Jump to content

Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

No article topic defined

It seems the article fails to state what its topic is.

The lede says that the theory is a series of false allegations but then doesn't list even one allegation that it designates as false. For example, the lede says: The conspiracy theory centers around the allegation [...]. So is this allegation false? Again, the lede doesn't say so.

The title of the article doesn't help either... I suppose there's more than 1 conspiracy theory about Biden and Ukraine floating around, so which one is this article about?

The body only has these two sections: Background and New York Post reporting. These are not sections that would indicate that they define the article topic (compared to e.g. a section labeled "Definition" or "Theory").

A well-written article "identifies a notable topic". This is not the case here.

--Distelfinck (talk) 14:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Distelfinck, yeah, I made that point above. I think we're getting somewhere now, but there's a lot of content and it still needs quite a bit of editing to remove extraneous noise IMO. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
@Distelfinck: @JzG: I'm not convinced that this diff is an improvement, it's not a massive deal but I think it's unnecessary and overcomplicates the sentence - as well as pushing "false" further back. I can see why you could argue it helps to make the article subject more explicit. I undid the edit but then restored it, as I'm not sure. Your thoughts? Jr8825 • Talk 00:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Tony Bobulinski Testimony

Discussion has run its course. No RS support this narrative. SPECIFICO talk 01:39, 24 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.

The New York Post section needs to be updated to mention the testimony of Tony Bobulinski, Hunter Biden's business associate, that the e-mails relating to his SinoHawk venture are authentic, that Joe Biden was actively involved in the venture, and that "the big guy" referenced in numerous e-mails refers specifically to Joe Biden. Furthermore that Bobulinski has turned over additional evidence not found in the original laptop which is currently being analyzed by the senate investigation. https://nypost.com/2020/10/22/hunter-ex-partner-tony-bobulinski-calls-joe-biden-a-liar/ Justin.olbrantz (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no testimony because there is no court case. As to the Senate investigation, I have just one word to say to that: Benghazi. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Here's a tweet from Jacqui Heinrich, a Fox News reporter, throwing cold water on the Bobulinski angle of the conspiracy theory. She says she reviewed the emails and found nothing incriminating or unethical. Her points: (1) the "Chairman" refers to Xi (possibly suggesting that "the big guy" is also Xi), (2) Joe had no role in this, (3) Bobulinski said he was working with Hunter, Jim Biden, and two others on this, neither of them are Joe. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
So that's the stuff he turned over. He made a lot of bold declarations including that he worked directly with Joe and that Joe was "the big guy". Whether true or false, the fact that he said it is incontrovertible and deserving to be in the page as it is evidence to be added to the rest. Justin.olbrantz (talk) 00:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
@Justin.olbrantz: if it's false it's not a fact and doesn't deserve to be on the page. Jr8825 • Talk 00:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
@Justin.olbrantz: No, "the fact that he (Bobulinski) said it" doesn't make it notable or deserving to be on the page. This is Wikipedia; there are higher standards than those of the [[National Enquirer], New York Post or Fox News. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
This wiki page is made up of a great deal of information (possibly even a majority) that is unconfirmed but considered noteworthy because of who said it and their credentials. In this case the person saying it is the CEO of the company, and as such has all the credentials anyone needs to speak about the workings of the company. If you want to say he's lying, go right ahead and prove it. But until then his statements meet the criteria used for a large part of this page. Justin.olbrantz (talk) 01:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
This wiki page is made up of a great deal of information that is considered noteworthy because reliable sources have reported on a person saying it. My, or your, or any other editor's opinion of what statements are noteworthy to do with this whole situation is completely irrelevant, but if enough reliable sources report on someone saying something, then is when we ought to as well. So far you've shown the New York Post, which is not a reliable source and should not be trusted as far as determining what is or is not credible or noteworthy in relation to this affair. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Although the New York Post is discussed in this article because the story it published was noteworthy and covered in reliable sources, the New York Post itself is considered generally unreliable and cannot be used as a reliable source. Per WP:RSP#New York Post, "There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable. A tabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication." GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
...and if you'd actually looked into it before responding you'd have known that he made the declaration publicly on TV for everybody to see. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZdixYIU2w0 Justin.olbrantz (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
That's all well and good, but until it's reported as noteworthy by independent reliable sources it shouldn't go in the article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
...did you really just say that until somebody writes about it you won't believe video evidence? Justin.olbrantz (talk) 01:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
@Justin.olbrantz: The problem here appears to be that you don't understand the policies and/or have a glaring lack of media literacy skills. The fact that Fox - who will let anyone on TV, seemingly, as long as they are going to say something that feeds their partisan base - allowed him on TV 90-something minutes before the debate, does not mean that Wikipedia should breathlessly repeat them in this article. That is especially true since a number of his claims have already been contradicted by the coverage of sources that actually adhere to journalistic and ethical standards. Jacob Wohl has made "declarations publicly on TV for everybody to see" on Fox too, and has about as much credibility. Though I guess we have to give Bobulinski a little credit for remembering to zip his pants before going on camera. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
In fairness to Wohl, that was Jack Burkman who had the zipper incident GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
The problem here is that you don't know who Bobulinski IS. He's Joe and Hunter Biden's business associate and CEO of the joint venture between them. There literally isn't anybody more qualified in the world to make such statements than him. Justin.olbrantz (talk) 01:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Please stop assuming editors can't or don't research things. I think we all know who Bobulinski is. But we don't reprint every word that comes out of his mouth just because we personally think it's important—that is a determination for reliable sources to make, not us. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No, I did not just say that. I have no doubt that he said it, but we don't put everything someone says into Wikipedia until it's identified as noteworthy by independent reliable sources. The issue is not with its verifiability, it's with its notability. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Justin.olbrantz: Even Fox now doesn't buy it. "Ex-Hunter Biden associate's records don't show proof of Biden business relationship", "Fox News has reviewed emails from Bobulinski related to the venture — and they don't show that the elder Biden had business dealings with SinoHawk Holdings, or took any payments from them or the Chinese. " https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-biden-tony-bobulinski-joe-biden-unanswered-questions
"There is a presumption that people who contribute to the English-language Wikipedia have the following competencies:...the ability to read sources and assess their reliability." Wikipedia:Competence is required IHateAccounts (talk) 01:44, 24 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.

Ratcliffe follow-up

This article [1] says "Fox News has learned that the FBI and Justice Department officials concur with an assessment from Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe that the laptop is not part of a Russian disinformation campaign targeting Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden". So apparently not only the DNI is saying this but FBI and DOJ as well. Can this information be added into to the article? If true this is pretty important, it would seem to put to rest claims of a Russian interference campaign similar to what took place in 2016. Yodabyte (talk) 01:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Problem #1: Fox. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources "Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims. Editors perceive Fox News to be biased or opinionated for politics; use in-text attribution for opinions." IHateAccounts (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Before automatically classifying all conservative media sources as unreliable, it might be helpful for Wikipedia to look at how censorship of the NY Post played in Congress this last week. Wikipedia shares some of the characteristics of Facebook and Twitter in this regard. Also, I notice the NY Times apparently published something about the Bidens' business dealings back in 2018. [2]. Might this be added to the article? Here's a more recent NY Times article reviewing the statements of government officials [3] Here's some fairly balanced coverage from the BBC [4] Pkeets (talk) 04:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't think anyone's classifying all conservative media as unreliable. The NYT article on Ye Jianming has nothing to do with the subject of this article, unless you propose we rename it into "Joe Biden corruption conspiracy theories". The NYT article sums up the allegations as "a bid to damage Mr. Biden's presidential campaign" by "President Trump's allies". The BBC article sums up the NYP article's claims and the Biden campaign's rebuttal, there's nothing new there. Jr8825 • Talk 05:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
"How censorship of the NY Post played in Congress"? I really don't think that the temper tantrums of the likes of Ron Johnson or Ted Cruz have any bearing on what is encyclopedic. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Fox says "two senior administration officials told Fox News Tuesday" - so there's still nobody from the FBI confirming this, ands even if they did, and I can't stress this enough, it would be irrelevant. Whether it's Russian disinformation or Iranian or Rudy Giuliani using Russian-sourced data for his own disinformation or whatever, is completely irrelevant to the fact that the claim of Joe Biden having intervened in Ukraine to protect Burisma has been known to be false for well over a year. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Ratcliffe's reputation

I think something brief needs to be added next to coverage of Ratcliffe's statement detailing how a range of sources have expressed scepticism of his claim because of his reputation for partiality. I think it would probably fit best between the response from Schiff's spokesman and "The New York Times reported that there was no firm evidence..." Perhaps something along the lines of "a number of commentators have expressed concern about Ratcliffe's impartiality/a conflict of interest, noting that he is considered a Trump loyalist"? (maybe this can be worded better?)

I'd be grateful if someone could have a look at this and add a sub-clause or brief sentence to cover this. Here are some relevant sources, all opinion pieces as I haven't really looked properly since I'm signing off, there's probably better factual reporting coverage elsewhere (although the opinion pieces from RS may be good enough themselves, especially if the writers are notable (I haven't checked)): 1 2 3. I can take a look again tomorrow if nobody gets round to it. Many thanks, Jr8825 • Talk 06:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Jr8825, I am inclined to agree - there are a lot of independent sources commenting on it, and several have noted the very careful wording being used. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 Done - added a sentence covering this. Jr8825 • Talk 05:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC) To-do - note to self to revisit this soon. Jr8825 • Talk 03:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Move NY Post emails section to another article?

This is supposed to be an article about a conspiracy theory around Biden withholding loans. But most of the article goes into details of the NY Post emails, details which are only tangentially related to the conspiracy theory. I suggest we move the NY Post emails section to a different article (maybe a new one, maybe an existing one). The emails stuff is relevant on its own, regardless of the conspiracy theory, and should definitely have a place in Wikipedia, but this doesn't seem to be the right one. --Distelfinck (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Distelfinck, maybe, maybe not. I say we wait a couple of weeks and see if it has any lasting significance. Current evidence indicates not, in which case it can be summarised down. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Putin’s view in reactions?

Putin interviewed today denies that Hunter Biden did anything criminal. Intelligence analysts see this as a signal, switch to Biden.

link Hyperbolick (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Vanity Fair

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/10/wall-street-journal-cold-war-explodes-over-hunter-biden

This seems very relevant. "The Hunter Biden story has caused rifts throughout Rupert Murdoch’s media empire. Despite Hunter Biden’s emails being obsessively discussed this past week on Fox News, the network’s news division reportedly passed on the initial story, which broke in another Murdoch family-owned outlet: the New York Post. Some Post journalists wanted nothing to do with the story splashed across the tabloid’s cover. “Reporters at the WSJ, Fox News, and NYP have all come to the same conclusion about these documents but they are being drowned out by bad faith activists on the opinion side at these Murdoch companies who favor Trump’s re-election,” noted Politico’s Ryan Lizza. “That is the story.”" IHateAccounts (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a proposal for what wording you think should be added to the article based on this source? Might help jumpstart discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm trying to think about how I would word it currently. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
IHateAccounts, not a RS. It's interesting to know, but we can't use it. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Vanity Fair isn't an RS? I was under the impression it was. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare, we need to steelman the bullshit. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Perfectly good source. Use attribution where necessary. - Valjean (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
In this case, they're just surveying the landscape of media reactions and pointing to stories that have already come out (e.g., the NY Post writer not wanting his own name on the story was reported by the New York Times). I don't see a problem with having the paragraph we currently do in the "Other press outlets" sub-section. XOR'easter (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
@JzG: I agree it wouldn't be a good source for political claims, but don't see why it's unsuitable for the press reaction section, which is where the statement was added. I'm not dead-set on its inclusion and don't think it's vital, but right now it provides a valuable analysis on the response of the media (which is surely one of the most discussed aspects of the whole affair). Regardless of whether the current wording could be improved (it could easily be rewritten to be more factual and neutral instead of analytical), I'm curious why you think it's not a RS for discussing the media reaction? Jr8825 • Talk 22:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
VF is known mostly for its glossy coverage of movie stars and socialites, but they also publish some very solid journalism, one or two major articles each issue. Their writer Gabriel Sherman is something of a Fox News expert. soibangla (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
@JzG: I looked up Vanity Fair on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and it's in green, that was my first thing to check. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I think it should be mentioned in the "reactions" section. I will try writing something. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: Thanks for taking a stab at that addition, I've made some adjustments to make the language more neutral, let me know if you have any thoughts. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 17:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Teamwork makes the dream work. Looks good to me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Looks good to me, too. Thanks. XOR'easter (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Good job. The casual acceptance of the Giuiani narrative on Fox & Friends among other Fox shows is quite striking. Some of that may have received sufficient mainstream comment to be worth specific mention. As with all fringe material, the problem is that the mainstream largely ignores the more egregious of the "alternative fact" narratives. Particularly noteworthy is that POTUS is a loyal Fox viewer and seemed unaware that most of last week's debate audience was not up to speed on the buzzwords and details of the tale and was scratching their heads when he got into the Mr. Big stuff. SPECIFICO talk 18:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, we are mostly quite well informed on Fox narratives here, so it was a real surprise to see someone share a segment from one of the shows commenting on the debate and saying that most people who heard Trump wittering on about China and the "laptop from hell" would be like "wtf, dude?" - I hadn't realised the extent to which this bullshit has apparently simply not registered with anyone other than news junkies. Perhaps that's why some of our new friends think it so important to get The Truth™ on Wikipedia, idk. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Guy, I've heard it described as trying to follow Lost by starting with season 6. XOR'easter (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Ben Smith, media columnist for the New York Times, writes: And if you'd been watching the debate, but hadn't been obsessively watching Fox News or reading Breitbart, you would have had no idea what Mr. Trump was talking about. That column also has some reporting on how the Wall Street Journal poured water on the whole thing. XOR'easter (talk) 00:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

An Observation

  • "Bigfoot, also known as Sasquatch, in Canadian folklore and American folklore, is an ape-like creature that inhabits the forests of North America."
  • "Grey aliens, also referred to as Zeta Reticulans, Roswell Greys, or Grays, are purported extraterrestrial beings."
  • "The jackalope is a mythical animal of North American folklore (a fearsome critter) described as a jackrabbit with antelope horns."
  • "The Loch Ness Monster, or Nessie, is a cryptid in cryptozoology and Scottish folklore that is said to inhabit Loch Ness in the Scottish Highlands."
  • "The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of unevidenced claims centered on the false allegation..."

Given that it is apparently Wikipedia's policy to include the words "unevidenced", "false" and "debunked" in the opening lines of an actively disputed issue, someone better get to work adding it to all of the other patently unevidenced, false and debunked claims out there. Have fun with the religion articles. ~ Eidako (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Eidako: This is the very subject of the RFC up the page, where this comment would be most useful. As it stands opinion there seems pretty split. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

These are misleading examples: they are myths, folklore, paranormal theories, cryptozoology etc. This is a conspiracy theory, about a living person, without high political ramifications. There is precedent for this article's lead at much more similar articles, such as:

  • Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories (second sentence: The movement falsely asserted Obama was ineligible to be President of the United States because he was not a natural-born citizen of the U.S.)
  • White genocide conspiracy theory (White genocide is a myth, based on pseudoscience, pseudohistory, and hatred, driven by a psychological panic often termed white extinction anxiety. There is no evidence that white people are dying out or that they will die out, or that anyone is trying to exterminate them as a race. The purpose of the conspiracy theory is to scare white people, and justify a commitment to a white nationalist agenda in support of increasingly successful calls to violence). Jr8825 • Talk 23:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

How about some North Korean propaganda?

  • The Sinchon Massacre was an alleged massacre of civilians between 17 October and 7 December 1950,[1] in or near the town of Sinchon (currently part of South Hwanghae Province, North Korea). North Korean sources claim the massacre was committed by South Korean military forces under the authorization of the U.S. military and that 30–35,000 people were killed.
  • Otto Frederick Warmbier (December 12, 1994 – June 19, 2017) was an American college student who was imprisoned in North Korea in 2016 on a charge of subversion.

~ Eidako (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

"The Bowling Green massacre is a fictitious incident of terrorism mentioned by Kellyanne Conway." – Muboshgu (talk) 23:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

To Bobulinski or not to Bobulinski

Soibangla added a section on Tony Bobulinski to the article, who I think is neither relevant (not connected to Joe Biden or Ukraine) nor notable enough to warrant inclusion. I've held off from removing it, but would like to hear others' thoughts on this. I note that SPECIFICO closed a discussion on this above with the conclusion that there is "no RS support this narrative". My view is Bobulinski turned out be a nothingburger and including more highly tenuous allegations against Hunter Biden does nothing to serve the reader. I'm not convinced there's significant coverage in RS, but admit I haven't looked very deeply at this. Jr8825 • Talk 06:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal reported on it, and then the New York Times reported on how the WSJ news people undercut their opinion people. There's more than enough RS coverage to write about it, and so the question becomes, should we write about it here? It's not about Ukraine, but it is part of the same swirl of allegations and mud-slinging; it doesn't not fit. XOR'easter (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I doesn't fit within the current title and scope. If it's notable enough then perhaps the article's scope needs to be significantly widened to "Joe Biden corruption conspiracy theories" (I semi-jokingly suggested this further up the page) but even then this would be insufficient as the Bobulinski allegations are exclusively about Hunter Biden as far as I'm aware. Is alleged corruption by a not-exceptionally-notable person like Hunter Biden worth including at all? I'm repeating myself a bit as I just said this above, but my inclination is that if it's worth including, it should be over at Hunter Biden's article. Do we really need an article such as "Corruption allegations against Joe and Hunter Biden?" or "2020 presidential election corruption allegations"? Jr8825 • Talk 17:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
It's an allegation spread by the same people as part of the same propaganda campaign. I think we can spare a few sentences to talk about it for context-setting, without changing the article title or anything drastic like that. I would also not object to the alternative of including it at Hunter Biden, where we have a few paragraphs about China-related things. XOR'easter (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
It's definitely separate to this article. Koncorde (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I went ahead and transferred the text over to the section of the Hunter Biden article where it looked to fit best. XOR'easter (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
That looks appropriate. XOR'easter. It didn't have anything to do with Joe Biden & the Ukraine. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
@XOR'easter: thanks for the move. I know it's no longer in this article, but since we've been discussing this segment I have a question about the following line: "on October 21 he emailed a statement about his allegations to a variety of sources, including Breitbart, which published it in full" – what exactly did Bobulinski say in this statement and can the basic premise of it be summed up for the reader (in half a sentence maybe) if it's significant enough to be mentioned? Jr8825 • Talk 00:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
If this were actually something, if they actually had evidence, they'd have put it out and made sure that every REAL news outlet vetted it and was running the story before early-voting and mail-in voting started. Instead they're sliding it out through tabloid sites like the NY Post, Breitbart, "The Federalist", Daily Wire. Now it's "ooh there's going to be a big bombshell interview on Tucker Carlson... tomorrow... we swear." Political Science 101: this is what frauds do when their story won't hold up, they know it won't hold up, but they want it to be a big splash and keep it from being fully debunked until after election day. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

submitted for your consideration

Some asserted that major media outlets were ignoring new developments relating to the Bidens, with FoxNews.com reporting on October 22 that since Bobulinski came forward "much of the mainstream media has either downplayed or ignored the Biden controversy," noting that CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, and CBS did not cover Bobulinski's public remarks.[5] FoxNews.com reported the next day that its review of Bobulinski's documents did not support his assertions.[6] Two days later, correspondent Griff Jenkins confirmed on the Fox News Media Buzz program that the network "found no role for Joe Biden" in the Bobulinski documents. Host Howard Kurtz noted that the Bobulinski emails dated from 2017, when Joe Biden was not in office, to which Jenkins replied, "That’s correct. One thing is for sure, it’s not getting the kind of attention that Fox has given it and the New York Post and others as we get close to this election."[7]

soibangla (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the conservative media are bitching about the failure of their October Surprise. Any reliable independent sources for this though? Guy (help! - typo?) 22:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Following your posts and edits it seems that reliable independent source is any source that pushes your views and debunks the opposite ones, kinda lame tbh 7rexkrilla (talk) 10:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
7rexkrilla, we have a page describing what is a reliable source: WP:RS. We have a list of sources that are not reliable: WP:DEPS. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Article Violates NPOV

The Hunter Biden scandal has been getting significant attention on conservative networks like Fox News. I would argue this article, and perhaps even the title, violates NPOV. While I have no doubt this "scandal" is being pushed by Republican operatives, Hunter Biden's shady business dealings have not been disproven or proven. In my opinion, this article should be renamed Biden-Ukraine scandal, or maybe Hunter Biden-Ukraine scandal, and the first sentence should be rewritten to say:

"The Biden-Ukraine scandal is a series of allegations accusing 2020 Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden of engaging in corrupt activities relating to his son Hunter Biden by the Ukrainian gas company Burisma."

I believe that pushing a one sided narrative goes against the interests of this encyclopedia and public knowledge. As one of the top results on Google, we should be as neutral and nonpartisan as possible in our writing.

--Flying Lambs (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Flying Lambs: please read the FAQ at the top of this talk page. The various speculative allegations against Hunter Biden are unevidenced. The allegation that Joe Biden engaged in corrupt activities related to Ukraine is false (a Republican committee even cleared him of wrongdoing). Jr8825 • Talk 01:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
The Republican committee came to that conclusion on September 23rd, 2020. The recent allegations and New York Post came to light in mid October. I think that this content should be reviewed by a group of non-partisan editors who are not emotionally involved in this article. --Flying Lambs (talk) 02:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors report what reliable sources say, we do not conduct original research into reviewing and evaluating reports. The NY Post is a known tabloid without a reputation for fact checking. They are known for their sensationalistic reporting and gossip columns.
As for "emotionally involved" editors, I think you can find people that are passionate arguing both sides of this conspiracy theory. Liz Read! Talk! 02:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
@Flying Lambs: This is the very subject of the RFC up the page, where this comment would be most useful. As it stands opinion there seems pretty split. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
There is so much data now this page should be moved to biden foreign affairs Baratiiman (talk) 06:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Baratiiman, nope. The claims about Joe Biden are either flatly false or sourced entirely from conservative talking heads. We don't move it until there's credible evidence. Reliable sources are, so far, unanimous in concluding that there is none. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
JzG thats because you see only the news organization not the news.Baratiiman (talk) 08:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Baratiiman, that statement makes no sense. In this case reliable sources have specifically looked at the content of the story, and concluded that it's as fishy as hell; they have then noted, very often, that the organisation promoting the story has a very poor reputation for factual accuracy.
People took Watergate seriously - eventually - because it was being investigated by serious journalists at the Washington Post and New York Times. People don't take this seriously - yet, and maybe never - because it's being pushed by people with limited credibility (Rudy Giuliani hangs out with known Russian intelligence agents, Steve Bannon is under indictment for fraud, and Fox News' own lawyers say nobody takes Tucker Carlson seriously) in non-credible sources such as Breitbart and the Daily Caller. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
lmao you cant call every news by nytimes, washpost true and every news by Breitbart and the Daily Caller a lie.and anyone who trusts wikipedia while this is the state of FACT CHECK needs to show themselves to a neuron surgeonBaratiiman (talk) 09:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Baratiiman, we don't call everything in NYT and WaPo true, and we don't call everything on Breitbart a lie. But when NYT and WaPo and WSJ and numerous other RS all say that what Breitbart says is a lie, and when no reputable source says it's true, which is the case here, then we have no difficulty in accepting that this is one of those times when Breitbart is lying.
And if you don't understand why WaPo and NYT are reliable and Breitbart and the Daily Caller are not, then I would question your fundamental competence. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory" claim in title is a possible breach of WP:OR and WP:PROMOTION

OP seems satisfied, otherwise this is largely duplicative - but no disrespect, this talk page is a mess. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:40, 28 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.


I do not see the term "conspiracy theory" being overwhelmingly used by reliable sources in their description of this topic. If this terminology cannot be substantiated (and if a renaming of the article does not take place) I will nominate the article for deletion, for breach of WP:OR and - arguably - WP:PROMOTION. Narssarssuaq (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Narssarssuaq,
  1. Please assume good faith
  2. Threatening to nominate something for deletion isn't a good way to get anything done
  3. {{Requested move}} exists for an reason
Edit: Also an move has already been requested recently, see Requested move 15 October 2020 which was closed as an SNOW keep so I highly doubt a second request would be more succesful
Asartea Trick | Treat 14:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
If the choice of words in the article's title cannot be substantiated, I will nominate the article for deletion. Narssarssuaq (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
@Narssarssuaq: you should read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point before doing so. IHateAccounts (talk) 14:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
It's about the choice of words in the article's title, which appears to be unsubstantiated and thus in breach of WP:OR. Narssarssuaq (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
The choice of words was already addressed in a move request, which closed as a Wikipedia:Snowball clause overwhelming result. Nominating the page for deletion because you don't like the consensus would seem to be definitionally disruption. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
This is about sources in relation to the article's title. From the above discussion, I have now recovered the following sources, quote: "false" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7, "baseless" 8 9, "debunked" 9 10 11, "invented" 11 12, "fantasy" 13 14 and "bogus" 15 I thus consider it possible (if not necessarily substantiated) that Wikipedia's selection of reliable sources consider this to be a "conspiracy theory", and I will not nominate the article for deletion. Narssarssuaq (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC) I have no more time to try to fix the article. I recommend that other editors analyze e.g. the title and the lead, and make sure that it is authored from a neutral point of view without any undue weight. Narssarssuaq (talk) 16:35, 28 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.

so is there an article that i simply can't find that covers the broader issue that includes china?

I've done a few searches but this is the only place i can find and this article is solely about ukraine while the real issue actually covers china and russia as well as ukraine. thx. SailedtheSeas (talk) 04:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I found a few articles for you, hopefully these help Fact check: Claims that Hunter Biden received $3.5M from Russia are unproven, lack context and The Hunter Biden ‘Scoops’: Here’s Why The Media Largely Hasn’t Picked Up The NY Post Stories (Hint: It’s Not Bias). I think the problem you may be running into is that there isn't actually a "real issue", despite the efforts of some dubious sources attempting to make it appear as such. NonReproBlue (talk) 06:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
SailedtheSeas, the China issue would probably be covered on one of the many articles about Donald Trump. Unless you mean the other China issue? Or the other other China issue? Guy (help! - typo?) 09:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Now they've lost their only "evidence"! How convenient for Trump. He can falsely charge Joe and Hunter Biden with corruption and smear them, but without any evidence because his people "lost it". -- Valjean (talk) 06:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Documents have been found. -Topcat777 (talk) 21:41, 29 Oct 2020 (UTC)
Or switched in transit by some nefarious actor. Definitely need some kind of forensic analysis done to ensure that "found" documents were not tampered with along the way. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Everybody's still waiting for the promised proof to come out, but I'm certain once it does we'll have a page put together and posted within a few weeks. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks to all for the feedback and links. I've been reading. Although my goal was to find something on this newest issue it also gave me some good reading about china patents and trump's family. What's interesting is that few seem to realize that were not all good or bad but it would seem to believe what's out there that trump is 100% bad and that simply isn't true and biden isn't 100% good. Right now it would appear this latest issue is proven regarding hunter while there is slim pickings as to relating to biden except for a text message, an email, and 1-2 recordings. But I still don't see anything up on wp which boggles. I truly appreciate the help of all.SailedtheSeas (talk) 05:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

date on John Paul Mac Isaac faded form

re https://media.disrn.com/articles/79b0b2e0-e803-45cb-ac4c-bd42310a4339.jpg

The writing on this one sheet being spread around is pretty faded, have any sources made an interpretation as to what date is written there? I really just am not up to attempting to OCR that.

https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2020/10/1862/1048/thumbnail_image1.jpg very clearly says 17 December 2019 for comparison.

One thing I am trying to figure out, is out of the statements that Mac Isaac has given, did he say at some point make as statement regarding:

when the laptop first came into his possession
when due to lack of payment he became his legal owner

I can't remember either of these being said. WakandaQT (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

If secondary RS mention this, then that is what will interest us. Until then, it has no due weight. -- Valjean (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
There's no way on earth we're going to make edits to this page based on what individual editors squinting at a faded primary source that has been alleged to be a note by the computer repair shop owner says. We do not do interpretation of original source materials like that, this is an encyclopedia and not a place for original research. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
For the record, the FBI report lists item 1 as the Western Digital copy with the serial number below. Item 2 is the laptop itself. Item 3 is referring to a copy of the customer invoice.[8] Koncorde (talk) 02:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
WakandaQT, Wikipedia works from reliable independent secondary sources, not copies of primary sources circulated by partisan talking heads. There's no way we can work from speculation about who was the target of the investigation - it could have been Giuliani, for example, who is already subject of FBI inquiries, or it could have been the six GRU officers. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Work of a fake "intelligence firm"

This smear operation the work of a fake "intelligence firm":

Valjean (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I saw this and added a brief summary of it over at Hunter Biden, since it's about China rather than Ukraine. XOR'easter (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
My addition was reverted; see Talk:Hunter_Biden#Martin_Aspen for discussion. XOR'easter (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
XOR'easter, it might belong here, it's part of this narrative. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson, who has spent the past two weeks obsessing on the Hunter Biden emails, now says it's time to leave Hunter alone: "The point is pounding on a man, jumping on, and piling on when he’s already down is not something we want to be involved in." -- Valjean (talk) 02:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Taking the moral high ground, I see. Thank goodness for that.... Jr8825 • Talk 05:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Valjean, did he say this after he got sight of the much-vaunted document cache? If so, that would suggest it was yet another bust. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

NPOV issue: title vs. content

The putative allegation of conspiracy (according to the article) was an explicit quid-pro-quo on Biden influence peddling. The statements in the article alleging that this assertion was made are unsourced and the title seems to be based on these unsourced statements. There's nothing sourced in that article that someone specifically alleged that much less that allegation being the major issue. . And the contents of the article pretty broadly cover everything about the Bidens and Ukraine (including all of the factual material) under the "conspiracy theory" title charaterization. Criticism of what the Biden's did is generally that the estabished facts (as covered in this article) look bad on their own without allegation of anything further such as a conspiracy. The current title of the article does not cover and mis-labels and mis-characterizes the content of the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

North8000, the conspiracy theory is that Joe Biden intervened in Ukraine to help Burisma, and thus Hunter. This has been comprehensively debunked. There may be better names for it than conspiracy theory, but none has yet been suggested that does not risk portraying it as a genuine controversy, which it never was: it is a manufactroversy entirely drummed up by Republican operatives. Contemporaneous accounts of the sacking of Shokin generally don't even mention Biden, but instead a broad coalition including the US, EU, IMF and World Bank. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Then you need to remove everything in the article outside of that scope, and then add a "Not to be confused with..." tag at the top. Until this has been done, the scope of the article is evidently less clear than what you allege. Narssarssuaq (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Narssarssuaq, as soon as we stop the conservative media moving the goalpoasts we can look at the proper scope of the article. I suspect that something like "Disinformation campaign against the Biden family" will do, but idk. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

An accusation that "Joe Biden intervened in Ukraine to help Burisma" is not an allegation of a conspiracy. Also it is unsourced that there are allegations of a conspiracy, and those unsourced statements are the little basis that there is for the title. Also this article contains a large amount of factual information that doesn't fall under anything that is unproven (or even contested) or under anything that is an alleged or actual "conspiracy". North8000 (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with North8000. For instance… Has Hunter denied the authenticity of those emails yet? That being said, it is unrealistic to believe that this article will become even a nanometer less biased (at least not until the election is over). We all know why.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ - Daveout(talk) 01:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
"Conspiracy theory" is an unfortunate term that's used in cases where there may not be an actual conspiracy, simply because there's no sensible alternative term available, although "political smearjob" might be a reasonable alternative in many cases. soibangla (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

In reality it is some "negative appearing" factual material. His son got a high paying non-work director job in the foreign oil company obviously because he was Joe's son and they were hoping for some influence but there's no proof of that. So you just put the facts out without conjecture or presumed motives either way. And when his opponents wish to highlight such, yes one can note their POV effort as such, but one doesn't have to mis-characterize such as a straw man "conspiracy" allegation. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@North8000: I think you're confusing Hunter Biden's hiring-for-influence (which the article is already quite clear about) with the allegations that Joe Biden himself acted corruptly. I don't quite follow your original comment, what do you think is unsourced? There's plenty of media coverage about how the claims are based around the suggestion that Joe Biden behaved inappropriately. As for the term "conspiracy theory", it's used pretty frequently in media sources, along with similar terms such as "fantasy" and "fake". I collected a bunch of links in the RfC above if you're interested. Jr8825 • Talk 03:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe an analogy would clarify. Let's say that it's factually established that governor Smith helped Larry Jones's company get a $10,000,000 contract and that Larry Jones donated $1,000,000 to Smith's reelection campaign. 1,000,000 people complain, and one of them alleges that there was an explicit quid-quo-pro conspiracy. It's investigated and no explicit quid-pro-quo deal is found. Following the lead of this article, the $1,000,000 donation and $10,000,000 deal and controversy would be covered under an article titled "conspiracy theory" and the lead would start with "this is all about a debunked conspiracy theory that there was an explicit quid-pro-quo." Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

FBI investigation into laptop

This video was released 4 hours ago. I still don't understand how a supposedly non bias platform like Wikipedia was so quick to label this a 'conspiracy'. Can you update that now please or at least add this information so people can make their own decision?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Gp9qwDb-PM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profthomascrown88 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Profthomascrown88: Have you got a source that isn't Sinclair? All I'm seeing are sources such as this video saying that Sinclair says a DoJ official told them an FBI investigation into Hunter Biden was opened in 2019 and remains active, but I don't think Sinclair is a RS. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Why to be skeptical, from Sinclair Broadcast Group:

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

Oh, and an anonymous source, of course. If ever there was a time to be skeptical of an anonymous DOJ source, it's right now. Without naming any suspects, I can think of at least one person in the federal government who might suspect they won't be in government much longer and they've got nothing left to lose by whispering a false claim into a reporter's ear for a Hail Mary pass. soibangla (talk) 02:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Source doesn't indicate to who, to what, to where or to when the investigation is relevant. At present the NYP and a few smaller sources (no known reliability) seems to be covering it. Each is referring back to the good ol' "according to Sinclair", or in the case of one source (an ABC affiliate I presume by the header[9]) the article has been presented wholesale by Sinclair. Koncorde (talk) 02:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Sinclair is not a WP:RS suitable for anything approaching contentious claims about American politics. XOR'easter (talk) 03:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not as fundamentally dismissive of Sinclair, if only because of the named journalist being a known quantity. Less enamoured with the named journalist being left off news-piece bylines. EDIT: to clarify, that doesn't mean the anonymous DOJ source is legit, but, it also doesn't mean it isn't legit. In any case it's speculation. Koncorde (talk) 03:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Koncorde, right, the fundamental issue here is not that it's Sinclair (though that is a red flag), but that it's the same blurred line between opinion and news, designed to sound attribution-y without actually offering solid attribution to anyone that fact checkers can go and talk to. It's conservative media citeogenesis. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Sinclair owns that ABC affiliate. soibangla (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Sinclair has gradually transitioned into a Trump mouthpiece, similar to OAN and Fox. They are the equivalent of state controlled media in Russia like RT and Sputnik. We don't trust them for political content as their agenda is not news driven, but driven for partisan support of the ruling power. They are not functioning as true news sources for those topics. -- Valjean (talk) 04:36, 30 October 2020 (

Fake Typhoon intelligence document

Newer editor here, interested in contributing to this topic. Where might be an appropriate place for this tidbit of information, since it relates more to Biden-China conspiracies rather than Biden-Ukraine? NBC News reported that a fake intelligence document claiming "Hunter Biden has a problematic connection to China" circulated on the internet and among government officials in September and October 2020. The document was used by several far-right influencers to assert that Joe Biden is under the influence of the Chinese government. Investigation found that a fake person is attributed as the primary author of the document. (https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/how-fake-persona-laid-groundwork-hunter-biden-conspiracy-deluge-n1245387) Wdougs (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Wdougs: Welcome! You might wish to see the conversation above in the section #Work of a fake "intelligence firm", as well as the RfC at #RfC: Article scope to determine whether this article ought to also describe China-related conspiracy theories. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Cruz: Hunter Biden attacks don't move 'a single voter'

Ted Cruz: Hunter Biden attacks don't move 'a single voter' -- Valjean (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Valjean, I have seen several people saying that as a result of this they will not be voting for Hunter Biden. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Don't think it's going to matter because this will move votes- Trump: "Would you close down the oil industry?" Biden: "I would transition from the oil industry. Yes." -Especially in PA. --Topcat777 (talk) 01:14, 28 Oct 2020 (UTC)
Topcat777, at last, someone who is willing to tell the truth. Transitioning from fossil fuel is vitally important to the future of life on this planet. Not only is fossil fuel destroying the climate, most of the wars and geopolitical unrest of the last half century have been over fossil fuel reserves. My friends in PA are applauding this statement. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
"Transitioning from fossil fuel is vitally important to the future of life on this planet." Only if you can get the rest of the world to transition too. --Topcat777 (talk) 14:07, 28 Oct 2020 (UTC)
@Topcat777: I recognize that trump's support base have to dishonestly snip things, like they recently did with Biden reading an encyclical from the Pope (https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/27/politics/fact-check-biden-pope-francis-trump-war-room/index.html), but don't you think doing so demeans Wikipedia, and the discourse here and everywhere? As do rants about "leftist media" and other canards?IHateAccounts (talk) 14:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Is this a suggested edit? If not, let's close this as NOTFORUM. —valereee (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

You don't see the possibilities? The source provides the view of Ted Cruz on this smear, and that might be suitable for content. It's just a matter of wording and placement. This is very much on-topic. OTOH, the discussion might been started by a forum vio. -- Valjean (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Cruz's statements are on-topic, though they're just one person's opinion being reported in an interview. I'm not sure they rise to the level of significance where omitting them would hurt the article. Perhaps we'll see additional reporting on what the allegations did or did not influence, and we can write a summary of that with a Cruz quote slotted into it. XOR'easter (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. -- Valjean (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

If there is no purposed edit this should be closed as NOTAFORUM. PackMecEng (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

BS. AGF. I'll hat the offending part. -- Valjean (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
I meant the whole section. PackMecEng (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Ah. Okay. Problem already solved. -- Valjean (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Oh, what was the purposed edit for the source? PackMecEng (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
I didn't propose an edit, but provided a RS which might be useful. There is no requirement that every comment must include proposed content. This is a collaborative project and sometimes I place something of possible use on the table for discussion that might lead to the collaborative creation of content. I hope you see that as in keeping with why we are here. XOR'easter has just made a constructive, not obstructive, response to the subject of this thread. -- Valjean (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
This is not twitter or a place for retweets. PackMecEng (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
What's your point? I mean, if I had posted something from an unreliable source, you could make a strong, policy-based, argument to remove it based on a forum violation or forbidden advocacy of fringe POV, but I haven't done that. It's a RS with a mainstream POV. So why are you casting shade on my good faith attempt to help build the encyclopedia using good sources? Providing more building blocks is part of the preparation for building a structure. Every effort should be encouraged. -- Valjean (talk) 01:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Please AGF, my point was very clear that article talk pages are for improving articles and not forums for posting links with no suggested change. In the future please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format or keep it on twitter. Thank you. PackMecEng (talk) 02:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I'll reply to this unreasonable demand on your talk page. -- Valjean (talk) 06:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Without commenting on this specific case, in other articles I have put WP:RS links in talk pages, with the implied suggestion that they be added to the article. In some cases, I don't know the article enough to know, but still believe it would be useful. Gah4 (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Biden–Ukraine_conspiracy_theory/Archive_2&oldid=1140105421"