory" seems imprecise and unnatural at this point. It might be better to title this article to be about the single, discrete allegation that this is about. The title is easily confused with other allegations of conspiracy involving a Biden and (some entity in) Ukraine, and a name change is needed to attain a natural, disambiguating title. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Weak support. I agree that it works better and minimizes confusion. However, I think the "Viktor Shokin" part is not really needed. (I changed to weak support, just because I do think it would confuse a lot of people). Professor Penguino (talk) 04:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Please define "the single, discrete allegation that this is about" in your proposal. (For reference, the article originally clearly defined it as: "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."[2]) Fx6893 (talk) 05:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- Stop harping about the original wording. We are discussing the current wording. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Additionally this would just encourage forking about what is essentially the same deranged conspiracy and further debates about how it's not a conspiracy but ~~accusations~~ allegations. Hard pass. TarnishedPath^talk 06:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Some things start as conspiracy theories, but then... Magnolia677 (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. "Biden–Ukraine corruption allegations" would be more accurate. As for "conspiracy theory", we're not talking about aliens at Area 51, or the earth being flat. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Furthermore efforts to define the false allegations as revolving around Shokin is the conspiracy. Jgmac1106 (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. If we wanted to make it more precise, we would name it: Goofy Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Few readers would recognize or search for that proposed article name. WP:COMMONNAME applies. And then we'd need the Biden-Giuliani-theory, the Biden-Taylor theory, the Biden-Jim Jordan theory, the Hunter-and-Joe-Biden-phonecall-Bill Barr theory pages, etc. SPECIFICO talk 14:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Weak Support. There are many, many, ahem 'theories' regarding Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Burisma, and Ukraine. This one specifically focuses on the pressuring of Ukraine to fire Viktor Shokin (did happen, for non corrupt reasons, both parties wanted him fired). So I think Shokins name needs to be in the title somewhere, although I'm not exactly sure where. MarkiPoli (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose The newly suggested title may be a bit more precise, but it is impractical and not the COMMONNAME as others here have pointed out. Opinions by editors that fail to read past the title and get confused have only themselves to blame, IMO. Cheers. DN (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Clunky and unnecessary. Zaathras (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Support per nom, at least to another title, this isn't what I would call a conspiracy.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Strong oppose per others, COMMONNAME. Andre🚐 01:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. Too complicated. I do think the current title could do with some form of delimitation to define the scope better, but this suggestion goes too far. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
That's fair. In hindsight, it may have been better to have this structured as an open-ended discussion, rather than having a specific title. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Something like Biden–Burisma conspiracy theory might have been what you're looking for? Who knows that probably fails WP:COMMONNAME. TarnishedPath^talk 00:18, 18 September 2023 (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.

Biden “Family”

There are repeated posts here using the inclusive term “Biden Family”. I think 15 times. This is also the term used constantly by right-wing media and some extremist politicians. The use of the term by some sources is to suggest that anything related to Hunter Biden somehow involves and taints Joe Biden in criminal activity with no apparent need for evidence. It can also affect others collaterally. It also suggests comparison to Mafia families, and extremists have used the term “Biden crime family”. Hunter Biden is a flawed person in some ways, as he and his father admit. Drawing his family into this is…. Like the many attempts at starting articles about his four-year old daughter or including her name in other articles. All of this falls under W:BLP, one of the most important policies in Wikipedia. I think we need to be more careful with what can amount to defamatory language in a BLP -- or even subjecting them to physical harm. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I used the term "Biden family" above, and for me, it is simply a shorter version of "Joe Biden's family" or "members of the Biden family". As I understand your comment, you possibly infer right-wing, extremist, Mafia-related, defamatory, and/or harm-inducing purpose from it's use. For whatever it's worth, that is not my intent; I am here in good faith. Fx6893 (talk) 01:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

did payments of $6.5 million from Burisma go to anyone in the Biden family other than Hunter? there are some/many who slyly use "the Biden family" to suggest Joe was included when it's really just Hunter and his business associates soibangla (talk) 01:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no evidence that President Biden has done anything illegal or gained any money related to this article. If it was your intent to suggest this, it is a serious BLP violation. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of your intent, Fx6893, everything in O3000's post disqualifies the language you used to frame your concern. Among other things, your reference to payments to the Biden family validates the conspiracy theories and false claims that there is evidence of such payments to Joe Biden, whereas what's documented is that Burisma compensated Hunter. This all should be clear to editors who volunteer to work on this page. SPECIFICO talk 14:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

"Hunter Biden is a flawed person in some ways" Him and every other example of Homo sapiens on record. So what? Perfection is both unattainable, and based on subjective standards. Wikipedia is not supposed to write hagiographies, or libels and polemics. Dimadick (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The term is used by The Atlantic, ABC News, Associated Press, etc. as a shorter way to say "Joe Biden's family". It's used in this context because the allegation in this context is straightforwardly about the relationship between Joe Biden's actions in Ukraine and Hunter Biden himself. The use of "X family" is an extremely common way to refer to families; think of the Jackson family, the Rockefeller family, the Beecher family, Musk family, etc.. I think that things like "Biden crime family" would be extremely prejudicial and inappropriate, but merely using a common English term (i.e. "Biden Family") to refer to the thing that the common English term means (i.e. "The family of Joe Biden") doesn't seem to be an inherently mafia-allusion thingy. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

RS do not use the term the same way Comer et al. do to suggest anything Hunter did also involved Joe. soibangla (talk) 01:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Correct, because they aren't saying that the allegations are substantiated. They are, however, using "Biden family" as a shorthand for the family of Joe Biden. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the Family of Donald Trump is the closest proximal comparison, IMO. DN (talk) 01:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Hawk, except on this talk page and on non-RS websites, I have never seen Hunter's income described as "payments to the Biden family". SPECIFICO talk 02:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

In their own voice, sure, because they aren't saying that this was corrupt. I would likewise not describe Hunter's earned income as payments to the Biden family. It's used, however, when referring to whom the GOP are directing specific allegations at (NPR, BBC, The Hill). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

So if there is consensus for such a change it should be attributed to allegations by the GOP? DN (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Scope

We need to shut down the constant attempts to change the scope of this article. There are other articles which cover other aspects related to the Biden family and allegations of corruption. I have accordingly tried to make this information prominent at the top. Some other format or template(s) might do it better, but I don't know how. Here is the current wording:

This article is only about the false allegation that the firing of Viktor Shokin was an attempt by Joe Biden to protect Hunter Biden.

For the controversy surrounding Hunter Biden's laptop, see Hunter Biden laptop controversy.

For allegations of corruption in the Biden family, see United States House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family.

Does anyone have any suggested improvements? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

>Does anyone have any suggested improvements?

Yes, the suggestion for improvement is literally two posts above this one. If you're worried about the scope of this article, then why would you oppose a name change that clearly defines the scope? It's almost like you want the best of both worlds.

It seems that you and others (soibonga, adnrevan) want this article to have a title that is broad in scope (to attract more readers) but to have content that is limited in scope so that it can be easily "debunked".

If the scope is so limited, why do we even need this article? Why not just include this information in the biography of Victor Shokin? And if the intent is for this article to be so laser-focused on Shokin, why is there no mention that Shokin himself stated in an interview that he believes he was fired due to corruption in the Biden family? Copied Ahead (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@Valjean:You write "This article is only about the false allegation..." Well, kinda. See the problem is, some very high level Republicans are challenging that narrative, and they seem to think Shokin's firing was the result of a bribe. And it's not just some alt-right whack job journalist making these allegations, it's members of the highest level of elected office in the United States. Moreover, two recent polls indicate a majority of Americans also believe there was monkey business. My point being, don't you agree that in light of the new allegations and supposed evidence, "unproven" allegations would be more encyclopedic than--as you wrote--"false" allegations"? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Magnolia677: Many reliable sources have found the allegations false since 2020. Many disreputable sources such as those you have promoted ("There has been excellent reporting of this in conservative media, such as The Federalist (website), FrontPage Magazine, The Washington Free Beacon, Townhall, The Washington Times, and the Washington Examiner. Miranda Devine has also done an exquisite job outlining the allegations of corruption in the New York Post.")[3] have been aggressive mouthpieces for Republican politicians advancing a political agenda. Comer alone has been all over conservative television making myriad baseless allegations, so it's no wonder all this media bombardment of deception has had an effect on public opinion. That's the whole point, after all: if they can't impeach Biden, they want to drive him down in the polls so he'll lose next year. Same as it ever was.[4]soibangla (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Joe Biden bragged about withholding the billion dollars until the prosecutor investigating burisma was fired. The entire world has seen the video footage. 2603:8080:5A40:F6:BC9F:1615:6916:C88F (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

And we've discussed the proper context of that video ad nauseam. It doesn't show what you think it shows. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I have previously said I'd like a better title but I find the proposal above too awkward. We need this specific article because the allegation was thoroughly refuted three years ago but has recently been resurrected by Republicans with no new evidence to advance their determination to impeach, which has renewed interest in the article with people claiming "it's not a conspiracy theory anymore!" I suppose we could mention what Shokin said, but WP:MANDY [5] soibangla (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I think people have given clearly articulated reasons for opposing the name change. TarnishedPath^talk 23:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Help me understand your perspective. You already know that the article's original scope included payments to the Biden family as central to the conspiracy. Now, edits regarding the sworn testimony of IRS investigators identifying payments of $6.5 million from Burisma are deleted as "irrelevant", and questions referencing the original scope are scorned as "harping". You say you want to shut down the changes - when it is clear that it is you who want the scope changed from original intent. Why must we exclude the payments from the scope of the Biden-Ukraine conspiracy? Fx6893 (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit: You asked for suggested improvements to the current scope, which has been changed from the original. My suggestion is to NOT change the scope from the original. The change to exclude discussion of the payments, which are central to the conspiracy, has undermined the neutrality of the article. Let's take a step towards restoring neutrality by maintaining the original intent: "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.[6]" Fx6893 (talk) 06:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

"the Biden family?" soibangla (talk) 23:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

If This article is only about the false allegation that the firing of Viktor Shokin was an attempt by Joe Biden to protect Hunter Biden, might it be better to have an article on that firing, and describe the actual (and merely alleged) causes in there? Might it be better to focus on the thing than one particular alleged cause for the thing? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

That's what this article does? TarnishedPath^talk 00:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

This is an article focused on the allegations, who was involved, and through what means they spread. It's not something that we'd write if this were titled, for example, "Firing of Victor Shokin". — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's not merely on the firing of Shokin. It's on the conspiracy that Joe withheld aid to Ukraine in order to bring about Shonkins firing in order to protect Burisma because Hunter was connected. TarnishedPath^talk 00:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I think we're talking past each other a bit here: I understand that this article is about that alleged conspiracy. My point is more about whether we ought choose to organize that info in this article or in a more broad one on Shokin's firing. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

John Solomon inadvertently detonated the House impeachment case

A RS with good stuff:

"There is wide agreement that anti-corruption must be at the top of this list, and that reforms must include an overhaul of the Prosecutor General's Office including removal of Prosecutor General Shokin, who is widely regarded as an obstacle to fighting corruption, if not a source of the problem."^[1]

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

It's in the article, under John Solomon soibangla (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Good. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

This ought to be added as well then:

https://reason.com/2023/09/18/theres-plenty-of-evidence-of-corruption-around-biden/ 69.113.233.201 (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

What part (please provide a quote) would be used and what relevance does it have to Solomon (this thread) or this article? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Scraping the bottom of the barrel to hold up that Reason bit. SPECIFICO talk 16:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

References

^ Gertz, Matt (September 18, 2023). "John Solomon inadvertently detonated the House impeachment case". Media Matters for America. Retrieved September 19, 2023.

Summary too narrow

The content of the summary is too narrow to fit the name of the article. Originally, the Biden-Ukraine Ukraine conspiracy theory might referred to Biden pressuring Ukraine to fire its prosecutor. Now, the suggestion has been made that Biden may have received money from Burisma through his son to pressure Ukraine into firing the prosecutor. These separate accusations should both be discussed if this article is to remain a relevant source of information about the firing of Shokin.

To say that that the Republican's house's investigation "found no evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden" is absurd. When did wikipedia become such a potent judge of facts. Just say the house's investigation purports to have evidence of wrongdoing, but this is contradicted by [insert leftist institution here]. 174.75.30.204 (talk) 05:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing concrete changes to the article, not soapboxing and complaining aimlessly. Andre🚐 06:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that references to the foreign payments should be included, as the article originally intended. The change to omit the payments has allowed for relevant content removal and skews the article's balance, evident from numerous concerns voiced here. I also agree that the proposed language/format of "the house's investigation purports to have evidence of wrongdoing, but this is contradicted by..." would significantly improve the current version by introducing a neutral, balanced perspective. Finally, I think it was wrong to delete 174.75.30.204's constructive comments to the Talk Page, so I've reverted them above (with a change to the subtitle). Fx6893 (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

What reliable source are you citing? Andre🚐 23:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

"the suggestion has been made that Biden may have received money" yeah, no soibangla (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

What "foreign payments" and what RS for that? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding foreign payments to Hunter Biden and his associated business entities, I'd start with with $6.5 million sent from Burisma to Rosemont Seneca. The source for this is an IRS investigation into Biden's foreign income, as documented in sworn testimony to the House Oversight Committee. SOURCE. Fx6893 (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

irrelevant to this article soibangla (talk) 02:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

That source is a primary source via youtube, so not reliable, anyway. Andre🚐 03:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

How about C-SPAN? How about an official transcript? Fx6893 (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Nope. Zaathras (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Those were rhetorical questions. The answer is predictable. Fx6893 (talk) 03:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

You've been wasting the time and energy of actual editors on this article since July, so, it is best to be certain. Zaathras (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The answer is WP:OR WP:PRIMARY and you can't just take stuff from congressional testimony and call it a fact. Andre🚐 03:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Many seek to somehow link Hunter/associates money to Joe to suggest he was on the take, but no such link has been established, and we will not insinuate one here, regardless of what Comer says on Hannity. soibangla (talk) 04:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

This article is primarily about alleged corruption by Joe Biden. Heaven knows that Hunter has many types of problems, but that is not the focus in this article. It's about allegations against Joe Biden.

First you write:

"the suggestion has been made that Biden may have received money from Burisma through his son"

Now you write:

"foreign payments to Hunter Biden"

Which is it? Please try to get your conspiracy theories lined up with the known facts, because right now they aren't connecting.

You have become a classic ~~WP:SPI~~ WP:SPA with focus only on this article, and all you do is continue to push the same conspiracy theory as it gets shot down again and again. You've been doing this since July. That's extreme IDHT behavior and is tendentious. You have been warned and been notified of contentious topics, yet you keep doing it.

Stop reading conspiracy theories. Stop listening to Trump and right-wing media. Stop wasting our time. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I never said, "the suggestion has been made that Biden may have received money from Burisma through his son." I'm not trying to diminish your response, V, but upon reflection you'll recognize that accusation has no merit.

What actually happened is that you asked me about the foreign payments and requested a source for them. I replied with a concise and respectful answer on both. To which you've now accused me, inexplicably, of wasting your time. Worse, you've insinuated that I'm a one-article sockpuppet, which is decidedly incongruent with my two-decade history of contributing to hundreds of articles. And then there's the litany of other spurious slurs, which would make anyone feel bad.

None of these insults have any basis in reality, V. From my perspective, they seem to be an act, perhaps done unintentionally, of bullying a person with a viewpoint divergent from your own. I take issue with this because it is my belief that Wikipedia is strengthened from a diversity of viewpoints, and we should encourage everyone to contribute.

That said, I'm willing to put these insults behind us. I appreciate your lengthy service of contributions. Fx6893 (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, that was IP174, a comment you restored, and thus take responsibility for. Sorry about the confusion. I didn't really see any difference between yours and their POV. You referred favorably to the IP's comment when you wrote "I agree that references to the foreign payments should be included". Do you disavow the IP's statement and distance yourself from it?

I also made a typo as I've looked at an SPI for a couple days. The link should have been WP:SPA, and that would fit with the rest of my comment, which was based on your contribution history. For a long time this has been your only interest here, and you're still pushing for the same change. You haven't had any success with that, have been criticized and warned for it, and yet you persist. Around here, that's considered IDHT behavior. We usually tell such editors to stop kicking the dead horse. Such behavior wastes our time. Until you find secondary RS, not primary sources, which show there is some merit to the accusation, it's going to be hard to gain any traction at this article. We have explained how these are just partisan accusations in primary congressional records without evidence, and that even if true, they apply to Hunter, not Joe Biden, and are therefore somewhat off-topic at this article. Those congressmen are just pushing this conspiracy theory and grasping at straws for evidence that has not yet materialized. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

US House Oversight Committee

I saw an edit I made to this page was removed. A source from US Congress is not a reliable source? Would it be different if the Congressional source agreed with the premise of this article? Or if the Congressional source were a Democrat source? Please explain why a website from US Congress is not a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by City Dweller 2 (talk • contribs) 20:41, October 31, 2023 (UTC)

You wrote that they "validated the theory". This political group does not fall under the same guise of RS as say, the Washington Post. Certain protocols and attributions would be needed. There is also no consensus for this change. DN (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Further, it's a WP:PRIMARY partisan source. Please do not insert it. DN's revert was proper. Andre🚐 03:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

yes, a claim made by the Comer investigation of Biden family that was thoroughly refuted years ago is completely, totally and absolutely unreliable garbage. soibangla (talk) 04:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Biden Family Infobox

This page once had an inforbox for Andrii Derkach. It now has an infobox with Hunter and Joe Biden. I think maybe we should delete that one too. Jgmac1106 (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you 149.152.191.2 (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

intro needs to be reworked & edited for doublespeak

The first two paragraphs need to be reworked. It cant have both happened and not happened. while state narratives are noteworthy, the article needs to be rewritten so unsuspecting readers don't think wikipedia is claiming the propoganda is fact and the article may have to be entirely rewritten from a neutral perspective in the spirit of Wikipedia's mission. Wikipedia should be politically neutral, not an outlet for a center-right party to proclaim their views are correct. 96.245.132.111 (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I just want to add that the main source listed for this claim is a partisan outlet, along with many other of the sources. Instead of pushing narratives of right wing operatives and neoliberal opinion outlets, Wikipedia should be a neutral place. This article is a piece of propaganda. 96.245.132.111 (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

You will need to be more clear. I don't see any doublespeak or contradictions and there are nine citations. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Objective3000, they're misunderstanding the meaning of the 2nd paragraph and thinks it contradicts the 1st. It obviously doesn't and strengthens the 1st. They should go back and re-read it a few times. TarnishedPath^talk 00:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

New section about Purported "meeting"

I have created a section dealing with the purported "meeting" and added two subheadings. Diff. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I would propose naming the section "April 15 Cafe Milano Dinner" for a more neutral title, since witnesses generally agree the dinner itself existed.

My suggested edit

A claim of a "meeting" between Joe Biden and Vadym Pozharskyi at a dinner at Cafe Milano in Washington on April 16, 2015, originally made by the New York Post, has been disputed between witnesses.^[1]^[2]

Dinner attendee Rick Leach, president and chief executive of World Food Program USA, said Joe Biden only briefly stopped to talk to Alex Karloutsos, a prominent Greek Orthodox cleric and personal friend of Joe Biden.^[3] Leach recalled "that Joe Biden 'didn't even sit down. He was not part of the dinner or part of the dinner discussion.' Instead, he just spoke to Karoutsos." Karloutsos "confirmed Leach's account". Leach said that Joe Biden "engaged directly with Father Alex, who appeared to be a personal friend. I do not recall any photos being taken or whether he spoke directly with anyone else at the table."^[3]

According to Biden's campaign, any contact between Joe Biden and Pozharskyi was not scheduled or recorded, and officials who worked with Joe Biden in 2015 told The Washington Post "that no such meeting took place".^[3] In October 2021, the Biden White House administration also denied any informal encounter between Joe Biden and Pozharskyi.^[2]

In July 2023, former Hunter Biden business partner Devon Archer contradicted these statements when he testified before the House Oversight Committee, saying that Joe Biden had dinner with the group, which included Pozharskyi. Archer, who was also a dinner attendee, said that conversation during the dinner engaged topics like the World Food Program, but not business deals. He stated that he did not have evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden and that Hunter Biden only sold an "illusion of access" to his father.^[3]^[1]^[2]^[4] KiharaNoukan (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The heading is now renamed "April 15 Cafe Milano Dinner". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Support: Also, I agree that the new heading is an improvement, and I think NK's addition of the blanket denial of even an informal encounter by Joe Biden's spokesman from the Politico article adds important context, too. I'd further suggest attributing the quotes from Leach and Karloutsos to their telephone discussions with Kessler, because they appear in his "Analysis" piece rather than the Post's regular news reporting. Fx6893 (talk) 04:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose any mention. All of this text in an encyclopedia for one of the likely thousands of dinners Joe Biden has attended during his lengthy career that has not been shown to be of any consequence. There is not whit of evidence that this dinner had anything to do with the subject of this article, a debunked conspiracy theory about the firing of Viktor Shokin, a person who was removed from office by the Ukrainian Parliament in March 2016, a move welcomed by the European Union, the United States, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
It is a bit too much like "connect the dots", and may be better suited to the Efforts to impeach Joe Biden article. After all, this conspiracy was started before Biden won the election, and since it failed to keep Biden out of office, it seems it may be being repurposed into fodder for impeachment. DN (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Now that article would make a better home for this as impeachment is the specific purpose of the committee holding the hearings where this testimony took place. Afterall, the conspiracy theory is years old and this testimony and the cited articles are recent. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
There are multiple RS that explicitly link the dinner to the conspiracy theory. Devon Archer was not testifying about events in 2023. He was testifying about the same event that already was described in this very Wikipedia article and in the sources written long before he spoke a word to the committee. Multiple RS, including RS previously cited in this very article, have since updated their coverage to note his testimony on the issue. It doesn't make sense how suddenly this becomes UNDUE when a witness testifies that it occurred (and thus we have even more sources covering it and linking it to the conspiracy theory), but was DUE long beforehand. KiharaNoukan (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Archer's testimony does not seem essential to this article, as it has more to do with the United States House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family which began January 11, 2023, long after the conspiracy, involving Shokin, started. It may just be my opinion but it seems to have more WEIGHT in regard to Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. DN (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Objective3000 wrote: There is not whit of evidence that this dinner had anything to do with the subject of this article. Does this mean we should delete text from the "New York Post allegation" section which mentions the "meeting"? And that we should also delete in its entirety the newly created section "Purported 'meeting"? DonFB (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The first suggestion, to my knowledge, to move the Devon Archer testimony text from one article to another was by Soibangla, who said it could be relocated from the Laptop article to this article after it was reverted in the Laptop article. Now, I see an editor says it shouldn't be in this article and should go in the "Efforts to impeach Joe Biden" article. Another editor suggests, "United States House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family" That article, in fact, has an entire section titled, "Devon Archer testimony", though, curiously, the section makes no mention of the purported "meeting" and Archer's comments to Congress about it. So far, from what I can tell, multiple articles discuss the "meeting" and Devon Archer's activities with Hunter Biden, but no article contains Archer's comments about the group dinner. I do find it regrettable, but also sadly amusing, that Archer's testimony to a committee of the U.S. Congress is considered by some editors to be so radioactive that it must be kicked from pillar to post and possibly to oblivion, before it can be included in Wikipedia.

So here's the scorecard:

Pozharskyi and the dinner text is in the Hunter Biden laptop article, minus Archer testimony.

Pozharskyi and the dinner text is in Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory article, minus Archer testimony.

Pozharskyi and the dinner text is in Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign article, minus Archer testimony.

Neither Pozharskyi nor dinner text is in United States House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family, where an editor now suggests the text be placed, and which actually has a Devon Archer testimony section.

Neither Pozharskyi nor dinner text is in Efforts to impeach Joe Biden, where an editor suggests placement of the text.

With these several choices available, I believe Wikipedia is capable of hosting Pozharskyi-dinner-Archer testimony text within an article at no risk of bringing down western civilization. So let's choose. I'll begin by saying I'm amenable to including the text in any or all of the articles. DonFB (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand how or why the editors of this article should dictate whether Archer's testimony is added to other articles. We can certainly make suggestions, but consensus for inclusion should be according to their appropriate venues/articles, should it not? DN (talk) 06:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, and correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't congressional testimony of this sort considered WP:PRIMARY? DN (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Congressional testimony is a primary source, but we're not using it; we're using multiple reliable secondary sources, as already shown repeatedly in discussion on this page, for reporting about the Archer testimony; look below at References to see some. No where is it suggested to source the text directly from primary. If you think this discussion somehow would impose a choice on editors elsewhere, please be reminded that anyone can edit this encyclopedia, and, yes, consensus will determine what stays and what goes. But I think consensus on this Talk page is likely to carry over elsewhere, because some of the same editors contribute to this group of articles. DonFB (talk) 08:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, I am more likely to advocate Archer's testimony at the "Efforts" and "Oversight Committee" articles. DN (talk) 09:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Don, after lots of discussion, there's no agreement this was significant at all. For several reasons stated on talk pages. SPECIFICO talk 08:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Except there already is content related to the purported meeting between Biden-Pozhorskyi in the article, only with outdated sourcing that fails to represent NPOV given updated material that is now common throughout RS descriptions of the event? I'm not sure this point was ever addressed. KiharaNoukan (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe, but there's no consensus for your view, so we can't put it in the article. SPECIFICO talk 16:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, RS shows this was not a "Biden-Pozhorskyi meeting". That language is purely New York Post "spin". Also, how exactly was it a NPOV violation? The previous text from WaPo, which was recently reverted, seemed fine to me. DN (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Dinner/meeting/whatever you want to call it. It's the same topic. At any rate, we have RS that both attribute Archer's testimony on Biden meeting Pozhorskyi at the dinner and saying they met in their own voice. Ex from factcheck.org source that has been utilized in this article since 2020, and was updated this year post-testimony:

Update, Aug. 16, 2023: Pozharskyi met Joe Biden and others at a dinner in Washington, D.C., in April 2015 – which is when Pozharskyi reportedly sent Hunter Biden the email mentioned in the New York Post story. Devon Archer, Hunter Biden’s former business partner, discussed the dinner during a closed-door interview with the House oversight committee on July 31, 2023, according to a transcript of the interview. However, Archer said business was not discussed at the dinner and that Joe Biden had nothing to do with Hunter Biden’s business ventures.

Can we stop with the NY Post well-poisoning? They had made a claim in 2020 based on emails from the laptop. The new revelations are from testimony from Archer in 2023. These are obviously different. An article authored in 2020 can not be formed on the basis of testimony given in 2023.

The previous text from WaPo only had statements from their pre-update publication. The update covered Archer's testimony that contradicted them. The update was not included. I've listed multiple other more recent RS that covered the dinner/meeting that also mention Archer's testimony as contrary to past coverage that largely denies a dinner/meeting. The Wikipedia article is outdated and only contains the past coverage with denials. This goes against NPOV requirements to reflect the views published in RS. KiharaNoukan (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

"It's the same topic." That opinion still comes across as SYNTH, and it is irresponsible to try and insert Archer's testimony, which is about Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. "Leach recalled that the dinner involved about 10 to 12 people in a private room but that Joe Biden “didn’t even sit down. He was not part of the dinner or part of the dinner discussion.” Instead, he just spoke to Karloutsos." DN (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

How is that SYNTH? It's the same April 2015 dinner at Cafe Milano. Is this disputed? I've provided multiple RS that call it dinner/meeting, both in own voice and attributed to Archer. KiharaNoukan (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

How is it SYNTH?....Well let me answer that with a question. Is the Biden Ukraine conspiracy theory about a dinner where Biden talked to a priest for less than 5 minutes, or the firing of Victor Shokin?... DN (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Per Politico: Biden’s alleged contact with a Burisma executive is a sensitive matter in part because of claims, promoted by Trump’s allies during the last presidential campaign, that Joe Biden demanded the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor who had been investigating Burisma on account of his son’s position with the company.

If you want even more RS, you can look at the live version of the article right now that discusses the meeting/dinner. KiharaNoukan (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

That's just an opinion, and a minor one at that. Your lack of a response to my question is an answer in itself. DN (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure it's about an allegation of Biden wielding his office as VP to corruptly pressure Ukraine to fire a prosecutor that was supposedly investigating Burisma too much in order to benefit his son, who sat on Burisma's board. Last I checked though, the article doesn't stop there. The article discusses events, info, and personalities which had a role in helping start the conspiracy and other relevant information, such as a CFR video of Biden discussing his role in Shokin's firing, the hiring of Hunter Biden into the board of Burisma and accompanying criticism and concerns, purported recordings of a call between Biden and Poroshenko, a falsified film relating about the conspiracy, an affidavit from a Ukrainian prosecutor alleging wrongdoing by Hunter Biden, discoveries of valuable gems and money in the possession of Shokin's subordinates, oh and the purported meeting between Biden and a Burisma executive. Last I checked, this article was not about any of these one particular things, yet they're included because RS have stated their relevance to the case. KiharaNoukan (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

"The article discusses events, info, and personalities which had a role in helping start the conspiracy and other relevant information." How is Devon Archer and his testimony responsible for starting this conspiracy? How did Devon Archer and his testimony help propagate it? Is his testimony undisputed? Last I checked, Archer's testimony came from a political committee trying to impeach Biden. DN (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've been clear that I'm referring to the dinner/meeting at Cafe Milano as the "event". Lest we forget, this is already in the article, with sources that illustrate why it is due for inclusion. However, given Archer's testimony, the description that is currently on the Wiki article fails to match how RS now describe it. Do I need to point out that the wiki article also similarly contextualizes each of these topics I brought up earlier? It's mentioned that Kulyk for instance, who wrote the 2019 memo calling for an investigation into Biden, fled to Russia in 2022. Obviously him fleeing isn't "responsible for starting this conspiracy", but it does provide relevant context. Why not treat the Cafe Milano dinner/meeting in the same manner? KiharaNoukan (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I would prefer we drop our sticks and back away from this horse carcass for a while. It's not going anywhere. DN (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:WEIGHT and WP:UNDUE. Furthermore these claims are tainted by a purveyor of fake news WP:NYPOST. I have reverted the edits and remind any editor seeking to re-insert the material, whether whole or in part, that WP:BLPUNDEL applies and that they must obtain consensus prior to editing the material back in per Wikipedia policy. TarnishedPath^talk 10:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
But we are not using the NY Post as a source. We are using RS that debunk it. Read more carefully. This is part of the "sum of all human knowledge" we are supposed to document, and failing to mention this meeting or Archer's testimony is censorship that violates NPOV. We are leaving a hole in our coverage of the topic and thus failing our readers. We don't have to do it here, but we have to do it. We just have to give Archer the less due weight his minority view deserves and frame it clearly to show others dispute what he said. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Why is this significant? Do we have snippets of testimony at the Army-McCarthy Hearings in all of the BLPs of the dozens or hundreds of individuals who were mentioned by witnesses there? ANS: no. This only could be considered signiicant, to be frank, if one first assumes the predicate -- that there is real concern about the possibility of corrupt behavior by Joe Biden. But there is no such view in RS, where Jim Jordan, Comer, et al are viewed as malign clowns. So what we have is the likelihood that -- since half the US voters accept the alternative in the form of Trump/Murdoch/far-right narratives, some significant number of such believers arrive at WP articles from time to time and don't understand or apply our WP VERIFICATION and NPOV policies. But fortunately, they fail to gain consensus - as is evident wrt this Archer bit. SPECIFICO talk 17:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
The same RS that publish articles about Devon Archer's testimony, including full feature articles, simultaneously mention that there is no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden. Your view that inclusion must necessarily mean Biden conducted wrongdoing is not supported by RS. If we include the meeting, a reader understands:

Q: What contributed to fostering the conspiracy theory? A: A purported dinner meeting between Biden and Pozharksyi. This comes within a sea of other statements and reporting that there is no evidence of actual wrongdoing by Biden. This was uncontroversial for over a year as the article contained mention of the meeting with no fuss started. This is also consistent with how the article presents other pieces of information that played a role in the conspiracy theory. Examples:

1. In January 2018, a videotaping by the Council on Foreign Relations shows Biden taking credit for withholding the loan guarantees to have the prosecutor fired.

2. Derkach released snippets of a supposed conversation between Joe Biden and Ukrainian President Poroshenko, in which Biden linked loan guarantees to the ouster of Viktor Shokin, the country's corrupt and ineffective prosecutor general.

3. Mr Kulyk wrote a 2019 memo calling for an investigation into Hunter Biden's role on Burisma's board.

4. The documentary used fake documents provided to Giuliani by Lev Parnas on behalf of Andrii Derkach and Konstantin Kilimnik

Why is this significant?

Because RS said so.

Biden’s alleged contact with a Burisma executive is a sensitive matter in part because of claims, promoted by Trump’s allies during the last presidential campaign, that Joe Biden demanded the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor who had been investigating Burisma on account of his son’s position with the company. - Politico

Probably copyrightvio to post it all, but there's an entire section titled Why would that be important explaining why a purported meeting would be important - Washington Post

Factcheck.org article that also establishes the significance of the dinner to conspiracy theory - factcheck.org KiharaNoukan (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Not including something is not censorship. Surely we will not add all testimony from that political committee. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

There's already enough material devoted to this under the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory#Rudy Giuliani heading. Anything more would be not appropriate per WP:WEIGHT and WP:UNDUE, especially given a lot of this information is highly speculative and has a lot of its origins in WP:NYPOST which is a purveyor of fake news. If you really feel that strongly about it take it to an RfC. TarnishedPath^talk 13:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)