Jump to content

Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

why was this removed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biden–Ukraine_conspiracy_theory&diff=983698064&oldid=983697931

Aviartm? soibangla (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Soibangla Edit conflict. It has been added. Aviartm (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

NY Post is unreliable source

It is making an extraordinary claim, requiring corroboration from reliable sources, and that doesn’t mean sources simply reporting The Post reported this. No such corroboration exists. The article makes at least one clearly false assertion and allusions to other dubious if not false assertions. The material is clearly UNDUE and must be removed. soibangla (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The same could have and was said of the Steele Dossier. We need more RSs to corroborate reporting, agreed. According to Vice News, "At the moment, no reporting including our own has turned up evidence to contradict the Post, and The Daily Beast has published an interview with the repair shop owner, which is also bizarre, but lines up with the Post's story." Corroboration is already underway. Aviartm (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Steele dossier has zero to with this. Corroboration is already underway Sure looks like debunking at this point. soibangla (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Look, this whole thing has all the classic telltales of October Surprise dirty trick disinformation, likely of Russian origin. It absolutely reeks. Think. soibangla (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely, it's politics. Whether it came from Russia is unknown. Aviartm (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Is this Wikipedia policy or just an opinion? Just because a newspaper gets something wrong once doesn't mean that it is unreliable. Most newspapers make mistakes occasionally. It also isn't relevant to its accuracy if it is right or left-winged. To date, the only disputes about NY Post's article are that it was obtained through hacking. Nobody is disputing the accuracy of its contents. 12:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skb7 (talk • contribs)

Yes, they are [1]. XOR'easter (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

QAnon?

I removed a claim that the computer-shop owner was a QAnon supporter, which I was unable to substantiate. A believer in the Seth Rich conspiracy theory, yes, but not QAnon (according to anything I could find, and presuming that there is even a difference anymore, cf. the conspiracy singularity). The original source in that passage was this Business Insider story, which doesn't mention QAnon specifically. If anyone has a more direct connection that I overlooked, that would be much appreciated! Cheers, XOR'easter (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

If RS say he believes in the Seth Rich murder conspiracy theory, that should be included. -- Valjean (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
The only source I see that explicitly says Macisaac supports QAnon is from WP:DAILYMAIL. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
That's interesting. The Seth Rich bit is cited in the Business Insider story. XOR'easter (talk) 02:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
No daylight there. Seth Rich conspiracy theory is a product of QAnon, or they are the same movement. Now, purely mathematically, what are the odds of somebody anonymously abandoning a laptop containing incriminating information on a Trump foe with the business run by either/or a QAnon supporter/Seth Rich conspiracy theorist? I suppose about equal to somebody abandoning a laptop with incriminating information about Donald Trump Jr at the Old Antifa Computer Repair Shop. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I mean, if it’s really normal for people to care about and pay attention to the political views of the owner of each and every small-to-medium-sized business they patronize. Secondly, the conspiracy theory being “a product of QAnon” would not logically follow that everyone who believed in the Seth Rich theory learned it because they directly followed QAnon stuff. As for the article, we can mention that the guy who claims to have found the computer was a Seth Rich theory believer, as well as a tiny blurb on how the story came about, and if there’s a need to mention QAnon or whatever just say it’s popular with QAnon people. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 12:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Discuss-Dubious, Hunter Biden is a reasonably wealthy individual who has been under political attack for months; his father is the Presidential candidate of a party that has been the subject of repeated cyberattacks and data theft by malign actors, primarily foreign governments.
Put yourself in his shoes. Would you drop off an unencrypted laptop at a strip mall computer shop and leave it there without paying the bill? Seriously? That is not even slightly plausible.
Add to this the prior reporting of data theft by Russian intelligence and Giuliani and Bannon's statements about having emails, made some time ago, and what you have is a very obvious attempt at a reunion tour by Ben Ghazi and the Buttery Males. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
JzG, Ben Ghazi and the Buttery Males? Asartea Trick | Treat 13:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Asartea, yeah, they were huge from 2012-2016 but all ten tracks on the first album were indistinguishable and the difficult second album got some early buzz but turned out to be a complete bust. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
JzG, Thanks for the answer! Asartea Trick | Treat 17:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
LMAO! -- Valjean (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Bad sentence. Vague Edit Request I guess.

This sentence currently exists in the article

"In its opening sentence, the New York Post story falsely asserted "the elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating" Burisma."

Given it is universally accepted that Biden did pressure Ukraine into sacking the prosecutor, this is a terrible sentence...being a direct contradiction of reality. I am aware that Bidens' reason was actually the exact opposite of what Republican propaganda claims, but it's still bad to say it didn't happen: it definitely did. 81.135.238.69 (talk) 12:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

NB, a user/IP deleted this section shortly after I posted it. The edit summary they used was nonsense: to be clear (as if it isn't) I am specifically criticisng the sentence of the article I quote as being directly untrue and suggesting it is removed/changed. 81.135.238.69 (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Valjean (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I see this was just reverted. @Soibangla: have you seen this section? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Did Biden pressure Ukraine to fire Shokin? Yes. Because he was investigating Burisma? No. The statement is false. soibangla (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
What Soibangla said. Did Biden - acting as a representative of the USA's government and in accordance with the policy of same - pressure Ukraine to fire a prosecutor the USA believed to be corrupt? Yes. Was that prosecutor investigating Burisma at the time? Absofuckinglutely not. The statement is false. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:F498:F707:531D:DF4C (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
It is only false if we add missing words. The implication of the Post story (and false conspiracy theory) is that he was fired to prevent him from investigating Burisma (the opposite is the case), but that is not what's written, so I removed the word "false". The truth is that he was fired because he was not doing his job and investigating corruption, including at Burisma.
Here's my edit summary when I removed the word "false":
"As stated" it is still misleading because some words are missing. It does not CLEARLY address the implication of corruption. To keep the word "false" (which I would like to keep), we should add some words, but I didn't have the time then. I'd rather we develop those words here. -- Valjean (talk) 05:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@Valjean: the New York Post's exact first sentence with the multiple false claims is: "Hunter Biden introduced his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, to a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm less than a year before the elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating the company, according to emails obtained by The Post." The words "into firing a prosecutor who was investigating the company" are there. Please revert yourself and stop misrepresenting the situation. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:9922:D361:2E74:D5EF (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Joe Biden did push the Ukrainian government to fire Shokin. That's true. What's not true is that he had any corrupt intent in doing so. Biden did this with the support of the international community. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Just to elaborate on the point made by Valjean, quoting the Washington Post, emphasis added: During President Barack Obama’s second term, Biden was in charge of the Ukraine portfolio, keeping in close touch with the country’s president, Petro Poroshenko. Biden’s brief was to sweet-talk and jawbone Poroshenko into making reforms that Ukraine’s Western benefactors wanted to see as part of Ukraine’s escape from Russia’s orbit. But the Americans saw an obstacle to reform in Viktor Shokin, the top Ukrainian prosecutor, whom the United States viewed as ineffective and beholden to Poroshenko and Ukraine’s corrupt oligarchs. In particular, Shokin had failed to pursue an investigation of the founder of Burisma, Mykola Zlochevsky. XOR'easter (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@XOR'easter: Valjean is referring to the New York Post (tabloid, definitely not reliable source), not Washington Post (reliable source). The problem with their removing the word "false" and claiming the New York Post only "implied" the Burisma bit and saying "but that is not what's written, so I removed the word "false"", is that the words are clearly present in the first sentence of the NY Post's coverage. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:9922:D361:2E74:D5EF (talk) 16:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done I've reworded this sentence and added an additional clause explaining why the NYP claim was misleading, replacing "false" with "misleading" in the process, as I believe the original meaning is clearly kept. Other editors, feel free to adjust or restore the wording if you are still not content with it. Jr8825 • Talk 02:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I continue to maintain that it's flatly false. soibangla (talk) 02:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

ec We're "talking past each other." I am not referring to the words that are there. I am referring to "missing words", the ones that are "not" there, the words that must be there for the whole statement to be false. The last part ("a prosecutor who was investigating the company") is indeed partially false, so we should add that this last part is false, and then add that in fact, "Shokin had failed to pursue an investigation of the founder of Burisma", and that is part of why he was fired.

What I'd like to see is that we hammer out better wording along those lines. In fact, not quoting would work better. I just happen to be traveling and am using my cellphone. So I can't help much.

I hope the new edit addresses my concerns. -- Valjean (talk) 02:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Valjean:, @Soibangla: please review my edit, I hope it addresses both of your concerns – I think the extra detail clears up the ambiguity that prompted this edit request, while the extra clarity means that the sentence's strength/meaning is not diluted. Jr8825 • Talk 02:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
That's better. -- Valjean (talk) 02:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 15 October 2020

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: WP:SNOW closed as not moved. As is said multiple times in the discussion, reliable sources nearly unanimously call it a conspiracy theory, and the "recent reporting" comes from a tabloid infamous for fabricated stories (and this story seems to be highly fabricated). It should also be pointed out that a conspiracy theory doesn't stop being one because the President of the United States believes in it; after all, Trump was one of the most high-profile believers in the Obama birth certificate conspiracy theories. Sceptre (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory → Biden–Ukraine allegations – Recent reporting on this issue necessitates a likely different title. As more questions than answers been brought up and as the news will continue to report on new developments, it is more appropriate to rename for now. Aviartm (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose, things coming up in the news are conspiracy theory all their own. like, how can a laptop dropped at a shop in April 2019 have files with meta-data showing them created in December 2019? Seems like a trap to trick the Trump administration. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose the title characterizes the situation appropriately. Numerous WP:RS for this article are calling it a conspiracy theory, and I don't see much in the way of a counterargument. AlexEng(TALK) 21:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The "recent reporting" is exclusively from NY Post, a notoriously unreliable source. This article should never have been created in the first place for the evidently sole purpose of featuring this highly dubious content that is uncorroborated by any reliable source. This whole episode is a disgrace. soibangla (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose We do not consider Russian disinformation propagated into an attempt at an October surprise to be "allegations". It's complete garbage, a hit piece, and to suggest any sort of validity to it is a false equivalence that compromises the neutrality of the project. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: An allegation is "a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof". While the proof that exists may not be valid, it's proof at the very least. Snowycats (talk) 22:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think the above !votes make the case well enough. The existing title sums up what reliable sources have to say. XOR'easter (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Existing title is accurate and reflects usage in reliable sources. Kaldari (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Originating from a damaged laptop left at a computer repair store, this is as sketchy and as much of a conspiracy theory as you can get. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Everything indicates this is a conspiracy theory that is part of a long-standing Trump/Russian disinformation campaign directed at Trump's supporters, who are notoriously uncritical and lap up this type of stuff without any fact-checking. -- Valjean (talk) 01:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Calling it a "conspiracy theory", especially in the title, seems like Wikipedia is taking a side. Another more neutral title: Biden-Ukraine scandal. Mcrsftdog (talk) 05:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
But it is baseless. No media organization has been able to view or verify that any of the documents are what the tabloid NYPost claims they are. And, according to CBS News, the computer repair person who said that Hunter Biden dropped off the computer is legally blind so he couldn't even identify who gave him the damaged laptop. This story is full of holes and the "evidence" not been verified by any reputable news organization. Liz Read! Talk! 05:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
If something can't be verified as true or false, a better label would be "allegation." I'd refrain from calling it a "conspiracy theory" unless that's the label reliable sources are giving to it. Mcrsftdog (talk) 05:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Considering that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are in fact secretly distant cousins descended from the same European royal house, would it then be a conspiracy theory or an allegation that the Clinton-Trump Family has illicitly masterminded all political developments in the US for the past three decades? Hyperbolick (talk) 06:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
USA Today, NBC news, The New Yorker, and ABC News have all referred to it as a conspiracy theory, and thats just a quick glance. Greyjoy talk 10:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Mcrsftdog, but that is the label reliable sources are giving to it. Also baseless, debunked, and an invention. —valereee (talk) 12:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Our policies require editors to take the side of RS, as we are required to use them and give them due weight over baseless accusations from unreliable sources. We are a reality-based encyclopedia. When RS concur that the sky is no longer blue, we will also change our content to say it is no longer blue. Until then we favor sources which describe the reality that the sky is blue. -- Valjean (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - Neutral language is preferred in all articles. Conspiracy theory should only be used if there is no dispute that it is false. Given that the current sitting president Donald Trump is calling this fact, it is far from a conspiracy theory. Skb7 (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Donald Trump calling something a fact doesn't really mean all that much. Greyjoy talk 12:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Skb7, hahahahahahahahahaha...whew! Good one! —valereee (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
NPOV misunderstood to mean "neutral", as in "No Point of View". "Neutral language" is, according to NPOV policy, the language used in RS, even when biased. It is a serious NPOV violation to alter, censor, or neuter such language. Editors must remain neutral and document the biased language used in RS. Keep in mind that the truth is usually biased toward one side or the other. -- Valjean (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support on grounds of neutral language. Guitarmankev1(TALK) 12:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as imprecise; RS are calling this a conspiracy theory and so should we. In fact they're calling it it debunked, baseless, and an invention. Using "neutral" language would be false balance. —valereee (talk) 12:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support - conspiracy theory is a derogatory term. Nowadays popular and once-reputable media are not so strongly bound to neutrality and restraint in reporting. This should not result in a trickling down consensus from these sites that whatever accusations have been made are a 'conspiracy theory'. Whatever it is (and right now it's just a whole bunch of ruckus), until the accusations have been made are proven or disproven they should be discussed and represented neutrally. Beaneater (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for the same reasons that have already been mentioned above. Guycn2 (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's a conspiracy theory, not an "allegation". To call it an allegation is false equivalency between WP:RS and propaganda.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Calling it a conspiracy theory is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. To quote from the NPOV article, "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed." Do any of you reasonably believe that an editorial bias is not apparent on reading the article? Additionally, there are certainly WP:RS that use significantly softer terms than conspiracy theory and read as much more neutrally written articles, such as NY Times, BBC, AP, Snopes. Chandra.sarthak (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Also, looking at Wikipedia:Article_titles#Non-judgmental_descriptive_titles also point towards the same direction --- conspiracy is far from non-judgmental, and similarly far from a neutral point of view Chandra.sarthak (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Chandra.sarthak, it is not "editorial bias" to point out that these allegations meet the definition of a conspiracy theory. Did you notice the clause although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity? We need to be clear that there is no validity to these claims. See WP:FALSEBALANCE: Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We cannot omit the conspiracy theory if it is the entire subject, but we ensure we don't legitimize it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 16 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.

Mention of Hunter Biden computer

The stories, sprung from the original NY Post article, mention a computer, but none of the sources provide any evidence of a computer. The words computer and FBI should not be in the same sentence. ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tero111 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we should be careful about the use of the word "computer", given that there is dispute about where the information originated. Skb7 (talk) 12:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I had a Finnish keyboard on and tried to improvise the tilde last time. Tero111 (talk) 13:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC) No changes have been made to the two lines that them refer to Reference 54. NBC claims that there is an actual computer the FBI seized, but they are just quoting the NY Post article! The next line about FBI investigation is true, but only related to the conspiracy, not an actual laptop. Tero111 (talk) 12:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Bannon

This adds more poison to this "story"...

We may be looking at the old classic Breitbart/Bannon/O'Keefe scam strategy that has so often been busted. These people are desperate. -- Valjean (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I imagine that investigative journalists will be putting together the true chain of events of who got what, when, where, and how. It may not come out until after the election (surely what Bannon and Giuliani were counting on). – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Valjean, yup. [2], for example, and [3]. Plus of course [4].
We will have to see what the WP:RS's say. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 October 2020

KEbabs 78.56.237.238 (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Asartea Trick | Treat 15:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
The requested change must also be uncontroversial, so make sure that is settled first. -- Valjean (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Should probably remove the word 'false' from the opening paragraph for the time being, and a second paragraph

As this is a developing story, and one which has yet to really bear out, the word 'false' without a solid source is almost certainly going to lead to negative attention.

I suggest removing 'false' and adding a second explanatory paragraph to the intro suggesting the uncertain origin of the recent emails released by the Post. Pietrus69 (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Pietrus69, Please see the discussion above at #Discussing the term "False" in opening statement.. Asartea Trick | Treat 17:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree completely. Whoever put false accusations should put another word like uncertain or something. This story can go either way right now. I stated my opinion above, wasn't trying to be mean. It's just we shouldn't put false without seeing how this plays out first. DranzerX13 (talk) 07:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 October 2020 (2)

Change it to an “ongoing political conspiracy.” It is intellectually dishonest to say that the allegations have been proven false already as the investigation is ongoing. Until proven otherwise it is neither true nor untrue. 2600:1011:B019:6773:99D6:5B2:477A:FBF (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please see the request for comment above discussing this exact thing: #Discussing the term "False" in opening statement. Any change will be implemented as a result of consensus in that discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Overview article

CNN has published a similar analysis today: https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/18/media/new-york-post-hunter-biden-reliable/index.html 2601:2C0:C300:B7:1415:FAD2:6664:3C80 (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

After source (49)(50), we should add this

Biden admits to firing Ukraine Prosecutor. (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCSF3reVr10) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotafox2008 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Random YouTube channels aren't reliable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Dotafox, that video isn't news. The prosecutor was corrupt and not investigating corruption like he should. The international community was agreed that he should be fired, and Biden was given that job. He got it done. A new prosecutor would do a better job, IOW actually investigate any corruption at Burisma.
There was nothing wrong with firing the corrupt prosecutor, and if Hunter Biden had been doing anything wrong, his father's action placed him in greater, not lesser, danger. The Trump/Giuliani/Russian narrative is disinformation. -- Valjean (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

You need to remove the words 'false allegations' as this is a) tautology and b) stated as proven, without citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balancedcontent (talk • contribs) 05:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Balancedcontent, not even New York Post reporters seriously believe this arse gravy. [5] Guy (help! - typo?) 07:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Reportedly, Fox News initially passed on it when Giuliani first approached them [6]. Fox. News. XOR'easter (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
@JzG: Is there a better source on that one? Never really a fan of the intelligencer section and the writer for that one has only one article with them[7] and describes himself as an "Advocacy journalist".[8] Also Mediaite is a marginal source as well per RSP. PackMecEng (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
PackMecEng, Not even looked, tbh. We don't need additional sources to attest to the NY Post being untrustworthy in this area. Unless you feels trongly otherwise? Guy (help! - typo?) 17:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
No strong feelings here. I just don't like poor sources being disproven by other not great sources. PackMecEng (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
The New York Times first broke the story about the Post writer not wanting to put his name on the article [9]. A media reporter for CNN writes,
A Post spokesperson didn't respond to Robertson's Q's about how the story was edited, but she reported that it was discussed within a group in the Post which included Col Allan and digital editor Michelle Gotthelf. One source described it to me like this: 'All this Hunter Biden s**t is being done in its own bubble. It's happening on an island within an island.' And as Robertson reported, staffers have questions about the story's credibility and the curious timing around when Rudy Giuliani handed over the info. My source described the situation at the Post as 'gross,' but said he was happy others were applying scrutiny: 'It’s heartbreaking to me as a journalist but makes me happy as a citizen that most people see the grift...' [10]
XOR'easter (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 October 2020

There is much that needs to be added. This article is screaming bias. Please research and include information regarding:

Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe on Monday said that Hunter Biden’s laptop “is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign,” amid claims from House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff suggesting otherwise.

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is investigating Hunter Biden's emails.

A former business partner of Hunter Biden currently serving a prison sentence for fraud has reportedly released 26,000 emails detailing his business operations with Biden and Devon Archer, another business partner.

Journalist Maria Bartiromo asked Sen. Ron Johnson, the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, about a Business Insider report that described faint handwriting on a subpoena served last year to a Delaware business that was given a water-damaged MacBook Pro to repair but was never retrieved and a hard drive with its contents. The hardware purportedly contained data about foreign business dealings and other matters related to the son of former Vice President Joe Biden.

The subpoena appeared to show the FBI agent who served it was someone named "Joshua Wilson." There was a Joshua Wilson, according to a Star-Ledger report published last year, who was an FBI agent based in New Jersey who spent nearly five years investigating child pornography, but it remains unclear if this is the same Wilson and what exactly the bureau was investigating. 65.60.160.85 (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Rumors on the internet that right before the last presidential debate video "from the laptop" will surface showing Hunter Biden molesting a child. If that's what they think it needs to move the needle on the election. Nothing short of that will. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Acting Director, and Trump loyalist. Still waiting for a credible source, since the FBI themselves are keeping schtumm. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep clear of WP:Bias. Unless there is credible reporting otherwise, the story should stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oea the King (talk • contribs) 20:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Ratcliffe has been confirmed by the Senate. But, he has little to no credibility here. His comments are notably out of step with the intelligence community, and his political history, such as his behavior during Trump's impeachment, lends credence to the idea that he's acting to benefit Trump in the election.[11][12][13] – Muboshgu (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Schiff is an elected Democrat and Vox and the Daily Beast are very left leaning. Calling this a conspiracy theory is blatant bias. Oea the King (talk —Preceding undated comment added 21:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
From the reliable sources policy: Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. You may also be interested to read this essay: Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
That is precisely what is being discussed, at quite some length, at #Discussing the term "False" in opening statement. Feel free to weigh in. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Grayfell_reported_by_User:Oea_the_King_(Result:_) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/96.44.5.219 2601:2C0:C300:B7:B5C1:27E9:546F:9D78 (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, yeah, I've seen. If it's confirmed that Oea is a sockpuppet then any comments here can be struck. I'm not going to do the investigation myself just given it could be argued I'm WP:INVOLVED wrt this page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: It's been confirmed, and a helpful admin already struck the comments. Thanks! 2601:2C0:C300:B7:F498:F707:531D:DF4C (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

lingering doubt

questions remain

https://i.imgur.com/FEJj3te.png

soibangla (talk) 23:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

And that would be precisely why Fox ought to be considered utterly unreliable for politics. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
That's the modus operandi. Even if you don't see any evidence of foul play, keep saying you have "lingering doubt" and "questions remain". – Muboshgu (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Censorship

How can you write the whole intro paragraph without citing any sources to say that it is fake.

Yet you deny my edit to state 'yet unproven allegations'. Any other thing that remotely hints that it might be true immediately gets redacted without a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WakkoYakko (talk • contribs) 07:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

That the same trick is being rerun ought to leave no doubt that Trump killed Seth Rich. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
@WakkoYakko: The issue is, Wikipedia only says things that a majority of sources agree on. The majority of sources in this situation are news media. A large portion of news media disagrees with this claim. Wikipedia cannot say things that are based on what we personally think because people disagree on what is the truth. We cannot do our own interpretations of the evidence. Wikipedia rules say that only the interpretation given by the majority of sources is what matters. The only way for the statements made in your edit to be accepted and not denied is for a large amount of news sources that Wikipedia respects to stick their neck out for the idea. However, a large amount of news media has come out against the idea. Wikipedia is ultimately the aftershock of what happens with sources that it respects, and this is true of most any topic. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 12:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
WakkoYakko, the lead (intro) paragraphs -- whatever is above the table of contents -- just summarize what is in the body; the assertions in the lead need to be supported within the body sections by reliable sources (RS). Those RS don't need to be repeated within the lead. This makes the lead less cluttered and easier to read. Rest assured that on an article as closely-scrutinized as this one, nothing in the lead that doesn't have a source cited in the body will last long before some editor challenges it. —valereee (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 October 2020 (2)

The first sentence is completely wrong. They are a series of allegations... not FALSE allegations. The Government is investigating them.

The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of false allegations which assert that 2020 Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden engaged in corrupt activities while the former was Vice President of the United States and the latter worked for the Ukrainian gas company Burisma.[1] Skbigm (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please see the request for comment above discussing this exact thing: #Discussing the term "False" in opening statement. Any change will be implemented as a result of consensus in that discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 October 2020 (3)

Change the 'debunked' status to 'under investigation'. The DOJ and the FBI have BOTH stated that Hunter Biden's emails are NOT of Russian origin, nor are they a part of a Russian conspiracy. They are legitimate sources of information.

References:

 Not done Please see the request for comment above discussing this exact thing: #Discussing the term "False" in opening statement. Any change will be implemented as a result of consensus in that discussion. Please also note that only reliable sources are usable on Wikipedia, and the sources you've listed are a mix of reliable (such as WP:RSP#USA Today), marginally reliable (such as WP:RSP#The Washington Times), and completely unusable (such as WP:RSP#Daily Mail). GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Further to this, Yahoo and MSN are news aggregators and the links you've included are republished articles already in your list. Also, the USA Today article does not remotely support your claim that "DOJ and the FBI have BOTH stated that Hunter Biden's emails are NOT of Russian origin, nor are they a part of a Russian conspiracy". Jr8825 • Talk 16:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
At this point, John Ratcliffe (American politician) isn't a reliable source for the positions of the DOJ, FBI, or US Government. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:9922:D361:2E74:D5EF (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

RE: The DOJ and the FBI have BOTH stated that Hunter Biden's emails are NOT of Russian origin, nor are they a part of a Russian conspiracy. This is simply untrue. (Most likely disinformation that the OP heard on social media. Apparently it's a distortion of something Fox News said.) The truth is that the FBI has carefully avoided saying anything, or even confirming that there is an investigation. The DOJ has said nothing as far as I know, but in any case the DOJ would not be in a position to know about Russian actions. The one person who said that was John Ratcliffe, Trump’s Director of National Intelligence, in an interview with Fox News. And he acknowledged that he knew “little” about the Post’s material.[14] -- MelanieN (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of an issue among commenters on this page with understanding the difference between "the FBI have not said X" and "the FBI have said that X is not true/happening/being investigated". GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Exactly. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Anonymous FBI/DOJ source(s) told Fox News, and a producer for Catherine Herridge & Major Garrett of CBS News, that FBI/DOJ concur with Ratcliffe. Herridge[15] and Garrett[[16] tweeted this last night, but AFAIK, only Fox News has reported it on-air and on-site. Meanwhile, FBI wrote a letter[17] to Ron Johnson: "we have nothing to add at this time to the October 19th public statement by the Director of National Intelligence about the available actionable intelligence" and "can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any ongoing investigation of persons or entities under investigation." Fox News is a dubious source, and I am not at liberty to candidly discuss my impressions of Herridge's credibility in this venue due to BLP vio concerns, but I don't think this information carries sufficient weight for inclusion unless it is heavily qualified. It doesn't seem to "raise questions" about whether false should be in the first sentence of this article, but rather it raises questions as to whether to believe what certain government officials are saying days before an election in which they have vested interests. If ever there was a time to be skeptical about what our government tells us, this is it. soibangla (talk) 00:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
IMO, Herridge's credibility is now about the same as John Solomon. That's sad. 😥 -- Valjean (talk) 03:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Pretty much anything we're likely to see from any official FBI source is "we do not comment on investigations in progress" or just "we can neither confirm nor deny". XOR'easter (talk) 06:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Soibangla, are there any sources other than conservative talking heads who support any of this? Guy (help! - typo?) 07:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Censorship on talk pages

A user named Valjean removed my previous posting here (and on the Hunter Biden 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 [18]?? 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)

(edit conflict)You crossposted this to Talk:Hunter Biden but I will repeat here. 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)
IHateAccounts 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: You're barking up the wrong tree here. These personal accusations clearly don't belong on Wikipedia, if you read WP:BLP you'll see it's not even a remotely marginal case. The only situation where they might become notable is if they were widely described by reliable media as being highly significant for political reasons, and even then you'd have a hard time arguing their inclusion because of verifiability. RSP says "The Washington Times is considered partisan for US politics", so a bit of common sense should tell you that it already has its hat in the ring on this topic. The consensus is that it's "marginally reliable" – completely insufficient for this kind of information. I trust you were acting in good faith, but you should not see Valjean's warning as a threat, or the removal of your comment as censorship. Read the policies before presuming bad faith, because competence is required. Jr8825 • Talk 17:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Another user's post was removed here, with the reason given that they have been blocked (block logs reveal that it's a 48h block). Since when do we remove all of a user's posts when they have been blocked for only 48h? --Distelfinck (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
A cursory check of the deletion log shows that the revisions were removed because of violations of WP:RD2, not because the user was blocked. In fact, their block was the result of adding BLP violations to this and the Hunter Biden talk page. Jr8825 • Talk 16:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
If I am not mistaken they are referring to this removal. Not the revdeleted stuff. PackMecEng (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I think you are right. I infer that JzG's removal of that section was because the user in question (who promptly went on to commit BLP violations) appeared to be pushing a POV on the basis of unreliable sources and personal accusations. Perhaps the edit summary could've have been clearer. Jr8825 • Talk 16:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
It was a BLP block. I'm not editing this page but it's on my watchlist, so I noted that material had been rev/deleted - clear RD2 at the very least. Possibly even worth oversighting, I need to think about that. Doug Weller talk 16:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Yodabyte, see WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:NOTFORUM. Genuine proposals to improve content are, of course, welcome. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Clarification needed

As written, the article does not just deny the NY Post story and the dubious allegation of Biden's causing Shokin's firing, but takes the significantly stronger position that any and all corruption allegations against the Bidens with regard to Ukraine, or even the idea that Hunter Biden was unqualified, constitute a conspiracy theory. Yet world socialist website (no right-wing source), while writing "This account is not very credible, but there does not as yet appear to be any substance to the charges by Trump & Co. that the vice president intervened to block the prosecution of his son’s company in 2016. " also states "But Ukraine is where Hunter Biden has apparently cashed in most extensively, trading on his father’s name and position" and "In the search for board members with the right contacts, Zlochevsky recruited Devon Archer, Biden’s business partner, the former president of Poland and ex-Stalinist Aleksander Kwaśniewski, and then Hunter Biden himself. Biden was brought on nominally to provide advice on corporate governance, although he never performed any actual legal work for the company". (article at https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/10/01/bide-o01.html) I think the article should be rewritten to clarify that it's about the dubious Shokin and NY Post claims, and not about any and all corruption related to the fact of Hunter Biden's employment at Burisma; from a certain perspective, his salary in and of itself was a bribe. 209.6.169.178 (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The NY Post story exists. All coverage in reliable independent sources casts serious doubt on its veracity, in every possible respect: the provenance of the laptop, the identity of the person who dropped it off, the authenticity of the content. This should be read in the context of a known ongoing FBI investigation into Russian hacking efforts directed at Hunter Biden and Burisma, which was notified to the White House at least a year ago, and the similar fact pattern around the Kremlin's attempt to smear Emanuel Macron in 2016, to say nothing of the DNC email hacks. This all fits neatly with the known MO of the GRU.
The idea that Joe Biden intervened to have Shokin fired to protect Burisma was extensively investigated in the impeachment hearings and shown to be completely inconsistent with all independently documented facts. Shokin was removed by a huge majority vote in the Ukrainian parliament after an investigation into extortion of another company led to associates who were found with large amounts of money and documents and multiple passports belonging to Shokin. The entire Western world wanted Shokin removed: the World Bank, the IMF, the EU and the US were calling for his removal long before Joe Biden got involved, because it was impossible for Western companies to do business in Ukraine due to our widely prevalent anti-bribery laws. You know these laws are an impediment to doing business in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, because Trump has complained about them in public. The timeline doesn't work for the underlying conspiracy theory any more than it works for the supposed laptop.
The biggest puzzle is why they thought adding Bannon and Giuliani to the mix would make it seem more credible. I guess they skimped on their research. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, and the article should state that it's specifically about Biden being behind Shokin's firing, not any and all corruption allegations regarding the Bidens and Burisma. Wikipedia can and should say that a quid pro quo regarding Shokin is a conspiracy theory; it should not state that "The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of false allegations which assert that 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden engaged in corrupt activities while the former was Vice President of the United States and the latter worked for the Ukrainian gas company Burisma" as its lede, nor should it say that "The conspiracy theory alleges 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,".

The claim that Hunter Biden was qualified to work at Burisma is unsourced (I think, [7] is after the sentence wiki states he was, but doesn't claim it) and dubious, and Burisma could've influenced US-Ukraine policy through Biden in ways other than firing Shokin (or attempted to, but failed); the article I linked certainly claims it as Burisma's motivation for hiring him. It reads to me as the sort of normal influence-peddling in capitalist democracies akin to the lobbyist “revolving door” - generally legal, but often criticized as corrupt. Neither claim is nearly as dubious as the debunked notion that Biden induced the firing of Shokin on Burisma's behalf, nor does either on its own rise to the level of a conspiracy theory. The rest of the article is fine. 209.6.169.178 (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

He's a qualified lawyer and formerly EVP at MBNA America, who subsequently served in the United States Department of Commerce in a policy position. Would I hire him? no. But is he qualified? It sure looks that way.
If the assertion is that Biden failed to have Shokin fired, then the subsequent Ukrainian Parliament vote is even more compelling IMO, but I've not seen it in sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I actually just removed the statement—it stuck out to me during my copyedit as very unusual for us to say in wikivoice that H. Biden was qualified for a job, especially because I couldn't tell which source was being used to support it and couldn't find any that said he was qualified so unequivocally. In fact I found some sources (including from left-leaning publications) that seem to agree that he was unqualified, though most are commenting on how nepotism is an expected part of American political families:
  • The Atlantic: "In April 2014, he became a director of Burisma, the largest natural-gas producer in Ukraine. He had no prior experience in the gas industry, nor with Ukrainian regulatory affairs, his ostensible purview at Burisma. He did have one priceless qualification: his unique position as the son of the vice president of the United States, newborn Ukraine’s most crucial ally."
  • Vox: "Back in 2014 after a change of regime in Ukraine, Hunter Biden joined the board of a scandal-plagued Ukrainian natural gas company named Burisma. Hunter had no apparent qualifications for the job except that his father was the vice president and involved in the Obama administration’s Ukraine policy."
I see that Soibangla has since added the statement, It was asserted that Hunter Biden's employment was suspicious because he had no expertise in the energy industry, though he was hired to consult on "transparency, corporate governance and responsibility, international expansion and other priorities" rather than on energy matters. That's at least got an inline source, though it seems a little bit WP:SYNTH—the Bloomberg source does verify that "The company said that Hunter Biden would advise on 'transparency, corporate governance and responsibility, international expansion and other priorities'", but it doesn't use it to refute the claim that H. Biden was unqualified. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Same WP:SYNTH concern applies to the just-added note about H. Biden's law degree: [19] GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare, not going to disagree with any of that. Most of it is duplicative anyway: just spin on what's already in articles like Hunter Biden and Viktor Shokin. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Opening para

I see a lot of agreement above that "false" belongs, but some good faith disagreement, and when I look at the lead I can see why long-time Wikipedians are expressing a preference for different wording because it appears to conflate the long-debunked Biden/Shokin claim with the new and merely dubious New York Post material. I'd suggest instead:

The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of narratives centred on the discredited idea that 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden engaged in corrupt activities while the former was Vice President of the United States and the latter worked for the Ukrainian gas company Burisma. These claims specifically relate to the firing of the corrupt former Chief Prosecutor of Ukraine, Viktor Shokin. Reporting since at least 2019 has noted that US demands for Shokin's firing were bipartisan, and were also supported by the European Union, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Shokin was removed from office by the Ukrainian Parliament in March 2016.

Sources that back this include:

  • Politi, James; Sevastopulo, Demetri; Peels, Michael; Olearchyk, Roman (October 4, 2019). "Envoys pushed to oust Ukraine prosecutor before Biden". Financial Times. Retrieved October 15, 2020.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Blake, Aaron (January 27, 2020). "The Bidens, Burisma and impeachment, explained". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 18, 2020.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Olearchyk, Roman; Chaffin, Joshua (2020-03-18). "Ukrainegate: Rudy Giuliani's new campaign against Joe Biden". Financial Times. Retrieved 2020-10-19.
  • McLaughlin, Daniel (March 29, 2016). "EU hails sacking of Ukraine's prosecutor Viktor Shokin". The Irish Times. Retrieved October 15, 2020.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Using the Financial Times homefully escapes the endless debate about the "liberal media" - the FT is owned by Nikkei and is as small-c conservative as you get.

What do people think? Guy (help! - typo?) 16:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Support this wording. This addresses the concerns around "false", and accurately represents the coverage in RS. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Support - this kind of wording is what I was leaning toward from the discussion above. 'Narratives' seems a bit weasel-y to me though, how about 'allegations'? Jr8825 • Talk 17:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Upon reflection, and having read the comments of others, I think it's better to retain "false" or an equally strong synonym like "debunked". Jr8825 • Talk 23:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment doesn't this suggestion belong in the RfC section? Jr8825 • Talk 17:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Jr8825, the RfC is a mess, it asks about one word, and as I note above, there's plenty of support even from those who favour "false" for an alternative form of words. The problem to my reading is really not the word "false" in and of itself, but the way the issues are conflated. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Oppose: The three linchpins of this conspiracy theory are categorically false, there is no grey area open to interpretation, and this had been established in Hunter Biden and Conspiracy theories related to the Trump–Ukraine scandal before this article was created on the basis of a dubious Post story to reanimate the conspiracy theory.
1) Hunter Biden was unqualified for his Burisma job: false. The oft-repeated narrative that Burisma is an energy company, and Hunter had no energy expertise so therefore he was unqualified, is a red herring that ignores that Burisma didn’t hire him for energy expertise.
2) Joe Biden extorted Ukraine to protect his son: false
3) He admitted it in a 2018 “smoking gun” video: false
Take away these three flatly false linchpins and the whole conspiracy theory unravels, regardless of the Post story. soibangla (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
@Soibangla: would it be accurate to say (and are the RS in agreement) that "The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of misleading narratives centred on the discredited idea that..."? Jr8825 • Talk 19:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Soibangla, it would make sense to add that in para 2. My thoughts run thus:
Begin with the base claim, that Joe Biden intervened to help Burisma. This has been extensively analysed and is about as wrong as you can get.
Then describe the "Hunter unqualified" trope. The idea that someone was hired due to their connections is scarcely implausible, and it falls well short of any other by Biden père or fils. It bothers me that this shit happens, but it's not illegal, and it's not obviously outrageous to hire someone like Hunter Biden to advise on governance, since he has at least some experience in both corporate and government sectors. It hurts us not to acknowledge that if Hunter Biden's name was Henry Bloggs he would not have got the job.
Then describe the current furore: the implausible laptop, the disk bought after it was dropped off for more than the cost of the repair, the chain of custody that passes through a man under indictment for fraud and another who was notified to the White House as a target of Russian disinformation, the smocking guns that have no independently verified metadata, the meeting that official records show didn't happen and so on. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I just wanted to note that I particularly agree with JzG on the second point. Even left-leaning sources have described H. Biden landing jobs and generally profiting off of being Joe Biden's son, and so it's worth a mention even though he also had qualifications (law degree, governance background) that were relevant. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Soibanga. The conspiracy theories are categorically false. That like most conspiracy theories, they rely on misrepresenting small kernels of truth (such as that while VP, Biden acted in according with the policy of the USA to get Ukraine to remove a corrupt prosecutor, which still had precisely two things to do with Burisma: Jack and Poop) does not mean that we have to try to WP:WEASEL the wording.
As for the "latest one", let me get this straight, they want us to believe the following:
  1. Hunter Biden, who lives in Los Angeles
  2. decides to fly 3000 miles across the country
  3. carrying not one but THREE macbooks
  4. somehow gets water or some kind of liquid spill, enough to damage them, on ALL THREE
  5. instead of taking them to a reputable repair shop, Apple Store, or waiting till he gets back home he decides to go to a random strip-mall repair shop run by a legally blind guy.
  6. He doesn't have the laptops password protected or anything.
  7. He somehow doesn't come back for THREE laptops that he dropped off at this no-name repair shop.
  8. The shop owner claims to have tried to contact him, then instead of simply wiping/rebuilding the laptops, goes snooping in them to try to recover personal information from them and...
  9. magically he finds "hunter biden's private emails" and proceeds to report them to the FBI
  10. BUT he also makes copies to give to Steve Bannon and Rudy Giuliani.
  11. Rudy and Steve hold onto this for months, and then magically produce them right before the election.
  12. Oh and Rudy shopped it to Fox News, but even Fox wasn't dumb enough to believe this crap https://www.mediaite.com/tv/exclusive-fox-news-passed-on-hunter-biden-laptop-story-over-credibility-concerns/
  13. Fortunately for Rudy, the New York Post (a right-wing tabloid with less credibility reputation than the National Enquirer) was willing to run with this so that the talk radio circuit could start feeding it up to Fox's TV Division and give Giuliani another round of guest interview spots with the lines of Hannity and Limbaugh. And this gave the excuse for certain extremist right-wing politicians to throw temper tantrums about the fact that Twitter, Facebook, and most of the credible national media (you know, anyone that actually has journalistic standards) rightly looked askance at the "story" for having all the reliability of a soaked spooge rag at a 24-hour video shop.
Exactly how gullible does someone have to be to think that this is in any way legitimate? 2601:2C0:C300:B7:B5C1:27E9:546F:9D78 (talk) 21:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
a lot more gullible than me, but I think you misunderstand my proposal. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Though I would prefer 'allegations' over 'narratives' as this seems to be a better fit for what RS are currently saying, and also I think adheres better to BLP policy, in that 'allegations' more clearly defines that the claims remain unproven. RandomGnome (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
    RandomGnome, but the "allegations" about Shokin are definitively refuted, so that gives a false equivalency that is IMO not warranted. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
The problem is that the article covers multiple Biden-Ukraine issues, so the opening para is attempting to define and characterize all of those collectively, and some of these issues carry more weight than others. For example, RS have pointed out that Hunter's gainful employment being independent of his father's position is questionable. Can RS make these allegations or only law enforcement according to WP? Is it right to call that singular issue a 'false allegation' at all? Or is it a sincere claim that has not been adequately disproven, according to RS? Good faith questions, thanks. RandomGnome (talk) 13:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
RandomGnome, very much my point. Start by pointing out that the root claim - that Joe Biden had Viktor Shokin fired to protect Burisma - is wrong in pretty much every possible respect. Then point out that the provenance of the laptop is profoundly suspicious. Then point out that the allegations about Hunter Biden being hired for his name and him being an addict, are both well-known and irrelevant to the price of fish. Finally, the one new item, the supposed meeting, we can say is denied by former staffers based on diaries which are part of the public record.
There is no "there" there. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

More sources: Rudy’s ‘Russian Agent’ Pal Teases ‘Second Laptop’ With Hunter Biden Kompromat

It's almost like they want the most confusion all at once by giving conflicting messages all at once. I wonder if Giuliani knew this would come out at all? Koncorde (talk) 02:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it's the same pattern of disruption that Russian intelligence used in 2016. Create confusion and division that promises a lot and ends up being nothing, but does damage along the way. They're already accusing Hunter of pedophilia, and even though false, it leaves a stain. -- Valjean (talk) 04:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Who has confirmed that this story is debunked?

Who has confirmed that this has been thoroughly "debunked"? Shouldn't both sides of the argument be presented if some sources have claimed to have debunked the claim and other sources claim that it is true? The opening reeks of bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolandy55 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you specify which sources describe it as true? GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
The Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe stated on the record that the intelligence community does not think the laptop information is Russian disinformation, and said there is no evidence to support that. [1]JettaMann (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
How does that support your claim that the allegations are true? GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
It confirms that the emails have not been debunked. (What the person in this thread is stating.) Fox News also contacted one of the people who was CC:'d on the email allegedly detailing how the proceeds would be split and he confirmed it was real.[2] JettaMann (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Given that the vast majority of sourcing says that these allegations are baseless, with Trump partisans the only ones pushing them, doing what you suggest would produce a Wikipedia:FALSEBALANCE that violates NPOV. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Everyone is being very close-mouthed about this, but the FBI has the laptop classified as evidence in a money laundering investigation, and have stated the story is not Russian disinformation.[20] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkeets (talk • contribs) 04:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
@Pkeets: You're right that the FBI is being tight-lipped, but I'm pretty sure they haven't confirmed, as of yet, whether or not the emails are in any way linked to Russia. The NYT link certainly doesn't say this, it acknowledges Ratcliffe's statement but says he didn't make it clear whether his view was shared by intelligence agencies or the FBI. Jr8825 • Talk 06:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/21/politics/fbi-russia-disinformation/index.html
  2. ^ https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-biden-emails-documents-alleged-signature-fbi-paperwork

Should we wait to see the results of an upcoming FBI investigation on the matter or take the MSM's word on it being a conspiracy?

I am happy with either, just want to know opinions. Reaper7 (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the fundamental tenets of Wikipedia very well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
The Leftist Media is doing a great amount of damage control for the Biden campaign by claiming the laptop is Russian disinfo, but it's looking more and more like it's the real deal. I can just imagine the things being said by Biden's staff about Hunter Biden- !#%!&!!! -Topcat777 (talk) 19:15, 20 Oct 2020 (UTC)
[citation needed] GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
On October 19, a group of over 50 former senior intelligence officials, who had served in the Trump administration as well as the three previous, released an open letter stating that the release of the alleged emails "has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation." soibangla (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I imagine the Biden campaign was prepared for this attempt at an October surprise, given the GRU hacked Burisma back in January. The laptop is probably fake, and the emails come from the hack. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
That would certainly be consistent with GRU tactics, such as the 2017 Macron e-mail leaks where Russian agents salted fake emails into a set of legitimate (but stolen) emails and "leaked" them through Pastebin while using Wikileaks to try to boost the "story." 2601:2C0:C300:B7:F498:F707:531D:DF4C (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Reminder: liberal is the opposite of conservative. The opposite of mainstream is fringe. The NY Post's story is fringe, and the mainstream media has consistently pointed out that it is a mix of wildly implausible, suspicious, provably wrong, and farcical, in pretty much equal measure. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Reaper7, https://www.npr.org/2020/10/17/924506867/analysis-questionable-n-y-post-scoop-driven-by-ex-hannity-producer-giuliani Guy (help! - typo?) 23:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 October 2020

On October 20, Fox News reported that the FBI and Department of Justice concur with the Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe that Hunter Biden’s laptop and emails are not part of a Russian disinformation campaign. 2604:3D08:9A7E:E000:FDB2:22DE:E0C:CAB8 (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you supply a source for this information? Liz Read! Talk! 01:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm guessing they're referring to "Ratcliffe says Hunter Biden laptop, emails 'not part of some Russian disinformation campaign'". If so, that's the same topic that was discussed in the edit request above: #Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 October 2020. There would definitely need to be a stronger source than "Ratcliffe says so", especially since he seems to be claiming the FBI isn't investigating it at all, not that the FBI investigated and found no connection. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Interesting, Fox is now repeating a bunch of the Post's claims that have been debunked. So... [[21]], Fox News being unreliable for both politics and science (wow, how does wikipedia bother trusting them for anything at all these days?) 2601:2C0:C300:B7:F498:F707:531D:DF4C (talk) 02:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, per RSP, "There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science" which is different from a consensus that they're unreliable. But I do agree that they should not be used to make a contentious claim such as this one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
We're not on a deadline here; there's no harm in waiting a day to see who follows up on any particular thing that Fox says. (The same would go for a left-leaning source with a similarly checkered past.) XOR'easter (talk) 04:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Quite so. Much better to get things right than rush ahead of artificial political deadlines. Put this article aside for three or four weeks, and revisit its significance once that smoke clears. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. PackMecEng (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this section yet and I just deleted it. See the edit summary. -- Valjean (talk) 05:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

As I pointed out below, this claim is untrue. And Fox News did not report it. John Ratcliffe said in a Fox News interview that there is no Russian connection. The FBI and the DOJ have said nothing of the sort. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Giuliani filmed mishandling laptop?

Off-topic. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

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


Can’t help thinking new Borat footage showing Giuliani seemingly mishandling his own "laptop" with an actress playing an underage girl makes it impossible to discuss any kind of laptop with a straight face from here on out. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The Borat film is not material to this discussion. Pkeets (talk) 04:37, 23 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.

For the sake of argument

Let’s stipulate the Post story is 100% true. How would that show that “Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden engaged in corrupt activities?” From what I can tell, the only “explosive” part of this story is that Hunter may have introduced Joe to a Burisma board advisor. And that would establish...what, exactly? soibangla (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

That Joe lied about talking to Hunter... wait. No it wouldn't. Dammit. You got me with that old "perception of a conflict of interest" again. Koncorde (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I guess they're thinking that Hunter introducing Joe to someone proves corrupt dealings? The irony given the Trump children's actual corrupt dealings is impressive. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
There's a pattern of DARVO in conservative circles, "accusing others of what they themselves do". Intriguingly the Freyd Dynamics Lab website is replete with examples from the Trump family. https://dynamic.uoregon.edu/jjf/defineDARVO.html 2601:2C0:C300:B7:F498:F707:531D:DF4C (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Can a reliable source not be a far left publication

Disruptive and responded to. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It seems the only authorised sources are left wing circle jerks which leads to extremely biased articles like this one... Can you stop being cucks so we can have an encyclopedia that reflects reality instead of this left wing fantasy you pretend we live in?86.4.66.176 (talk) 07:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

As above, sources include the Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal. Mainstream is the opposite of fringe, not the opposite of conservative. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
True but it's also possible for the mainstream to be left-leaning and biased. --2A00:23C7:8E0B:6E00:F45D:EDCC:F35:7C25 (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
There is a continuum of mainstream sources from the Wall Street Journal on the right to the Washington Post on the left. All are in agreement that the core claim that Biden had Shokin sacked to protect Burisma, is hogwash. You'll note that I have cited the Financial Times several times above. That's not a left-leaning source. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

What has Hunter Biden said?

The FAQ on this talk page says, "The idea that Hunter Biden, a California resident under intense public scrutiny, would drop off an unencrypted laptop at a Delaware computer shop run by a Trump supporter, rather than use an Apple store or a local trusted repairer, is considered dubious by mainstream sources."

Has Hunter Biden said that he never had a laptop dropped off or sent for repair at that shop ("The Mac Shop" in Wilmington), and, consequently, that the computer could not have been his? If not, what has he said about that? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not believe that he has commented. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Ratcliff Interview.

I edited the relevant section to include Ratcliff's comments regarding this not being a Russian misinformation campaign ect. It was reverted because the sources used were said to be unreliable despite the fact there is no dispute this is what Ratcliff said. I then undid the revert to include the link the original source which includes the actual video. Of course, this was immediately reverted. Ratcliff is the DNI of the United States and his statements are what they are regardless of whether the interview is made on Fox Business of CNN therefore the source itself is irrelevant as Ratcliff is clearly the verifiable source of the comments themselves which we can see and hear for ourselves. This is clearly an abuse of Wikipedia rules to censor a duly appointed official whose claims differ from the opposition narrative. Thanos5150 (talk) 04:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't particularly appreciate the accusation that the other editor and I are "censor[ing] a duly appointed official whose claims differ from the opposition narrative". You were repeatedly inserting content that has already been discussed at some length on this talk page (see #Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 October 2020 and #Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 October 2020 (3) for two such discussions), with the result that the information was not added. I undid your introduction of the material because a change to that deecision ought to be made by consensus, not unilaterally. The concern is not over whether Ratcliffe said what he said, I can see as well as you can. The concern is over whether including the information improperly implies that an official statement has been made on behalf of the FBI. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
For the convenience of others reading the section, this is the text that Thanos5150 is wishing to add:

In an interview with Maria Bartiromo of Fox Business, US Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said of the emails that they "are not part of some Russian disinformation campaign." He continued to say "Unfortunately, it is Adam Schiff who said the intelligence community believes the Hunter Biden laptop and emails on it are part of a Russian disinformation campaign." and "Let me be clear: the intelligence community doesn’t believe that because there is no intelligence that supports that. And we have shared no intelligence with Adam Schiff, or any member of Congress."[1]

GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Looks kind of relevant. Is this all still a "conspiracy theory", or could it be described with the more neutral word "allegations"? Narssarssuaq (talk) 06:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare, good grief. That's not a national security commentary, it's a series of Republican talking points. What does Chris Wray say? Guy (help! - typo?) 07:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
That paragraph doesn't mention the FBI at all, so any supposed implication is your own improper inference. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Yeah that proposed text is a hard no from me dawg. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

First it was removed because the sources used were not "reliable" so I changed it to the original source including the actual interview with Ratcliff. Problem solved. Then you reverted it because "The concern is over whether including the information improperly implies that an official statement has been made on behalf of the FBI". What is it going to be next? Regardless, the problem with this is the edit does not claim it is an "official statement" nor does Ratcliff make this claim. He is however the DNI and this is what he is telling the American people in an interview which it stands to reason the words of the Director of Intelligence of the United States has as much weight if not more than CNN's "a US official and a congressional source briefed on the matter" and equally deserving to be included in this article if it is to be objective. Therefore, if this is really such a "concern" then say in the edit to the effect "While not an official statement from the FBI, in an interview with Fox Business DNI Ratcliff said...." So I have eliminated the first reason it was reverted and now the second. There is now no reasona whatsover not to include these comments from Ratcliff.Thanos5150 (talk) 04:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Thanos5150: Please look at the diff of your most recent edit. I don't think you did what you meant to do. But yes, repeatedly adding content to an article after it has been challenged (even if it is part of the quoted source) is considered edit warring. I'm not about to go report you for it, I'm just asking you to please discuss before reintroducing the Ratcliffe claim, as it has been repeatedly challenged on the talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

[DELETE] Thanos5150 (talk) 05:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

My mistake. Sorry I missed that you reverted it back and said: "actually, this part I'm okay with, though no objections to this being reverted if others disagree. But Thanos please stop with the edit warring)". I have undid my undo to revert to your revert. Thanos5150 (talk) 05:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Thanos5150: if you check the revision history you'll see GorillaWarfare reverted herself after looking again at your addition of the CNN quote, and explained she had no objection to it in the edit summary. I think you mistakenly removed your addition by undoing her more recent edit. Any repeated reverts like this are edit warring, regardless of the context, so do be cautious as there are active discretionary sanctions on this topic. Jr8825 • Talk 05:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Thanos, glad we got that portion sorted out at least. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
The notion that we can have an entire subsection dedicated to a snippet of an opinion from unnamed and unaccountable former intelligence officials (formerly and dishonestly titled "Intelligence community"), but not even one full clear sentence from the current head of the American intelligence community is clearly fucked up in favour of those who want to believe commies are lurking behind everything in US politics. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
InedibleHulk, and what do reliable independent secondary sources say? Looks to me as if they give more weight to 50 long-term trusted intelligence officials rather than one Trump loyalist. Can't think why. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Reliable sources are reporting on Ratcliffe's comments.[2][3] His comments should be mentioned in the article, along with any reliably sourced caveats or skepticism. – Anne drew 16:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Anne drew Andrew and Drew, "In a carefully worded letter". You know what that means, right? Guy (help! - typo?) 16:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I have no objection to also mentioning the carefully worded letter in the article. – Anne drew 16:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
It is noteworthy that the DNI is saying things. It's also noteworthy that the reliable sources are pointing out how he's acting as a Trump surrogate and giving half-truths at best. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Muboshgu, I'm not opposed in principle - in USA Today they frame it as: "Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said Monday that recently published emails purporting to document the business dealings of Hunter Biden are not connected to a Russian disinformation effort, even as federal authorities continued to review whether the material was part of such a campaign." But I think we need more sources to establish what the hell is going on, because even the Daily Mail describes Ratcliffe as a "Trump loyalist". Guy (help! - typo?) 16:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)x
There is nothing sinister about a government official being viewed as loyal to that government's president. I'm pretty sure the guys the last three presidents nominated weren't treacherous bastards, either. It's almost as if a federal administration is supposed to work together. Anyway, I fold. I've seen all of you defend this Russophobia angle for four years. You're seasoned and steadfast, and resistance is futile. Anyway, Canada encourages you to choose Harris, nice and polite-like, see? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
InedibleHulk, true, there is "nothing sinister" in Ratcliffe supporting Trump. But, the politicization of non-political roles in this administration is unprecedented. I don't agree with your claim that there is "Russophobia" here. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: It seems pretty clear to me that there's extremely strong unease, expressed in a wide variety of reliable sources, about Ratcliffe's integrity and partisanship, not least with his statement on the laptop. Here's the Economist (not exactly a left-wing source) at the time of his appointment: what Mr Ratcliffe lacks in experience he makes up for in devotion to Mr Trump. Mr Ratcliffe falsely accused Robert Mueller, during his congressional testimony, of having exceeded his brief as special counsel. He propounded the conspiracy theory that “there may have been a secret society” of federal agents working against Mr Trump. The New York Times uncovered embellishments to his biography, including one claim that he “arrested 300 illegal aliens in a single day” (prosecutors do not have powers of arrest), and another that he “convicted individuals funnelling money to Hamas” (he did not). See other sources expressing similar distrust: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Perhaps you should WP:AGF, rather than presume others are pushing an agenda? Jr8825 • Talk 21:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
The thing is, this is about whether Russia or a Russian is the source of information about Hunter Biden and by extension Joe, not Trump. If there was evidence of meddlesome Russians, per "Trump's own intelligence advisers", it would be welcomed with open arms on Wikipedia, to contradict and mock the president. It already has gone that way many times. The amount of "Russian interference" themed articles is testament to the agenda, not my lack of good faith. And look below. Fox is not allowed to discuss partisan topics, only CNN. You may not be part of it, but the bias toward linking Trump to Putin is thriving here. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
InedibleHulk, it would be quite shocking for a Trump admin official to break from Trump. We're not here to "mock" Trump. You do need a refresher on AGF. We don't have an "agenda" re: Russia, we're documenting facts. Russia hacked Burisma in January. And now here we are with a mysterious laptop with these emails. Even Ratcliffe says Russia (and Iran) are interfering right now. It's no surprise that the reliable sources are dubious of the story, and of Ratcliffe. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Doubt is opinion, not fact. Relay the documented fact that the same community that found evidence of Russian interference in other areas found none here, and contradict the conspiracy theory this article currently spreads to suggest otherwise. I believe you could, without politicizing it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I think the USA Today framed that fairly well, and we can frame it similarly, with the right sourcing. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Muboshgu, not a great source, but I trust your judgment. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps you could float a new proposal for wording to discuss? I do think it ought to be mentioned, but we need to be more careful to reflect the framing we're seeing in RS. As we've seen on this talk page (and as I'm seeing a lot offwiki), a lot of people are misinterpreting Ratcliffe's comments as "the intelligence community confirmed Russia is not involved" or "the emails are legit", despite no one having said such a thing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Note also that Ratcliffe referred specifically to Russians, as opposed to pro-Russian Ukrainians such as Firtash and Derkach, so I suppose that could technically mean he’s not “lying.” soibangla (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Soibangla, or Iran or anyone else. He is tap-dancing around the facts, even while putting his cock on the block for Trump. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
JzG, what's wrong with USA Today? WP:RSP has it in green. Anyway, it's just one source, and there are surely many more out there. I've casually read some of them. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I can see Ratcliffe's comments being picked up by reliable sources, but generally as a footnote to the saga, rather than as a headline itself. The proper context of his statement seems to be as a rebuke to Schiff's comments - so I suggest we include it but framed in a way that makes it clear his comments aren't revealing new information about any investigations by the FBI/intelligence organisations. See this example from the Independent (UK). Jr8825 • Talk 19:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I support holding the RFC reexamining the question and hopefully getting a definitive answer on Fox News's unreliability in the area of politics. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ratcliffe-hunter-biden-laptop-emails-not-russian-disinformation-campaign
  2. ^ Perez, Evan. "FBI says it has 'nothing to add' to Ratcliffe's claim on Russian disinformation". CNN.
  3. ^ Johnson, Kevin. "DNI Ratcliffe: Russia disinformation not behind published emails targeting Biden; FBI reviewing". USA TODAY.

Inside the campaign to 'pizzagate' Hunter Biden

Inside the campaign to 'pizzagate' Hunter Biden. Pizzagate-style rumors in 2016 were largely confined to far-right message boards. This year, they are reaching the mainstream with help from a website boosted by Trump. -- Valjean (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Email authenticity

Article includes the sentence "a political scientist and disinformation expert at Johns Hopkins University, noted that the emails could have been forged or that forged material could have been mixed with genuine materials".

If these emails are not genuine emails wouldn't Hunter/Joe Biden/Biden's campaign come out and state that they are forged emails? As far as I'm aware nobody has done that more than a week after the NY Post article was published. Yodabyte (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, but maybe not. The Biden campaign probably figures that the less oxygen they give to the Hunter laptop story, the better. We can't know for sure. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
The emails contain potential serious corruption with adversarial countries, why wouldn't Biden want to knock that down right away if these are forgeries? Yodabyte (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I assume because it wouldn't "knock that down" to more explicitly comment on them. Any further statement from the Biden campaign on this would be something for newscasts to report on, followed by the Trump response, giving the story more oxygen and making it a distraction for their final two week strategy. But I'm just speculating with no inside information. We have nothing to add to the article based on what they aren't doing. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I guess so...just think that a headline saying something like "Biden Says Laptop Emails Forged" would only help Biden's campaign. Yodabyte (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Maybe but it would also give oxygen to right wing talk radio's outrage engine, which would respond along WP:MANDY lines. It's also very possible that what's on the "laptop" is a mixture of stolen/hacked material and nongeniune material, similar to Russia's disinformation attempt in the 2017 Macron e-mail leaks October surprise attempt where "false documents were mingled with genuine ones in order "to create confusion and misinformation."" The correct PR response to a baseless tabloid "story" like this is could be no response. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Yodabyte, only if you believe that Joe Biden had Viktor Shokin fired to protect Burisma. Since that has been known to be false for over four years, not so much. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Guy, not trying to be rude or sarcastic (sometimes good faith can't come across very good when typing online) but I read your reply above several times and have no idea what you are trying to say. Yodabyte (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Yodabyte, per The emails contain potential serious corruption with adversarial countries, why wouldn't Biden want to knock that down right away if these are forgeries, but when the underlying claims have been known to be false for over a year (which is the case here) there is every reason not to dignify them with a response. That's all. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
We certainly can't use the Bidens/Biden campaign not saying something as though it were a reliable source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Also consider that the NY Post has deliberately NOT allowed any other outlet access to the information to try to vet it or confirm anything. They're playing it close to the vest and trying to drip-drip-drip things out to keep it a running story and feed the right-wing talk radio engine. Tabloid practices, and very shady. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
NBC News apparently requested a copy from Giuliani four days ago and have not heard back [22]. Politico has also noted their inability to review or verify the material [23]. XOR'easter (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

So, this from Politico today...

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-disinfo-430276 "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.”"

After checking Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, Politico is considered fully Reliable. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:F498:F707:531D:DF4C (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory#Retired intelligence officials GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks :) I'm still learning writing style. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:F498:F707:531D:DF4C (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Major Garrett, the chief Washington correspondent for CBS News, says the following: [24] So allegedly, the FBI, the Department of Justice, the Director of National Intelligence, the CBS, a former mayor of New York and presidential candidate, and the New York Post have all been fooled or brainwashed by the Russians. I don't know what to conclude, except that the story Wikipedia is telling by now seems a bit far-fetched. And if it eventually turns out to be completely false, it would seem that Wikipedia has been used to spread disinformation. Narssarssuaq (talk) 07:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Narssarssuaq, Here's the full statement from Christopher Wray:
Oh, he didn't say anything. As you were, then. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
JzG, it must be a conspiracy theory, then. Narssarssuaq (talk) 09:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Narssarssuaq You need to strike the FBI, the Department of Justice, and CBS from your list. They were not fooled (although I don't know how Major Garrett fell for it). The DNI, a former mayor of New York and presidential candidate who has spent the past year making a public fool of himself, and the New York Post which never had any credibility to begin with, have apparently been fooled or brainwashed by the Russians, probably more than once. On that list, only the DNI is surprising - and he admitted in the next breath that he didn't have much or any actual knowledge about the material. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
You okay? PackMecEng (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Are you? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
So far, but I'm not the one ranting. Maybe take it down a notch is all I'm saying. When you start accusing people of being "brainwashed by the Russians" or things like "spent the past year making a public fool of himself" it is not a good time. PackMecEng (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
"Making a public fool of himself" are my words, I admit. "fooled or brainwashed by the Russians" are Narssarssuaq's words. I am simply pointing out that he was mistaken about half of the people he suggested have been fooled or brainwashed - namely, the credible half. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
The FBI has stated that this story is not Russian disinformation. They have the laptop classified as part of a money laundering investigation.[25] See NY Times article. Pkeets (talk) 04:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Pkeets, the source doesn't actually say that. "Officials separately confirmed that the F.B.I. seized the laptop and an external hard drive as part of an investigation, though they did not detail the inquiry or whether it involved money laundering or Hunter Biden". Of course it would have been under a code for a money laundering investigation given the Giuliani narrative. But you'll note that the source says they've had it for a year, and the only indictments that seem even tangentially related are Russian hackers, notably those involved in the superficially similar attempt against Emanuel Macron in 2017. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Truth issues

The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of false allegations which assert that 2020 Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden engaged in corrupt activities while the former was Vice President of the United States and the latter worked for the Ukrainian gas company Burisma

I am curious how an article can be claimed as "a series of false allegations" when all the facts and research have not been completed.

Oak Flat 10-20-2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oak Flat (talk • contribs) 16:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the same as well. Wikipedia has got severe bias issues in many pages. --47.62.198.161 (talk) 17:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth and argument from ignorance. We go by reliable sources, which uniformly reject any claim of "corrupt activities" by either Biden. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
"Reliable" sources. Yeah, that's Wikipedia's built-in bias. And the result is- The general public does not count Wikipedia as reliable. Any article dealing with a controversial subject cannot be trusted. -Topcat777 (talk) 23:24, 20 Oct 2020 (UTC)
@Topcat777:, are you opposing our RS policy? I want to be sure I understand you correctly. If you're being sarcastic, your last sentence doesn't make sense. -- Valjean (talk) 05:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
The RS policy probably needs to be changed. Back in 2004, the "respected" news media were regarded as the most reliable sources for current topics, but with an increased availability and diversity of sources of information, this has changed. The bad news is that it is more difficult to write an encyclopedia once there is a diversity of viewpoints, in which one man's conspiracy theory becomes another man's truth. Narssarssuaq (talk) 13:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Just wondering what the reliable source is that the allegations are fake. CNN? A reliable source by WP's standards maybe. Maybe better to say "the allegations are false according to xxx" given that a lot of these 'reliable sources' are not neutral parties --2A00:23C7:8E0B:6E00:F45D:EDCC:F35:7C25 (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The allegations that Biden intervened in Ukraine to protect Burisma are false according to the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, and multiple other sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

This is more of a notice, but I have begun a discussion about breaking CNN up how Fox News is broke up in Wikipedia RS. Here is the discussion. {This section is just a notice as this related to the article current discussions.} (Current Event WikiProject Coordinator) Elijahandskip (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Elijahandskip, this was debated only weeks ago and the consensus was that it's reliable. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
JzG, Just for my personal enjoyment do you have a link? Asartea Trick | Treat 15:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Asartea, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 307 (and search for CNN in the archives at WP:RSN) Guy (help! - typo?) 15:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Fox News

The article needs to include information recently disclosed which suggests that a person or persons who where noted to be on the email chains of certain alleged Hunter Biden emails have substantiated that the messages where in fact authentic.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-biden-china-email-source-verifies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1217:49A9:C8B5:FB13:948E:E7A7 (talk) 04:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Has this source explained how meta-data of an email supposedly written in 2017 shows it to actually have been written in December 2019? Hyperbolick (talk) 05:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
The emails were later exported to PDF after the laptop was dropped off. It's the metadata of these PDFs that are dated 2019, not the emails. Please read more carefully as to not spread misinformation. Databased (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Databased: can you provide me with the meta-data for the emails? Wait, what's that? There is none? The only meta-data which exists at all is that for the PDF files? How odd, no? Perhaps the files only had to look good enough to fool Giuliani. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
One suspects it's not that hard to fool a guy who married his cousin. https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/05/rudy-giuliani-john-oliver-last-week-tonight 2601:2C0:C300:B7:2CFA:3DA8:CE80:C645 (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
When that source comes forward and names himself, I'll take it seriously. Remember Rudy going on about what his friends at FBI-NY said was going to drop in 2016. You offer that "evidence" you're not serious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C6:4300:6EE0:10A3:59CB:3FE4:D1BE (talk) 05:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
The source (or at least A source) has now come forward. https://nypost.com/2020/10/22/hunter-ex-partner-tony-bobulinski-calls-joe-biden-a-liar/ Justin.olbrantz (talk) 11:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Justin.olbrantz, Reliable source needed. There are so many bad-faith actors engaged here that we need very high quality reliable sources to establish what is actually being claimed and by whom, because there is a regrettable tendency to add one and one and make eleventy. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
He's the CEO of the SinoHawk company. What more credentials could he possibly have to speak about the internal workings of his own company? Justin.olbrantz (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
First, Fox is not reliable for political claims. Second, there are many more sources that absolutely refute this claim. So: No. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Third neither is MSNBC or CNN. This shows the bias. Guitarguy2323 (talk) 01:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

But wait, the Fox News story doesn't name its source. So, um...fake news, right? It's all so unfair! soibangla (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
For me, only sources that is reliable is the BBC or similar (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc). Fox News and it's affiliated are not used when reporting the news, even news about hurricane because it affiliates to Trump or right-wing. BBC or its similar media tend to more affiliate to American people, which is more reliable than any other news organization. 110.137.170.83 (talk) 03:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
WP:RSP is a useful resource for what is generally considered reliable (and in what contexts), FWIW. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
So if Fox News leans toward Trump on "all articles" and that makes it unreliable, then CNN is unreliable as it leans toward Biden. Simple. CNN and Fox News are both unreliable in politic news. LOGIC! Elijahandskip (talk) 14:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
How about we focus on editing this article and leave broad-strokes discussion of the reliability of various sources for more appropriate locations such as WP:RSN? GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare, I agree with GW, this is not the right venue to debate whether a source qualifies as a reliable source. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, source bias always seems to enter into the discussion. The truth is that you need to carefully separate opinion from fact in any media. Just because Fox/CNN reports Washington Irving thought the Earth is flat is no sign that it really is. Pkeets (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Delete article and take the small amount of relevant info and add it to Biden Campaign article

There is already a Trump-Ukraine scandal article that has most of the facts related to Giuliani and the Bidens. There us also a Hunter Biden article in Wikipedia.

I would propose that the current article is not notable. It can be summarized, with the minimal references in the Biden campaign article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden_2020_presidential_campaign

right under the Trump Ukraine thing. Make a section called "The 2020 Giuliani and Associates accusations." That way it is clear they all come from Giuliani and NY Post.

The current article makes it look like there is a valid conspiracy and an FBI investigation into some laptop. A very neutral description of this entire sequence of events is given by NPR here:

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/17/924506867/analysis-questionable-n-y-post-scoop-driven-by-ex-hannity-producer-giuliani

This matter is a trivial item in the big scheme, but some remnants of this will remain in Wikipedia into the Biden presidency, which is likely the outcome of the election. The actual Hunter Biden working for Burisma is well covered already. But currently the article we are discussing is only adding to conspiracy thinking.

Tero111 (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Tero111, No objections here, you are very welcome to nominate for deletion. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Scroll up. There was a split (Premature) vote that lasted 24 hours.Elijahandskip (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Meanwhile, rename to Giuliani-NY Post conspiracy theory. SPECIFICO talk 20:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
NOTE: Only administrators can have to move the page due to highly controversial and visible page, so any users that want to move the page please conducted using Request move tool. I also asking admin to imposing 1RR for this article but it will wait pre-condition that impose 1RR. 110.137.170.83 (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, move requests can be initiated by anyone. My preferred title would be "Pfffffft", tbh. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I have no issue with the article existing, however I do object to trying to merge it with the Biden campaign. This is directly related to the Trump–Ukraine scandal where chunks already exist kind of covering these accusations so if any content is to be merged anywhere it should be there.
Anything related to the laptop is at best currently WP:AVOIDVICTIM as we can assume Biden didn't leak his own info so was hacked, and WP:BLPCRIME for the current unfounded accusations at Hunter Biden and Joe Biden. People can read the news for that info, we are WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGOSSIP. Koncorde (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't know that "hacked" is the best term for this. If this is all true, then Biden was just careless with his laptop and lost control of the private information as a result. If the emails have come from the Russian hack of Burisma, of course, then the term is accurate. Pkeets (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Leslie Stahl interviews Trump and he pushes conspiracy theory

You may never see the entire interview, as Trump walked out because Stahl would not play along with the Giuliani concocted October surprise.

Here is the relevant part, but read the whole thing in the link.

"Lesley Stahl: (21:19) You’re taking something that was investigated-

Donald Trump: (21:22) Lesley, let me ask you. You think it’s okay for the Mayor of Moscow’s wife to give him millions and millions of dollars, three and a half million dollars, to give his family three and a half? Do you think it’s okay for Hunter Biden to say that we’re giving the big guy 10% of this massive amount of money they’re taking? Do you think it’s okay for all of these horrible things that you’ve seen, where they’re getting hundreds of thousands, and millions of dollars, where China gives them a billion and a half dollars to manage, the family, a billion and a half dollars, and then he’s supposed to negotiate? Let me tell you, it’s the second biggest scandal. The biggest scandal was when they spied on my campaign. They spied on my campaign.

Lesley Stahl: (22:06) There’s no real evidence of that.

Donald Trump: (22:07) Of course there is. Is it’s all over the place. Lesley, they spied on my campaign and they got caught."

LOWER DOWN

"Donald Trump: (24:03) Instead of, “Why did Hunter get three and a half million dollars from Moscow?” Instead of, “Why is an energy company paying your son $183,000 a month, or whatever they’re paying him?” And he has no experience in energy. You discredit yourself. I don’t have to discredit you.

Lesley Stahl: (24:21) So this story about Hunter and his laptop, some repair shop found it, the source is Steve Bannon and Rudy Giuliani.

Donald Trump: (24:33) I don’t know anything about that. I just know it’s a laptop and they haven’t-

Lesley Stahl: (24:35) And you’re making this one of the hottest, most important issues [inaudible 00:24:40]

Donald Trump: (24:43) I don’t know about the two gentleman you mentioned.

Lesley Stahl: (24:43) It’s an important issue-

Donald Trump: (24:47) It’s a very important issue to find out whether or not a man is corrupt, who’s running for president. Who’s accepted money from China, and from Ukraine, and from Russia. Yeah, I think that’s an important issue." Link: https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-unedited-60-minutes-interview-transcript Tero111 (talk) 10:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Tero111, seriously, if we never had to deal with "Donald Trump says thing" ever again, I would breathe a huge sigh of relief. Incoherent craziness with a nuclear megaphone. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I brought this up as mainly the Trump World view of the matter vs. The Press (Leslie, mainstream press). The press has little interest in this laptop that caanot be verified by any journalist in those papers and sites. Tero111 (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Current state of play

The opening sentence

The article opens by saying:

The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of false allegations which assert that 2020 Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden engaged in corrupt activities while the former was Vice President of the United States and the latter worked for the Ukrainian gas company Burisma.

Does that accurately frame the scope of the article? I would say not: I would say that in fact the scope is a series of unproven and speculative claims built on the false claim that Joe Biden engaged in corruption in Ukraine. Sources definitively refute any claim that Joe Biden intervened to benefit Burisma, but there is no definitive refutation of any claim of corruption by Hunter (nor has any such claim be credibly advanced by Ukraine or US prosecutors). Starting out by flat-out saying it's BS seems to me to be a significant source of the conservative apoplexy we see here - it's more nuanced than that, though admittedly not much.

Background

Background fails TL;DR: I think we should split it into a couple of subsections:

  • the claim about Shokin (which IMO is black and white and can be dealt with in a couple of paragraphs at most);
  • the FBI warnings against Giuliani in 2019;
  • the FBI seizure of the laptop late in 2019 (probably including commentary on the repair shop)
  • the Ukrainian request for FBI assistance with a Russian hack of Burisma in January 2020.
NY Post claims

This is also over-long IMO and could maybe even be retitled in line with the seemingly deliberate timing (why not raise it in 2019 when the laptop was handed to the FBI? why wait until a year later when no charges have been filed?).

I'd also be interested to know if there are any reality-based parts of the conservative narrative that remain substantially unaddressed.I don't see any, but the article is overly detailed and I may be reading stuff into it from knowledge of contest rather than what's actually written down. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: checkY Implemented changes to the lead per WP:BRD, as I feel a lot of discussion has been centred around this and there's hopefully common ground to be found here. Jr8825 • Talk 15:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Also, I agree with your view that the Background section needs some cutting down. Jr8825 • Talk 15:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
@JzG: The detail you added about Hunter Biden's previous career seems a bit extraneous to me. Couldn't this be shortened to a factual sentence summing up his prior experience, rather than detailing organisations and length of time? Jr8825 • Talk 18:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Jr8825, probably, but the context was excessively brief before, failing to point out that he's not some 12-year-old, he has had a career. It just launched into "never worked in the oil and gas sector", which underplays it rather. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Fox News reports:

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, according to documents obtained by Fox News and verified by multiple federal law enforcement officials who reviewed them.

WSJ reported in November 2019:

Subpoenas issued to people with ties to President Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, indicate a broad federal investigation into possible money laundering, obstruction of justice and campaign-finance violations and show that prosecutors are probing Mr. Giuliani’s consulting businesses and other sources of income. [26]

and

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. [27]

soibangla (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The whole affair is making me think we need to revisit Fox News at the reliable sources noticeboard sooner rather than later, and see if there is finally agreement on having it listed as generally unreliable for politics. Given its recent reporting I fail to see how a consensus can't be found on this. Jr8825 • Talk 19:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
WP:RSP already does list Fox News as unreliable for politics. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: - no it doesn't, look again. The last RfC found "there is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims", which is a marked step above generally unreliable. Jr8825 • Talk 19:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Ah you are right, I must've misremembered. Well, the Hunter Biden laptop story is another for RSP to consider, once we have all the facts. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Muboshgu, still a source to avoid, though, because "Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims". Doesn't get more contentious than this. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
"Contentious" is putting it mild; Pizzagate redux might be apt. XOR'easter (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Is the contention that Giuliani isn't under federal investigation, that this drive wasn't requested in connection with that investigation or that the FBI didn't request this drive at all? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
The subpoena for the devices wasn't issued by a judge, it was issued by a grand jury. Why would a grand jury have been empanelled? To investigate the Bidens? Or others, perhaps? Others who nearly a year ago were reported to be under investigation by SDNY for multiple major felonies? Fox News is oddly silent on this. soibangla (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Fine, but the Fox News Claim you quoted and Guy called contentious says nothing about who issued the subpoena, or what it suggests. Personally, I have no problem believing the feds are truly after Rudy. His character strikes me as nefarious. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Soibangla, or the recently indicted hackers. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Biden–Ukraine_conspiracy_theory/Archive_1&oldid=1171579467"