Jump to content

Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Questions Mount About Controversial Hunter Biden-China Dossier.

For anyone who seeks more information about this dubious "dossier":

Valjean (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Article scope

Should the focus of this article be:

  1. Confined to Ukraine
  2. Widened to include all media focus on Hunter Biden's business (including China)

Guy (help! - typo?) 09:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Opinions (article scope)

  • Leaning 2 right now, since there isn't a clear dividing line in the coverage between Ukraine-related allegations and China-related allegations. The claims are being circulated and promoted by the same people, and RS have treated them as essentially one propaganda campaign. XOR'easter (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
I have a lot of sympathy for this view. However, regarding the naming, I don't think we can call all the allegations against Hunter Biden conspiracy theories. While the article remains focused on Burisma there are plenty of RS supporting the label of "conspiracy theory", once it's extended to a broader topic the term just doesn't fit. For example, the Cambridge Dictionary's definition is "a belief that an event or situation is the result of a secret plan made by powerful people" – this is a good description of the idea that Joe Biden somehow protected Burisma, but when it comes to Hunter Biden it's more a case of smears or allegations of corruption. Jr8825 • Talk 19:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Jr8825, I vote we call a spade a spade: "Hunter Biden smears" Guy (help! - typo?) 23:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Prefer 2 per XOR'easter and agree title should be changed accordingly. See also #Work of a fake "intelligence firm" and #Fake Typhoon intelligence document. I think, whatever the title, (1) it should allow for the inclusion of information about both Hunter and Joe Biden, as theories about either are often connected, and (2) it should allow for conspiracy theories related to more than just Biden-Ukraine, such as Biden-China. --Wdougs (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
  • 2 Only if the page is also renamed. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
  • 2. As written in Conspiracy theory, "Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth..." Conspiracy theories, when their details are falsified, tend to try to rewrite the details. The "but but Ukraine" stuff has been so thoroughly debunked that all but its most blind followers are looking for the rewrite, and the people leading the charge decided that they would try China as the new bogeyman in their rewrite of the conspiracy theory. IHateAccounts (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Yeah I'd go for 2; we could be conservative with the title change, like “Biden–China and Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theories”, but I'd be open to a broader conspiracy-related or disinformation-related title too. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 15:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • 2 as there is no clear dividing line.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2 GMPX1234 (talk) 05:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • 2 By my analysis we need not take into account the veracity or otherwise of the claims of the reports, since of course, logically, theories - including conspiracy theories - may ultimately be proved correct, despite the connotations of the phrase. Further, if the broad narrative being cultivated by the interested parties posits an intent to pervert justice by forcing the sacking of the Ukrainian prosecutor, then it is positing something that would certainly count as a conspiracy. Happily I think in this case the connotations inhering to the phrase "conspiracy theory" reflect in balance the probable "smear"-like character of the claims. Therefore I strongly fall on the side of 2, concurring with arguments above, while retaining the "conspiracy" descriptor. ElGazWellwood (talk) 13:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • 2 seems to be the overwhelming majority. seems to be the obvious choice as well. Eruditess (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • 1 Hunter Biden's Ukraine-related activities seems like a natural & NPOV scope. It sort of establish a time frame and isn't as awkward and wide open as "Hunter Biden's Ukraine & China-related activities" or Hunter Biden's overseas activities. North8000 (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • 2: The China, Ukraine, and "Russian oligarch" conspiracy theories are almost always mentioned together by right-wing media, and there seems to be no clear line between them—that is, they're discussed as if they're all connected as part of a grand scheme. Since there's no apparent basis in reality for any of these accusations, we won't be able to find clear distinctions ourselves. ― Tartan357 Talk 10:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • 2 per XOR'easter, and probably renamed to Hunter Biden conspiracy theories, per Aquillion. Jr8825 • Talk 21:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (article scope)

There is a tension between the currently defined scope (and title) and the elements that people are trying to add. At present most of the additions are poorly sourced but experience indicates that when real journalists start working on each new claim there is at least some factual content to add. This shouldn't be a POVFORK of Hunter Biden, but there is ample heavyweight discussion of a disinformation / smear campaign that would probably be UNDUE in the parent article, and the core Burisma conspiracy theory is a big element in its own right that's not confined to Hunter Biden alone. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: I appreciate you starting this conversation, it's sorely needed as this issue keeps cropping up in other discussions on this page. I'm going to hold off voting for a moment because I don't know the answer to the following question: is there meaningful coverage in RS of the China corruption claims beyond the basic level of reporting we exclude per WP:NOTNEWS? I spent some time looking into news reports about the Joe Biden/Burisma claim and found mountains of coverage, but as I'm not hooked into US political news, I'm not sure whether the various insinuations regarding Hunter Biden's alleged corruption have garnered the same response. I certainly haven't seen any mention of this in British media coverage of the US election (the sole exception being the toilet paper, The Daily Mail). Per NOTNEWS, we should "consider the enduring notability of events", do the Hunter Biden claims clearly meet this criteria? Let me put it this way: right-leaning Wikipedians may want to cover the issue because they suspect the corruption allegations against the Hunter Biden have a strong basis, while left-leaning Wikipedians may want to cover the issue to rebuke the claims and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. We have to be careful that our judgement isn't coloured by other personal considerations. If we do expand the article's scope, it'll need to be renamed. I liked your suggestion along the lines of "disinformation campaign against the Bidens", as this feels like the topic's main claim to significance and I've seen RS describe it as such – although it doesn't do justice to the fact that some of Hunter Biden's bad behaviour can't be explained away as simply "disinformation". TL;DR: does Hunter Biden's behaviour have "enduring notability"? Jr8825 • Talk 14:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
All a bit WP:CRYSTAL. There are no charges against Hunter for any crime which puts speculation on dodgy footing that we are duplicating little more than gossip. There have been multiple investigations both by Ukraine and US that found nothing. Meanwhile anything related to China even if taken at the face value of the emails is from the period after Joe left office, does not imply Joe did anything wrong, and didn't even come off as a business proposition, and it ultimately mirrors any other number of other US politicians with foreign business interests (which is pretty common in the Senate) including El Presidente and his family, Obama, Romney (or at least he had) etc which isn't surprising because pretty much until Trump decided to hate on China for point scoring he was supporting them wholesale. Koncorde (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Well a broader scope (and basically the contents of the current article) is Hunter Biden's Ukraine-related activities which includes criticism of the factual aspects of them and criticism of that criticism (e.g the US-related politics) And then there is a lot of material on allegations of things that are not established facts (e.g. a quid-pro-quo) which may be false or baseless, and criticism of those allegations. If the article has both (and I would suggest that that is a good scope) then it should have a title that covers both, a broad one such such as Hunter Biden's Ukraine-related activities. Related false allegations can be covered as such; a title does tag them otherwise. If it has a title that only covers the latter, the unsubstantiated allegations, then a narrower title is in order and Hunter Biden's Ukraine-related activities should get moved into a new article. North8000 (talk) 21:25, November 2, 2020‎ (UTC)

Hunter Biden's Ukraine-related activities is actually a narrower scope. The full scope includes Joe AND Hunter Biden, as well as the Ukraine AND China, so vagueness actually works to our advantage. Just use the Biden last name and add the nature of the situation (allegations, smear campaign, etc.) Many RS have described this as Trump's failed October surprise. This covers Trump (with Giuliani and Bannon as the perps), both Bidens, the Ukraine, China, and allegations of suspicious activities. Hunter Biden is not a public person, so minor stuff should not be mentioned, but the main outlines should be mentioned because myriad RS have now mentioned them. By not mentioning true, false, or conspiracy theory in the title, we can appropriately divide the content into corroborated, uncorroborated, false, and conspiracy theory content. -- Valjean (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (naming)

There's a bit of a chicken-and-the-egg quandary. The title and the scope of the article and that the two should match. IMO something along the lines of "Biden Ukraine Controversies" would be a good title and scope for an article. North8000 (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Can anyone actually tell me what reliable sources say the new conspiracies / allegations are? Koncorde (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
North8000, nope, definitely not - the major "controversy" is ginned-up bullshit. Hence "words to avoid". But Biden-Ukraine something. Smears would be my favourite.
Anyway: subject first, then title, right? Guy (help! - typo?) 16:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
JzGGetting deep into debates / decisions on this is not my dance. I just wandered into it and tried to give helpful thoughts. I think "controversy" can apply both ways whether one considers the established facts in this broad article to be controversial or whether one considers that there is a controversial "ginning up" process being covered. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
North8000, honestly, no. We spent long patient months renaming articles on vaccine "controversies" to more neutral titles. There's nothing controversial about what Joe Biden did, especially. So 50% of those supposedly involved in the "controversy" - and the 50% without which the fever swamp would give precisely no fucks about this, since the Trump family are neck deep in the trough themselves, has no controversies at all. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Before we get too hasty i would like the issue of what the title should be in that case. Consensus is to use conspiracy at the end ([1]) however if the scope is expanded we might run into an issue in which the current title doesn't fit anymore. Another approach would be to create a new main page (something like Joe Biden allegations containing sections on most of the current allegations and then use {{Main}} in the section on Ukraine to direct redaers to this article Asartea Trick | Treat 15:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Asartea: Throwing some ideas out based on titles of other conspiracy theory pages. (Despite consensus for using the term "conspiracy theory") "Misinformation related to the Bidens", "Biden (business dealings) conspiracy theories". Something doesn't hit me right about using the terms "disinformation" or "smear campaign" because it implies the intent of those spreading false information is known. --Wdougs (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Asartea: Naming is going to be problematic. I can't think of any good options, which is partly what makes me unsure about whether the allegations against Hunter Biden warrant dedicated coverage. One way of avoiding this is to cast the net even wider... "political smears during the 2020 presidential campaign?"
  • The most neutral wording, "Allegations of corruption against/by Hunter Biden" may be best, but makes it quite clear that the focus is really pushing the boundaries of what can be considered notable. As it is, Hunter Biden's notability only stems from who his father is. The contextual notability of the allegations (i.e. rather than "enduring notability", see my comment abvove) of the allegations is the presidential election.
  • An alternative such as "disinformation campaign" feels like there's too much moral judgement, rather than implying there's a conspiracy involving Hunter Biden, it implies there's a conspiracy among those pushing the claims. Some editors may be inclined to believe this, but is there a weight of RS saying this? I don't think we should brand all of the investigations into Hunter Biden as pure disinformation, however partisan they may be.
  • "Smear campaign" has a similar problem. In addition, both "smear" and "disinformation" appear to minimise any suggestion of wrongdoing on Hunter Biden's behalf, which appears to be a judgement by Wikipedia, rather than the sources. Jr8825 • Talk 20:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
@Jr8825: What do you think of using "misinformation" (false information spread regardless of intent) rather than disinformation? Wdougs (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
It's a good suggestion, and definitely an improvement over disinformation. It doesn't remove the implication that the claims are false, but I expect you could make the case that the RS characterise the claims as innaccurate, and therefore fits "misinformation". I'm still yet to be convinced that an article solely on allegations against Hunter is notable, but this would do a better job of linking it into the political context than something like "allegations of corruption". Jr8825 • Talk 20:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
I like Biden corruption allegations or Biden corruption conspiracy or Misinformation about the 2020 Biden Presidential run CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm wary about the first suggestion, as it's effectively watering down the current wording relating to the debunked suggestion that Joe Biden acted corruptly with regards to Burisma. By shifting the focus away from Ukraine, the connecting, central figure is now clearly Hunter Biden. Jr8825 • Talk 21:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
CaptainEek, I agree with Jr8825 that the suggestion "Biden corruption allegations" waters things down, contrary to the results of multiple discussions on this talk page affirming that this topic is a conspiracy theory. I also have reservations about the third suggestion, "Misinformation about the 2020 Biden Presidential run" for being too specific. "Biden corruption conspiracy theory/theories" makes some sense to me (though I wonder about using the word "corruption", which might be taken to imply Wikipedia is judging the corruptness of the Bidens one way or another). I think, whatever the title, (1) it should allow for the inclusion of information about both Hunter and Joe Biden, as theories about either are often connected, and (2) it may allow for conspiracy theories related to more than just Biden-Ukraine, such as Biden-China. Wdougs (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Wdougs, "Biden bullshit"? Guy (help! - typo?) 23:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
CaptainEek, avoid "corruption allegations" unless serious sources are making allegations of corruption (at present they are not). This is the problem: any title needs to avoid giving any impression of legitimacy to these accusations, because no serious sources do so. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Asartea, there are no serious allegations against Joe Biden, so that's a non-starter. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
JzG, Yup you're right. Serves me right for trying to discuss stuff when I should be sleeping /facepalm Asartea Trick | Treat 05:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Asartea, heh! What is this sleep of which you speak and where can I download it? Guy (help! - typo?) 21:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
JzG, When normal people get tired they sleep instead of just edit Wikipedia even harder. Not all of us are wired directly into it you know Asartea Trick | Treat 05:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Asartea, ohhhh, that sounds... weird? Guy (help! - typo?) 14:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Trump's anti-Biden smear campaign.[2] That ensures there is no ambiguity about the source and victim. It is also a large enough umbrella to deal with any type of allegations and locations. It also allows for both true and false allegations, as they are all raised in an attempt to smear the Bidens. -- Valjean (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Given that everyone pushing the conspiracy theory (Alex Jones, Steve Bannon, Rudy Giuliani, etc) is connected to Trump, and the focus of the false allegations is to boost Trump's reelection chances, that would not be a bad title. IHateAccounts (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if we can look to an analogous Wikipedia article for an idea on how to title this one? For example: Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Might Biden business dealings conspiracy theories or some variant be an option? Wdougs (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Wdougs, closwer than a lot of suggestions to date, for sure. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
+1 This is the only real contender, given the weighting and actual focus (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 21:00, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
This is not even bad. Koncorde (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

This is turning into (Trump's) Anti-Biden faux scandal. Titles are supposed to describe/summarize the scope and contents of the article, and do not have to reflect the language in any RS, so this might be an appropriate new title. -- Valjean (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

It does need to be renamed. I would still go with Giuliani's Biden conspiracy theory. Rudy put in the legwork, from all accounts. SPECIFICO talk 21:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
It's increasingly being reported as a story about Rudy and Fox, e.g. this. SPECIFICO talk 21:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Biden corruption allegations should be okay.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
@Pharaoh of the Wizards: So there was a move request on October 15. I thought there was some rule to wait a month after the last one closes to start a new one, but I don’t know where that is. If there is a rule, a new request can be started in 12 days. If not, no reason it can’t be started right away. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requested moves doesn't say that we have to wait, so we could start a move request right now. --Distelfinck (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Does anybody have objections that, until we find an even better title, we move the article to the plural of its current title (to Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theor'''ies'''), without a formal move request? Seems uncontroversial, so wouldn't need a formal move request, and would be an improvement until we find an even better title. --Distelfinck (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Assuming the apostophes are a mistake, it still doesn't seem particularly necessary to me. But I have no strong objection either. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 00:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Hunter Biden's business dealings. This is a broader scope than ... corruption allegations and lets us focus on what actually happened, not just the unproven allegations. --Distelfinck (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we need to elide from the title the fact that the independent notability of this article is based on the onslaught of election-related disinformation and conspiracy theories, just to be able to contrast with the non-conspiracy real-world events which might also show up in the Hunter Biden article. Topical real-world, verifiable, reliably sourced actual facts can be included regardless of what the article title is, if they're presented as such. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 05:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
So, if there is a lot of real world factual matters (business dealings of the son of the president-elect) and some unfounded accusation regarding them, Wikipedia's coverage of the business dealings goes under the title of the unfounded accusation? North8000 (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

FAQ: "The idea that Hunter Biden, a California resident under intense public scrutiny, would drop off an unencrypted laptop ..."

No specific content proposal. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:39, 25 November 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.


... looks dubious at first, until, of course, the material is published (New York Post article) and the persons implicated (in this case: the Biden family) DOES NOT DENY ITS AUTHETICITY. This is really journalism 101 and intelligence guided by experience. Let's be honest here, righteous Wikipedians: You have been caught with your pants down on this one. And guess what, there is even one of your godlike reliable sources, that thinks the same. The New York Times:

"The Media’s Hunter Biden Conundrum It should be possible to cover revelations about the Biden family that are neither disinformation nor the greatest scandal of our time. [...] At this point we can posit with some certainty that The Post’s story was not some sort of sweeping Russian disinformation plot but a more normal example of late-dropping opposition research, filtered through a partisan lens and a tabloid sensibility, weaving genuine facts into contestable conclusions." https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/opinion/hunter-biden-story-media.html

Genuine Facts. Bingo. Thank you for the eloquent kick in the butt of your whole profession, Mr. Douhat. And now it becomes clear that the real scandal, the real conspiracy, if you will, is not the publishing of authentic material by the NY Post, but the failure by the rest of the MSM and Big Tech to properly report the story and block others to do it. One could call this a case of election meddling. Let's also here from Mr. Greenwald, one of the few actual journalists left (beside Mr. Douhat) on this matter:

"All of those excuses and pretexts — emanating largely from a national media that is all but explicit in their eagerness for Biden to win — served for the first week or more after the Post story to create a cone of silence around this story and, to this very day, a protective shield for Biden. As a result, the front-running presidential candidate knows that he does not have to answer even the most basic questions about these documents because most of the national press has already signaled that they will not press him to do so [...]

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-biden-censored

And Wikipedia is complicit in all of this. --85.255.233.211 (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

You need to read what I just posted above, about how much of that is fake:
Questions Mount About Controversial Hunter Biden-China Dossier. Online profiles of the dossier’s publisher misrepresent key aspects of his background, The Intercept has learned.
BTW, the Trump campaign stopped pushing that conspiracy theory, so you're on your own. -- Valjean (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
The Intercept piece is beside the point. And this is not about Trump at all. The elephant in the room is the national media being able to shield presidential candidate Biden from valid questions about authentic material - the Hunter Biden emails. This will have repercussions, far beyond this election. --85.255.233.211 (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Ah, is that worse than Trump refusing to reveal who he owes money to, or refusing to comply with subpoenas, or instructing all government departments to obstruct lawful investigations? Instead the issue is whether or not Joe Biden has legal business interests abroad... while Trump and his family have known business interests abroad particularly in China.
You see the problem here is that we are dealing with tabloid press delivering hearsay in a tabloid fashion with little to no corroboration, and refusing to share their sources. One single email has been independently verified as being authentic, the sourcing of the laptops is highly questionable, and at least one significant legal entity (the FBI) has had this information for 10 months already and not made any moves, but everyone wants the MSM to go chasing faeries in the hope that they will publish enough vague smearing content to do harm.
That isn't how journalism works. Koncorde (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


weaving genuine facts into contestable conclusions – yep, that's exactly how conspiracy theories work, couldn't have put it much better myself. Anyway, the NYT article is an opinion piece, I'm not going to look at it right now, but we treat opinion pieces differently to factual reporting, even from reliable sources. Greenwald is self-published; as a general rule of thumb we don't cite self-published sources, doubly so when they've just been booted from an established media outlet on acrimonious terms. Jr8825 • Talk 21:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Funny that you should mention Greenwald's self-publshing in the context of an article that is the very reason of his self-publishing. And I could not care less whether you cite Greenwald or not. The damage has already been done. --85.255.233.211 (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
It's not funny from what I can tell. A respected journalist made an absolute arse of himself by breaking with his journalistic code to try and publish hearsay and factually incorrect hot-takes. That his stack exchange comment feed is filled with absolute crazy I hope lets him see the kind of people he is appealing to with unsubstantiated conspiracy thinking. Koncorde (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
What "damage"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.240.157 (talk) 10:57, 16 November 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.

Laptop saga gets stranger

Curiouser and curiouser:

So even his lawyer admits he doesn't know "whether the computer files that Giuliani said were from the laptop were actually from the laptop." -- Valjean (talk) 06:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2020

I have the link to the video that appears to be missing from this article. I'd be happy to correct the current content. Frankbelieve (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done This was not phrased in the form of a suggestion like "change X to Y". XOR'easter (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Editorial about this article

I do not endorse this editorial. Because it is detailed, I think it could be useful to editors frequenting this talk page. "Wikipedia Editors Call NY Post’s Biden Bombshells ‘Russian Interference’" https://www. breitbart.com/tech/2020/11/02/wikipedia-editors-call-ny-posts-biden-bombshells-russian-interference/--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

"""Conspiracy""" theory

Hunter Biden subpoena seeks info on Burisma, other entities. The Justice Department’s subpoena to Hunter Biden sought information involving more than two dozen entities to examine some of his foreign business ties, including with Ukrainian gas company Burisma https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/hunter-biden-subpoena-seeks-info-burisma-entities-74693739 88.5.75.126 (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks IP. How many people "familiar with a Justice Department tax investigation of President-elect Joe Biden's son" are going to keep leaking selective information is why we need to be careful what we use. The person, in this case, doesn't explain why such records are being requested so there's no context to the request per their statement that it is "unclear whether Hunter Biden's work at the Ukrainian company is a central part of the federal investigation or whether prosecutors are simply seeking information about all his sources of income in recent years." Koncorde (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Subheadings

During a GOCE copy edit I added subheadings to break up the lengthy text in the original New York Post reporting section. This is easily reverted if people feel this is not a good idea. Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Noting the article was mentioned Portal:Current events

The article was mentioned on the Portal:Current events/2020 December 28. Normally mentions like this don't happen, but since this is under high protection, I felt like this mention was needed. (WikiProject of Current Events lead coordinator) Elijahandskip (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Using New York Post as a source (Supported by RS)

So in the section about the Shop Owner, I ran into something odd. So generally the New York Post is considered unreliable, but so is Fox News. Fox News is generally considered reliable if any RS (Basically 1 other source) has an article on the topic. Is using the New York Post as a source ok if there is RS (Or more than 1 RS) that back-up what the NY Post's article states? Elijahandskip (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

  • No. If it's valid, there will always be a better source. SPECIFICO talk 16:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • If an actual reliable source supports what the NY Post says, why not just use the RS to support the statement? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Exactly. Elijahandskip, ALL content at Wikipedia must be based on RS, and ONLY RS, with ONE EXCEPTION. That is for content that is not unduly self-serving in the article about the subject. IOW, even in an article about a dubious subject or source, we do not allow the subject to pass off nonsense or deception as if it were true. We use them as a source only to document the existence of their POV, and even then, we prefer to use documentation (when they quote the dubious source) from a RS. RS are always included to make clear that it's nonsense and to tell the real story. In such cases, even blacklisted sources can be used, with caution. Never (with the caveat that there are exceptions to every rule... ) use an unreliable source for anything else. Only very experienced editors will know when to make such exceptions, and even then they can get it wrong.
Regarding Fox News, for controversial topics, and often for any topic, whenever a better source can be used instead of Fox News, it should be used. (Keep in mind that Fox News is rated dead last for accuracy among all major news networks, and media bias charts rate it worse than some sources we totally deprecate and even blacklist (which begs the question of why we haven't totally deprecated it for all uses?). A notable exception is when they have an exclusive interview of a truth-teller, or when their news team actually speaks the truth (debunking the lies they usually tell), as the truth coming from a hostile witness is always valuable. A Trump supporter will not believe facts reported by CNN (or any other mainstream source), but they might believe those same facts when reported by Fox News, although that is now changing as they move to Parler, OAN, and even more fringe sources. They have become immune to facts and would rather believe conspiracy theories. -- Valjean (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Ok. Thank you so much! Elijahandskip (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The computer shop "quote" is clearly faked!

It should be noted the "quote #7349" is clearly added after the photo was taken by electronic editing! It is not in alignment, too dark etc etc. Also the signature is not smooth not that it matches hunter Bidens signature at all!--Cynthia BrownSmyth (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi. This page is for discussing improvements to the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory article, not for general discussion of the article's subject. Moreover, Wikipedia is not the place for "Original Research". We summarize what other people have said in reliable sources. XOR'easter (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Beginning Discussion to add information about the shop owner's lawsuit against Twitter.

Case dismissed sua sponte the same day as filed ([3]) and no indication it's been re-filed. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:23, 13 January 2021 (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 am slightly confused on if that information should be added. It was added originally, then removed for a "No RS reason". 2 RS sources were added and it was ok. Then it was removed over "Poorly sourced". I honestly don't know how two RS sources is poorly sourced. Instead of starting an edit war, I am wanting to have a discussion here about that information.

  • Don't add. You mention two RS, but from what I can see the sources that have been added to support this were Deadline (generally reliable for entertainment-related articles), Fox News (no consensus on reliability for coverage of politics and science), and The New York Post (deprecated). I'm not sure where this "Fox is reliable if another RS makes the same claims" thing is coming from—I don't think I've seen that anywhere before. Either way, while I think it's possible to verify the claims based on the Deadline source, I don't think that singular source is enough to make the information noteworthy enough for this article, where it's fairly tangentially related. If the shop owner had an article, or if there was an article about the laptop incident specifically, that might be an easier argument to make. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I feel that WP:DUE isn't that popular on this article. I don't want to get into the very long and painful RFC that took place back in October, but that is beside the point. How is a lawsuit part of WP:DUE. There are tons of articles that are about lawsuits. A lawsuit doesn't just instantly say "Not neutral", it is a fact. Stating that someone filed something that is a legal document is a pure fact and a statement like that isn't at all "not neutral". Elijahandskip (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Due weight is established when multiple RS cover the matter. -- Valjean (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Don't add unless and until further sources appear with more detail that can make a good due weight case. Of the three sources given so far, the only one in green at WP:RSP is Deadline, but the consensus on its reliability is qualified — "generally reliable for entertainment-related articles". This article is not about Hollywoo stars and celebrities. XOR'easter (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Don't add There might be a place for it in the Giuliani article, in the 2020 presidential election article or elsewhere. It's noteworthy not for the substance of the narratives but for the RS consensus that it was a failed conspiracy theory promoted by various Trump allies. SPECIFICO talk 18:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • No In the weeds and well beyond the scope of the article. ValarianB (talk)
  • No I mean, what does this actually have to do with the conspiracy theories? It's a private dispute between twitter and the shop owner about them calling him a "hacker". Is Twitter Joe Biden? Koncorde (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Koncorde Why is there a Twitter section to the article then? If you use that argument, then anything Twitter related shouldn't be in the article. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
? Just because a "Twitter" section exists doesn't mean it indiscriminately collects unrelated information, and certainly not as it was presented (which was a distinct, even more tangentially related subsection). Koncorde (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

List of RS Sources to create article on this topic: (The Verge), (The Wrap), (Variety), (Deadline). Adding (Fox News) even though there is no consensus on reliablility. At this point, there is 4 RS and a semi-RS with articles on this topic. RS Sources are no longer a viable reason to say no. (I made that statement as I know articles can pass with as little as 2 RS sources, let alone 4. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The Fox News story has "New York Post" on the byline and appears to be more or less a mirror of the Post story (I haven't done a line-by-line check, but there's no way to call it "independent"). None of the others are what I'd call in-depth reporting. XOR'easter (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
$500 million damages? Sounds serious. Sub-tabloid level. SPECIFICO talk 21:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Just noting that The Verge is "a reliable source for use in articles relating to technology, science, and automobiles". The Wrap is not listed at WP:RSP. Variety is "considered a reliable source in its field (entertainment)". Deadline is "generally reliable for entertainment-related articles." As for Fox News, "there is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science"–it is not a "semi-reliable source" for politics. Furthermore, as XOR has pointed out, the Fox News article is a republication of an article in the deprecated New York Post (I did compare the two, they are functionally identical).
Please also note that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article." GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Per what @Koncorde: brought up, it's even sillier than that.
  1. The guy is angry that Twitter implemented their stated policies regarding the story, on the basis that the laptop might have contained materials that came from "hacking".
  2. "Twitter defines “hacking” loosely to include obtaining documents without authorization, and it didn’t name a specific individual as a “hacker.” Other possible/probable reasons Twitter applied the policy have to do with media criticisms that content on the laptop might well have included russian disinformation (from the Verge article).
  3. The guy has, on his own, decided that Twitter's implementation means that Twitter "called him a hacker".
  4. The guy has demanded 500 Million Dollars in compensation, because he decided that "twitter called him a hacker." Insert picture of Dr. Evil putting his pinkie to his mouth here.
Everything about this "story" says that it's a shot in the dark and he's just trolling, hoping to get a Nuisance-Value Settlement [4] out of it. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Agree with the above. Shop owners personal lawsuits, if mentioned, barely warrant a single sentence. Also, the case just got shot out of California because (as they always do) they sued an entity in the wrong state. Koncorde (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

businessinsider, reason, law.com ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.189.247 (talk) 12:41, 9 January 2021 (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.

"corrupt and ineffective"

Very loaded words that can be construed in a number of ways. Who decides what's "ineffective"? Violates NPOV in my opinion. Kingofthedead (talk) 10:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Being honest in my opinion. I created this article, but the majority of editors who care and edit it are left leaning. A 30 day discussion that was 55 pages long determined this was false before majority of fact checking news organizations said it was. So to answer your question, it is the left leaning editors who edit this article. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Why is Victor Shokin a "left leaning" issue or his ineffectiveness and alleged lack of action on curruption false? Bearing in mind contemporaneous reporting covered the events at that time which Shokin oversaw (even if he was not directly responsible for the negligence at times).[5][6][7][8][9][10] Koncorde (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
@Kingofthedead: I agree it's problematic as it stands. The original rationale would've been that reliable sources overwhelmingly label Shokin as such, but I think it should be attributed and contextualised, especially since it's BLP-related. There was widespread domestic and international pressure for Shokin's removal because he was considered him to be "corrupt and ineffective". I suggest something along the lines of 'widely accused of being'/'widely considered'. It might be helpful to qualify that further, e.g. 'by domestic critics and international organisations including the IMF, the EU, and the EBRD' (although that detail is better in the body of the article rather than the lead). @Koncorde: the key bit is 'alleged', it's a criticism and I think we need a high bar for stating something as qualitative as 'ineffective' in wikivoice. This article is more critical and negative towards Shokin than his biography, which describes and outlines the allegations without resorting to wikivoice. @Elijahandskip: we're discussing content, no need to make it about contributors. Jr8825 • Talk 16:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I am not arguing for its inclusion or any wording, only the relevance of "left leaning" given coverage was across the spectrum and the accusations were borne, as you point out, by the IMF, EU, British CPS, US DOJ etc about general Ukrainian corruption ghat Shokin was at least nominally at the head of. Koncorde (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Kingofthedead, we have an article on Viktor Shokin which clearly lays out the global consensus that he was corrupt and ineffective. This consensus involved a bipartisan US Congressional view as well as the EU and World Bank, as Koncorde notes above. It's a Truth™ vs. fact thing. The Truth™ in the conservative media is that Shokin was an effective prosecutor who was targeting Burisma. The fact is that he wasn't - in fact the main documented targets of his zeal appear to have been those companies that did not pay bribes. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

NIC confirms Ukraine as a Russian intelligence op.

In a declass today: [11].

We assess that Russia's intelligence services, Ukraine-linked individuals with ties to Russian intelligence and their networks, and Russian state media, trolls, and online proxies engaged in activities targeting the 2020 US presidential election. The primary effort the IC uncovered revolved around a narrative-that Russian actors began spreading as early as 2014-alleging corrupt ties between President Biden, his family, and other US officials and Ukraine. Russian intelligence services relied on Ukraine-linked proxies and these proxies' networks-including their US contacts-to spread this narrative to give Moscow plausible deniability of their involvement. We assess that the goals of this effort went beyond the US presidential campaign to include reducing the Trump administration's support for Ukraine. As the US presidential election neared, Moscow placed increasing emphasis on undermining the candidate it saw as most detrimental to its global interests. We have no evidence suggesting the Ukrainian Government was involved in any of these efforts.
  • A network of Ukraine-linked individuals including Russian influence agent Konstantin Kilimnik-who were also connected to the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) took steps throughout the election cycle to damage US ties to Ukraine, denigrate President Biden and his candidacy, and benefit former President Trump's prospects for reelection. We assess this network also sought to discredit the Obama administration by emphasizing accusations of corruption by US officials, and to falsely blame Ukraine for interfering in the 2016 US presidential election.
  • Derkach, Kilimnik, and their associates sought to use prominent US persons and media conduits to launder their narratives to US officials and audiences. These Russian proxies met with and provided materials to Trump administration-linked US persons to advocate for formal investigations; hired a US firm to petition US officials; and attempted to make contact with several senior US officials. They also made contact with established US media figures and helped produce a documentary that aired on a US television network in late January 2020.
  • As part of his plan to secure the reelection of former President Trump, Derkach publicly released audio recordings four times in 2020 in attempts to implicate President Biden and other current or former US Government officials in allegedly corrupt activities related to Ukraine. Derkach also worked to initiate legal proceedings in Ukraine and the US related to these allegations. Former Ukrainian officials associated with Derkach sought to promote similar claims throughout late 2019 and 2020, including through direct outreach to senior US Government officials.

Plenty more in there but this is the stuff directly relevant to the Giuliani narrative. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Twitter and reliable sources

Amazingly, the OP turns out to be a sockpuppet. Who'd have thought. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:35, 18 April 2021 (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.

Please explain how – Skynews, The Seattle Times and others are not reliable sources. Kenosha Forever (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

A problem was likely reinserting other unreliable sources. For Sky News, it probably should be avoided (1, 2). Seattle Times may be usable, remains to see if the material is WP:DUE (maybe not if only one acceptable source mentions it, WP:NOTNEWS is also to consider)... —PaleoNeonate – 20:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
How about the LA times? [12]. NY Times ? [13] ? Forbes [14]? How long is this game going to continue? Kenosha Forever (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Please see WP:FOC. I'm not sure for LA Times, the Forbes one is from Sandler not Forbes, NYTimes is better, —PaleoNeonate – 02:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
You're not sure for the LA times? quelle surprise. What aren't you sure about? You're not sure it is a reliable source? Is is not current and demonstrative of ongoing coverage? Does it not explicitly support the very quote I added, which was removed under a false edit summary? Sanders is a Forbes staff reporter, writing under her byline in Forbes. I have no idea what "is from Sandler not Forbes" means ,that's the way news articles are written. But at least you agree the NY Times passes muster. So, can we put this back in, or are we going to play a few more rounds of this game first? Kenosha Forever (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Kenosha Forever, none of those sources establishes any credibility to the laptop. As Hunter Biden says, "It could be that I was hacked. It could be that it was the — that it was Russian intelligence. It could be that it was stolen from me." What we know with very high confidence is that Hunter Biden was the focus of a Russian disinformation operation involving Rudy Giuliani, and no credible source treats the provenance of the laptop as anything other than deeply suspicious.
Russian intelligence have a history of using hack and leak operations - the DNC hack and the operation against Macron, for example. They also have a history of planting fabricated materials within those dumps. None of this establishes any part of the core conspiracy theory, that Joe Biden intervened to have Viktor Shokin fired in order to protect Hunter. Credible sources are in unanimous agreement that Shokin was corrupt. Many sources note that firing him made it more likely that the investigation he was not pursuing against Burisma, would proceed.
So instead of arm-waving at the word "laptop" as if its mere existence somehow disproves the fact that its provenance stinks like long-dead fish, try suggesting a change that you think more accurately reflects the sources as you interpret them. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Take the time to read what is being discussed. None of this has anything to do with the provenance the laptop. Kenosha Forever (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Let's review the proposed change and its sources.
In his subsequent testimony to the Senate committee, Dorsey conceded that the decision to block the Post story was "a total mistake", and blamed it on a "process error". [1][2][3][4]<re>'We made a total mistake': Jack Dorsey questioned over Hunter Biden censorship</ref>[5]
What Dorsey said is that it was a mistake to simply block links, and Twitter should instead have flagged the content; he said that this capability had since been added (AP source now cited in the article). The important thing of course is not to give the false impression that Dorsey's statement in any way implies endorsement of the claims, because it doesn't (that's implicit in the flagging and explicit in the AP story). As with anything where there's a strong counterfactual political narrative, it is important to carefully avoid framing any statement in a way that lends spurious validity to bad-faith claims by bad-faith actors like Scalise. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
If you want to be taken seriously, take the time to review what we are talking about, carefully. This statement is in reference to Dorsey's Mar 25 2021 testimony. In it he said nothing whatsoever about flagging the content. He said blocking the story was a 'total mistake', based on a 'process error' in applying their own policy, which someone misinterpreted. Scalise is not mentioned in the material I added , which is fully supported by multiple high quality sources. Can we put this back into the article, or do we need to play a few more rounds of this game first? Kenosha Forever (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Kenosha Forever, what Dorsey said is quoted in the AP article: that Twitter did not have the tools to handle this correctly, and now does (by flagging false content).
At no point did anything he said validate the Russian disinformation campaign, because nothing he could say would do that. We have to remain narrowly focused on what he can do (manage Twitter's exposure to motivated right-wing backlash against fact-checking) and what he can't do (magically make a Russian disinformation operation into truth).
As an aside, I don't think I have to worry about being taken seriously. You have 161 edits in six weeks, I have over 150,000 in more than 16 years, within the 400 most active Wikipedians. I probably do understand policy and practice better than you do. You're free to ask for clarification any time. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I am not one to be impressed by volume of edits nor fallacious appeals to authority, and no, it does not seem like you understand policy, no matter how many edits you've made. Specifically, you don't seem to understand WP:SYNTH, as evidenced by your comments here, which seek to use a source from Jan 2020 to support statements about events that happened 9 months later. And again, If you want to be taken seriously, take the time to review what we are talking about, carefully. The material I added was not about validating or invalidating the supposed Russian disinformation campaign - it was about Twitter's handling of the Post story. In his latest comments (dated March 2021, not the October 2020 testimony you added to the article, pay attention if you want to contribute meaningfully), he said it was a 'total mistake', the result of a misapplication of their own policy. This was covered by multiple reliable sources, and needs to be in the article. Are we done yet, or will there be more game playing and goalpost moving? Kenosha Forever (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Kenosha Forever, oh if I had a dollar for every "brand new user" who has explained to me all the ways I am wrong about policy that purely by coincidence happen to mitigate in favour of their POV. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
If you had a policy-based response, I'm sure we'd hear it, instead of this swagger. Kenosha Forever (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Kenosha Forever, my policy-based response is that I don't believe for a moment that you are a genuinely new user, so there are obvious WP:SOCK issues, and your arguments appear to be based on a personal preference for making this farrago seem more in line with the conservative media counterfactual rather than the reality-based media interpretation as backed by the US intelligence services under both former president Trump and now president Biden.
You seem unwilling to propose changes in the form "change X to Y" so it is hard to see beyond the superficial appearance of the bog standard angry Breitbart reader that we've seen here for months. Specifics always work better than arm-waving and shouting TLAs, especially when a user has very few edits. The more a "new user" shouts TLAs, the more likely they are to be a sockpuppet, in my (long) experience, and the more likely they are to attract the attention of CheckUsers and other admins. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Focus on content, not editors, I want to add a statement which is fully sourced, to multiple reliable sources. What is your policy based objection to it? Kenosha Forever (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Kenosha Forever, the fact that your statement is based on spin in largely unreliable sources, as noted by others above. I added the facts from a reliable source. You haven't yet addressed how this is supposedly insufficient. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Simply false, and shows you are not reading what others are writing. The LA times [15], NY Times [16] , Forbes [17] are all reliable sources. Kenosha Forever (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Kenosha Forever, once again, you have failed to address what is allegedly insufficient in the article as it stands. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
JzG, Once again, that is false , and shows you are not reading what others are writing.. The article as it stands contains no reference to Dorsey's March 2021 testimony, in which he said that their handling of the Post story was "'total mistake', the result of a misapplication of their own policy, and blamed it on a "process error". I wrote that explicitly above, - 20:36, 4 April 2021 - start paying attention. Kenosha Forever (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Kenosha Forever, AP reports Dorsey's exact words, in context (i.e. that the "mistake" was in blocking, rather than flagging and fact-checking, which they could not then do but rapidly implemented). The AP story is completely cleare that he called it a mistake, and why he said that, without editorialising. We don't need to add statements teased out of him by politicians in a hearing, because we already have the content and the context. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
The AP story and your comments about it are from October. There is new testimony, from March, where not a word is said about 'flagging', or new capabilities, but simply an admission that the whole thing was a 'total mistake', the result of an alleged "process error" that led to a misapplication of already existing policies. This not the same content. It is almost comical to hear the excuse that "we don't need to add statements teased out of him by politicians in a hearing," when the very comments that are currently in the article, which you support, were also " teased out of him by politicians in a hearing". But here's a suggestion - if you really think this is the same content, let's replace the existing text with one that relying on the more recent testimony. No adding, but relying on more current reporting.Kenosha Forever (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Kenosha Forever, there's only one incident. The reporting of the March hearing, which you will note was a political event not even a news interview, is completely in line with the contemporaneous reporting by AP. There is no need to add statements teased out of him by politicians in a political context. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
There is one incident, but multiple stories about it, and what appear to be different explanations by Dorsey. The AP reporting is based on a statement to the press by Twitter's CEO - I hardly think that's more reliable than testimony he gave to a congressional committee. But again, of you think the March coverage is the same as the October one , how about we switch the two. Not add, switch.? Kenosha Forever (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Kenosha Forever, Twitter restricted spread of the story, Dorsey said he should have tagged it instead of restricting it, that's all in the AP story, and the only additional material you seem to want to add is a statement from a political circus which does not contradict the earlier reporting or develop it in any material way. That seems to me to be redundant, contrary to NPOV, and redundant. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
JzG, I disagree. I think back in October, he tried to pass off Twitter's irresponsible behavior, during a well orchestrated press call where his PR team wrote the response, as a product limitation ('we didn't have the ability to just flag posts'). Now, facing a Senate hearing, he changed his tune - they had a proper procedure to deal with it, but due to a 'process error', did not apply it. I think it is different, but of you think it is the same, why not go with the more recent explanation? Shouldn't matter to you, if you think it is the same thing. Kenosha Forever (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Kenosha Forever, oh good, we disagree. So now the onus is on you to achieve consensus for adding the political circus. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
...and so the game has come full circle, with the goal posts shifting from "unreliable sources" (false), to "you haven't articulated a reason"(false), until we have arrived at "yes, reliable sources say that, but I don't like it, so see if you have support from others". Let's reiterate: you have no policy reason for objecting to my change, you just don't like it, and think you own this page. Kenosha Forever (talk) 19:56, 11 April 2021 (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.

References

  1. ^ Jack Dorsey says blocking Post’s Hunter Biden story was ‘total mistake’ — but won’t say who made it
  2. ^ Twitter CEO Says Blocking New York Post Hunter Biden Story Was ‘Mistake’
  3. ^ Scalise grills Dorsey about blocking NY Post article on Hunter Biden
  4. ^ Rep. Scalise Grills Twitter CEO About Hunter Biden Report
  5. ^ The Latest: Twitter grilled about blocking a NY Post article

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2021

Add: there is video evidence of the accused resident Joe Biden implicating himself of exactly what this article says he's not guilty of. A confession is worth more than any evidence. This needs to be added to ensure everyone knows that Joe Biden admits he's using tax payer dollars to leverage immunity for his family. 2600:1015:B023:7ABB:654F:BB09:7BCB:8DF7 (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2021 (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. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. It also must comply with WP:NPOV. We are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Sennecaster (What now?) 16:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
And note that every prior mention of "video evidence" has turned out to be irrelevant. See the second question in the FAQ at the top of this very page. XOR'easter (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Misleading laptop claims in FAQ

I removed the bit about Hunter Biden's laptop from the FAQ, as I have concerns that we aren't getting it exactly right. Can we revisit the sourcing for these claims:

  • The provenance of the laptop is considered dubious by all reliable media sources
  • The situation has parallels with the Russian "Fancy Bear" operation against Emanuel Macron in 2017
  • 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
  • At this time, no serious sources take the laptop at face value. (which time is "At this time?")

From what I can tell, most of these claims come from the October 2020 timeframe, when the unfounded claim that the Biden laptop was Russian disinformation was first spread. I haven't seen any real evidence yet that the laptop was a Russian scam, so we shouldn't present it as a factual answer to a FAQ. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, I'm somewhat surprised that you'd choose to remove this right after the NIC confirmed it to be true. Yes, every reliable source thought the provenance was as fishy as hell. Yes numerous sources drew parallels with Fancy Bear's Macron operation, tot he point of crediting Fancy Bear as a likely source. Every reliable source that addressed the plausibility of using Mac Isaac concluded that it was implausible (Mac Isaac has since shut up shop and moved state). So the only comment that's not clearly current and factuial is "at this time", and that can be removed, since it's no longer a developing story. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Great can you link some RS explaining how the Biden laptop was Russian disinformation? I’m not interested in what people thought or opined, but what the actual evidence is. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Mr Ernie, one section up. Any more questions? Guy (help! - typo?) 21:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I closely checked that section for any references to the Hunter Biden laptop topic, which is the subject of this discussion, and wasn’t able to find anything. Several commentators on twitter posted something similar in the past few days, and to their credit, many amended or deleted any reference to the Biden laptop. I came to this page hoping to find something more substantive, didn’t see any sources making this claim, and removed it from the FAQ. If you could please help me find specific sourcing for the 4 bullet points opening this topic, I would be appreciative. Otherwise I’m going to revert your revert as unsourced material. I don’t know that the current sourcing justifies such an authoritative statement in Wikivoice as an answer to a FAQ. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Mr Ernie, as I pointed out, all these statements are well sourced in the article and have been extensively discussed on this Talk page. The only thing that's changed in recent times is that what was a current event (sources do not at present take it seriously) is now past history (sources did not take it seriously). Everything else is demonstrably true, well documented, and endlessly debated on this page. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
JzG, it doesn't work that way. Macron and Fancy Bear aren't even mentioned in the article, and the rest is OR. Please provide the sourcing for the 4 identified claims at the beginning of this section, to specify that it isn't just your OR. I've reverted your inclusion of unsourced OR again. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Then what is your suggestion for an FAQ on the laptop? Koncorde (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I would remove the whole FAQ as unsourced and unnecessary editorializing. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Specify what is unsourced? Please read the article sources and talk archives. SPECIFICO talk 21:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
The entire FAQ is unsourced. Is there some exception for FAQs where they don’t need sources? What’s the policy anyway on article “FAQs?” Mr Ernie (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Mr Ernie, irrelevant. See 2017 Macron e-mail leaks. The parallels are obvious, and drawn by sources. And you keep removing the entire section despite this being the only thing with which you have thus far taken issue.
The FAQ is there because we had months of drive-bys demanding that we take this Russian intelligence op at face value, and treat it as a genuine controversy around Joe Biden. Sources that support its veracity are: a minority on the New York Post, Glenn Greenwald, and the right-wing media bubble. Meanwhile, serious sources conclude that the entire thing stinks of month-dead fish on a Moroccan dockside. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I don’t know how many more ways I can phrase it, but maybe I’m not communicating effectively. Please explicitly present the RS for the 4 claims highlighted at the beginning of this section. We’ve gone back and forth a few times now but you’ve yet to link a single source for any of this. I’m happy to restore the content if it is verifiable. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Mr Ernie, this is a talk page FAQ not an article. You are repeatedly removing content, without consensus, form a five-month stable version. The count of people agreeing with you so far on this Talk page is zero. Now would be a good time to self-revert. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Regarding your repeated reverts, per policy the onus is on you to present sourcing to justify inclusion. I will revert this until you explicitly show the sourcing for the 4 claims made in Wikivoice. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Since the sourcing has been provided below, and there's a clear consensus here to keep it, I've restored it myself. Beyond that, please keep WP:SATISFY in mind - this has been stable for five months; no matter how much you disagree with it, it's inappropriate to keep removing it when so many people are telling you it has consensus and no one has yet weighed in to agree with you. --Aquillion (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

It's a FAQ

We don't do inline sourcing in FAQs. However, for the benefit of those who are not prepared to read the article or the previous discussions on this page on which the FAQ was based:

Q: What about Hunter Biden's laptop?
A: The FBI has warned since 2019 that Rudy Giuliani is being used as a conduit for disinformation by Russian intelligence.[1] The provenance of the laptop is considered dubious by all reliable media sources,[2][3] and the situation has parallels with the Russian "Fancy Bear" operation against Emanuel Macron in 2017.[4] 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.[3] There are also reports of Burisma being hacked by Russian actors early in 2020.[5][6] At this time, no serious sources take the laptop at face value.[7][8]

References

  1. ^ White House was warned Giuliani was target of Russian intelligence operation to feed misinformation to Trump, Washington Post
  2. ^ Here's what happened when NBC News tried to report on the alleged Hunter Biden emails, NBC
  3. ^ a b Suspect provenance of Hunter Biden data cache prompts skepticism and social media bans, TechCrunch
  4. ^ Russians hacked company key to Ukraine scandal: researchers, AP
  5. ^ Russian hackers targeted Burisma amid impeachment inquiry, cybersecurity firm says, The Guardian
  6. ^ [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/13/us/politics/russian-hackers-burisma-ukraine.html Russians Hacked Ukrainian Gas Company at Center of Impeachment
  7. ^ The media has mostly not taken the bait on dubious Biden claims – with some Australia-linked exceptions, The Guardian
  8. ^ e.g. NPR

Next steps:

  1. {{u|Mr Ernie to reinstate the stable version (which has been in place unchallenged for five months, is supported by sources and for whose removal he clearly does not have consensus, per above)
  2. Mr Ernie to propose changes in wording to address what he perceives as inaccuracies.

Over to him. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a lot of original research to me. Kenosha Forever (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Have you looked at the sources to see if they support the statements? Koncorde (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I have. Have you read WP:SYNTH? Kenosha Forever (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
If you have looked you know that they support the statements and you must be aware of the considerable coverage of this matter, a lot of which has already been discussed on this page, that the FAQ summarises (as explained by JzG. This is not a WP:OR issue the same way the Perennial Sources list is not a WP:OR issue. It is user guidance as to the context the laptop has already been discussed. The sources meanwhile only demonstrate the the type of content of such discussion rather than an exhaustive list (again as JzG explained). Koncorde (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I disagree. Taking a January 2020 AP story about 'Fancy bear' which makes no mention of the Biden laptop (How could it?) and tying it to this is exactly original research. Kenosha Forever (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
It does not seem like you are actually reading what the passage says. It is drawing a comparison between the Macron disinfo and the Hunter Biden disinfo, as both originate in Russia. This is also well-covered by sources. ValarianB (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
It does not seem like you are actually reading what I am writing. In the sources listed above, source #4 is a January 2020 AP story about 'Fancy bear' which makes no mention of the Biden laptop (How could it?) and tying it to this is exactly original research.Kenosha Forever (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh, we read it, it wasn't complex. Q4 is simply covering the long-running Russian misinformation campaign that has included areas from Macron to Biden. It is not OR or synthesis to note that the Biden laptop fabrication was simply the most recent in a string. Your concerns are meritless. ValarianB (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
It is very clear synthesis to use a January 2020 AP story about 'Fancy bear' which makes no mention of the Biden laptop (How could it?) to tie to the laptop story which surfaced 10 months later. This is exactly original research. Kenosha Forever (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
And again, you are taking one single source as being the be-all and end-all of the consensus discussions that took place over the last 18+ months covering myriad reliable sources.[18][19][20][21][22][23][24] Koncorde (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I am taking this source because it is used right up there - if you agree to remove it, we can discuss other issues, like the fact that indeed a lot has happened in the months since the story broke out, including the fact that no security agency is today claiming this is Russian disinformation (see https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/10/19/russian-disinformation-not-behind-biden-emails-dni-ratcliffe-says/3712484001/) Kenosha Forever (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
No. The FAQ exists for this reason. Please go read the archives as we have been across Ratcliffe and others previously. Absence of reference to the laptop does not negate coverage of the laptop up to and after the election. Koncorde (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Multiple editors are telling you the FAQ is inappropriate as-is, and giving reasons for it. If you take out #4 above, which I hope we all agree is an egregious example of original research , we'll move on to Radcliffe. Kenosha Forever (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
No. Multiple editors are saying it is fine and reflects consensus of months of discussions and reliable sources. Check archives. Come back with new stuff. Koncorde (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Multiple editors say it's fine, and multiple editors say it's not. Consensus can change. Kenosha Forever (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I have been tied up IRL and will respond in greater detail as soon as I can. But in short, this sourcing is really inadequate for such strong claims made in Wikivoice. I see you say we don’t need inline citations for FAQs. Which policy governs this? I’d like to take a closer look. Anyways, having “TechCrunch” as the sole source for 2 of these claims is probably not sufficient. Also I read the entire archive and the sourcing for the FAQ was not discussed extensively. It’s good to have this in depth look now. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Multiple editors saying it’s fine doesn’t address the very real concerns about sourcing. It would make sense to me for a FAQ section to actually contain the strongest sourcing for a quick glance for readers than expecting them to dig through archives. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
It's an FAQ, not the article. The article itself deals with the laptop. The FAQ is giving context to broader initial question "Why is this presented as a conspiracy theory?" and the specific question regularly brought up about the Laptop. That is it, it's purpose, to give context to discussions had in the past. If you have new information about the laptop, new developments in the investigation, new perspectives etc then bring them up. Koncorde (talk) 00:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
This context needs to be complete. Right now it is not, and giving a one-sided view. Kenosha Forever (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
It has the view of the consensus based on months of discussions of these same subjects. If you intend to discuss something, I suggest you create a new section and ensure you are actually raising something new to be discussed otherwise you will likely be referred to the archive and / or sources already in the article. Koncorde (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Consensus can change, please address the issues raised by Mr Ernie and myself. Kenosha Forever (talk) 13:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Consensus can indeed change. If you intend to discuss something, I suggest you create a new section and ensure you are actually raising something new to be discussed otherwise you will likely be referred to the archive and / or sources already in the article. At this point I am ceasing AGF as you are just repeating the same thing. Koncorde (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
There is a new section - it is this one. And we are discussing an issue - reference 4, which is original research. Please address the issue.Kenosha Forever (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Koncorde, where is the policy governing article FAQ pages? I would like to closely read it. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

MOS for FAQ. Koncorde (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

That's not what he asked for, he asked for policy on FAQ pages for articles, what you linked to is an FAQ about the Manual of Style.Kenosha Forever (talk) 13:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
No, what I linked to is the MOS for FAQ's. FAQ's guidance is otherwise related to answering questions asked. Which you have been directed to read the archive discussions which contains all the background to questions asked and why the FAQ is as it is. If you have improvements to suggest, or specific information related to the laptop that would change the FAQ then I would suggest you do so because at the moment this is just a perpetual demand to WP:SATISFY. Koncorde (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
No, it's not. I suggest you click on it.Kenosha Forever (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Balls, I have copied and pasted the wrong link. Apologies, let me find the right one. Koncorde (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
No, it's the right one. It's the example FAQ used as part of the Template:FAQ page under the Formatting the Q&A section. Apologies that was unclear. Koncorde (talk) 13:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Koncorde, it wasn't the right one, but assuming Template:FAQ is the right one, I don't see how it supports the various claims made earlier regarding sourcing (e.g. "We don't do inline sourcing in FAQs"). Kenosha Forever (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
FAQ page provides more context and is the only one to provide an example usage. You can review more at Category FAQ's for more examples. Koncorde (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Koncorde, I'm not interested in seeing more examples of FAQ pages, I am interested in the policy that described how FAQs are governed. assuming Template: FAQ is it, I don't see how it supports the various claims made earlier regarding sourcing (e.g. "We don't do inline sourcing in FAQs") Kenosha Forever (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't see how it stipulates we do? I already provided additional sources, but here are the same and some others in any case for more context and you can always google more.[25][26][27][28] Koncorde (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Koncorde, does it stipulate we don't? That was the (apparently false) claim made by the person who started this section.
It stipulates that FAQ's should be written in accordance with wiki policies (5. "... it should actually consist of questions that are frequently asked, with answers to them that are compatible with Wikipedia policy, ") , one of those policies is that any statement that is challenged or likely to be challenged, needs a citation. Kenosha Forever (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Kenosha Forever, right. And this one is. It summarises the answers top frequently asked questions on this page. You are, of course, more than welcome to suggest refinements, in the form of "change X to Y based on Z source". The FAQ was set up due to the churn in the right-wing media bubble following the Russian disinformation operation, but the comments in recent weeks here suggest it still has value, so please do suggest improvements. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
JzG, I've made one suggestion: remove a Jan 2020 story , which predates the HUnter laptop issue by several months, from the list of sources, as it is original research to connect it . Kenosha Forever (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Kenosha Forever, what list of sources? There is no list of sources in the FAQ. Note also that the Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory goes back to before the first impeachment of former president Trump, so Jan 2020 is solidly in scope. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
JzG, the ones at he top of this section, that are references for the question "Q: What about Hunter Biden's laptop?". Sources that predate that laptop story breaking can't be used , as that is original research Kenosha Forever (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Kenosha Forever, you failed to propose any change in the form "change X to Y", so I cannot evaluate your suggestion. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I assume you are not a chatbot, and can deal with change requests that are not in the form "change X to Y". But if are are limited in your capacity, then Change "and the situation has parallels with the Russian "Fancy Bear" operation against Emanuel Macron in 2017.[4]" to "", or find a proper source for it. Kenosha Forever (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Kenosha Forever, you are asking for a change, it is up to you to articulate that change in a way that lets others evaluate what you are actually asking for. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kenosha Forever: did you read the sources you're discussing (the ones provided by JzG above)? The Associated Press, NY Times and Guardian stories all draw comparisons between Russian attempts to smear Hunter Biden (specifically by hacking Burisma) and the GRU's "Fancy Bear" hacking group. Given that the provenance of the content supposedly found on Hunter Biden's alleged laptop is likely to have originated in Ukraine (it's been a while since I worked on this article, but if I recall correctly some analysts suggested the laptop material could have come directly from the hack of Burisma) stating that there are parallels to other Russia disinformation/hacking campaigns is a logical and supported statement. All of the Russian mischief related to Burisma/Hunter Biden hacking is treated as connected by the sources. Jr8825 • Talk 19:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Right, and that's what the FAQ section is meant to remind readers of, that no RS consider it credible and that there's evidence for not taking it seriously, —PaleoNeonate – 20:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
If you have better sources than the ones currently used, by all means use them. But it should plainly obvious that you can't use a a January 2020 article to say anything about the laptop, without violating WP:SYNTH.Kenosha Forever (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Goto 2.1: it's a FAQ, —PaleoNeonate – 02:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
FAQs are required to be written in accordance with policy. SYNTH is such a policy. Kenosha Forever (talk) 03:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Kenosha Forever, you have not identified any parts that need to change. See above. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
JzG, I have, multiple times. See above. Kenosha Forever (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Kenosha Forever, no you haven't. You have arm-waved. Instead, try suggesting a change in the form "change X to Y", that will help people to evaluate whether you're making a serious request or merely trying to whitewash away the fact that the entire thing is a Russian disinformation operation. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I have, several times. Once more: you need to either remove the statement "and the situation has parallels with the Russian "Fancy Bear" operation against Emanuel Macron in 2017." which is based on a original resource that uses a source which predates the situation by a good 9 months, or find a better source for it. Tone down the insinuations about motivations, as well. It is not a "fact that the entire thing is a Russian disinformation operation." Kenosha Forever (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Kenosha Forever, the conspiracy theory involves more than the dodgy laptop. There are a lot of sources that discuss Fancy Bear's targeting of Burisma and specifically link Hunter Biden (e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/13/us/politics/russian-hackers-burisma-ukraine.html, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/14/russian-hackers-targeted-ukrainian-company-burisma-impeachment-hunter-biden, https://apnews.com/article/9a4a6d6f21b48375b762b88587c45411).
The AP story specifically makes the link: Joan Donovan, a Harvard University disinformation expert, said one of the most dangerous possibilities would be data theft spiced with forgeries — and subsequently leaked. That reportedly happened in 2017 when emails related to the campaign of President Emanuel Macron of France were stolen and published online — with some fakes included— just ahead of his election.[29].
It is well documented that hack-and-dump scams are a standard Russian intelligence ploy. I presume you're not trying to deny that, nor that Fancy Bear were responsible for both the hack-and-dump operation against Macron, or the targeting of Burisma as part of the Russian intelligence operation that the intelligence agencies warned Trump about. So I am unclear as to your actual objection here. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
What you are doing above is textbook original research - 1. Russians are known to use disinformation, including with stolen data (sourced) 2.A A disinformation expert said (in Jan 2020) that they might do it again in the 2020 elections (sourced) 3. A laptop of questionable provenance shows up in October 20201 (sourced) 4. Therefor, the laptop is , or is likely , Russian disinformation,. (4) is your own conclusion, not supported by the AP story. You have just demonstrated yet again, that you don't understand what the original research policy is, even after making so many edits. Kenosha Forever (talk)
Kenosha, what you're claiming is simply not true. Time to move on. ValarianB (talk) 12:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
What is simply not true. that the AP article was published in Jan 2020? That in Jan 2020 there was no "Hunter Biden laptop" story? Kenosha Forever (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
JzG, There's not one shred of actual evidence that the laptop was Russian disinformation. Just a lot of so called "expert" speculation that has so far not been substantiated in any way. It will be impossible to actually improve this article and the FAQ as long as editors like Guy are hanging around insisting that this laptop thing is a Russian op (without evidence). Biden himself was interviewed recently (and not particularly challenged), and here's what he had to say - "There could be a laptop out there that was stolen from me," Hunter Biden said in the interview. "It could be that I was hacked. It could be that it was the -- that it was Russian intelligence. It could be that it was stolen from me. Or that there was a laptop stolen from me." source. The FAQ is saying things in Wikivoice that can but not substantiated by the sources. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Mr Ernie, The sources are very clear: the Hunter Biden narrative is Russian disinformation and the "laptop" is part of it. I know the right wants to turn this into a rerun of Ben Ghazi and the Buttery Males, a nontroversy that can be endlessly recycled only because every investigation showed there was nothing to investigate so no further investigation was made, but that's not our job. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
JzG, can you please link a source that clearly calls the laptop Russian disinformation? You are usually pretty good at spotting fake / fringe things, but you've fallen for this one hook, line, and sinker. "A law enforcement source has told CNN that the assumption is that it is Hunter Biden's laptop." I don't think it could be any clearer than that. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Mr Ernie, I don't have to, because the FAQ doesn't say that. What the FAQ says is that the provenance is considered dubious - which it is, per sources. Whether it ever belonged to Hunter Biden is open to question, but I don't think any sane person believes that it was dropped off at Mac Isaac's shop by Hunter Biden or anyone connected with him, nor that the choice of Mac Isaac was somehow random, nor that Mac Isaac's story about the disposal of the laptop is true. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
JzG, I’m a little bit confused now. Are you agreeing with me that we should remove the Russian disinformation bit from the FAQ because it is unsourced? Mr Ernie (talk) 01:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Mr Ernie, no, because it isn't. The statements as made are correctly sourced. Feel free to propose a clarification that you think is more closely aligned with the exact text of the sources, but it's completely clear at this point that the story of Hunter Biden dropping off a laptop, Paul Mac Isaac not being paid and deciding to look at the (unencrypted) data, and then passing it to the FBI via Rudy Giuliani as a supposedly trusted intermediary, despite his connections to Russian Intelligence, specifically including Kilimnik, a month after "Typhoon" dropped an "intelligence report" on Hunter's dealing with China, is a very obvious crock of shit on pretty much every level.
But hey, if Hunter Biden is ever given a government role with advanced security clearance against the advice of intelligence staff, we can certainly revisit this. I don't think Joe Biden is going to do that, so the whole Hunter thing will always be a red herring anyway. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Break

This FAQ is not compliant with policy, which states As a matter of clear policy, Wikipedia does not permit "how-to" or "advice" material and does not publish original thought of any kind, as part of the encyclopedia. This effectively constrains FAQ pages in "Talk:", "Wikipedia:", and most other namespaces to being about the editing and discussion history of the pages to which FAQ pages pertain. The FAQ was created by JzG, and is largely his OR and speculation. There's no serious discussion in the page archives of the laptop. There's no evidence of any kind that it is Russian disinformation. It is improper to state JzG's opinions in Wikivoice as a "FAQ" to questions which have never been asked. From a recent CNN story - "A law enforcement source has told CNN that the assumption is that it is Hunter Biden's laptop." source. There is no reason to include the laptop section in the FAQ as it is unsourced editorializing. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Koncorde, ValarianB since I was not able to respond for a few days, I believe the quote from the law enforcement officer in the CNN article more than obviates the need for a FAQ entry about the laptop. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
As the story continues, But the FBI is still working through the content and the integrity of what is on it, because it was not in Hunter Biden's sole possession the whole time before it was handed over to the FBI. The statements from security experts all along made the point that one way to make disinformation look legitimate is to blend it with facts. I do not see how any more recent developments have changed the upshot of the FAQ entry, namely that serious sources do not take the laptop story at face value. XOR'easter (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
XOR'easter, exactly. And just this week we have further confirmation of Russian disinformation specifically around Ukraine and Hunter Biden. We also now have a very firm statement that Konstantin Kilimnik is a Russian spy, and it looks like there's a straight line from him to Giuliani's buddy Andrii Derkach. What plausibility this story ever had, seems to be the result of concerted efforts by Trump appointees to conceal facts known to the intelligence community. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia insisting on defending Biden while Don Jr's article has unevidence bs?

So russiagate is proven to be a conspiracy but is presented on this website as a fact while the Hunter Biden scandal is fact but this site wants to protect him at all cost?

Dont get it

Hunter Biden has hit some rough patches in his life, perhaps engaging in behavior that some consider unseemly, but there remains no evidence it has any bearing on his father, despite years of efforts by Russian and Trump operatives make it seem so. But keep your eyes open for any developments emerging from the Manhattan and Brooklyn US attorneys offices, which might greatly expand this article and spur the creation of new ones. soibangla (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

More verification's are needed regarding Victor Shokin

The article appear to me as politically slanted. The statements about prosecutor Viktor Shokin portrays him as corrupt with little or no evidence. This might be slander, and material for a court case. Additional verification's should be added, with references to court decisions and other relevant documents and/or film sequences. Shokin might be widely regarded as corrupt, but encyclopedia standards regards this as an opinion, and an encyclopedia should be based on verifiable facts. Sorjon02 (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorjon02, on a first look through, most of the claims about Shokin are well-sourced facts. I just made one edit to make it clear that "corrupt and ineffective" was the view of the American government at the time. If you are looking for more changes, please be clear about which claims you object to and why you think existing citations don't support them. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorjon02, that Shokin was corrupt is the consensus of multiple international bodies including the EU, IMF, World Bank, and of course the US Government. And of course the Ukrainian parliament. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Not a Theory

Hunter Biden is under Federal Investigation for Tax Evasion according to msnbc. Andrew.dutil (talk) 01:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

That is described at Hunter Biden#Investor and lobbyist, which is the appropriate place for it. This article is about conspiracy theories that Joe Biden engaged in corrupt activities with respect to his son, which continue to be conspiracy theories. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Daily mail reporting?

The daily mail has stated they confirmed the laptop is his, and dumped some stuff on it. I can never remember if the daily mail counts as reliable though, or even whether the stuff they reported is worth posting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.36.169.215 (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

The Daily Mail publishes false stories often. That's why they've been deprecated as a source. See WP:DAILYMAIL for more information. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
First, it's the Daily Mail. Second, so what? The issue is not whether the laptop was his, but the chain of custody. Was it stolen? If so, by whom? Who dropped it off at the shop? Almost certainly not Biden, per all reliable sources. Mac Isaac is incredibly evasive on the identity of the person, and on his instructions, and why he looked at the data. The route from him to the FBI also involves Giuliani and Bannon, neither of whom is trustworthy (Giuliani was a known conduit for Russian disinformation especially around Ukraine, and Bannon is a free man only because his buddy Trump gave him a pardon from his fraud charges). The chance that this was a laptop dropped off by Hunter Biden, containing what it was purported to contain and nothing else, and delivered to the FBI in good faith and without interference from Trump acolytes, is zero. And that's what reliable sources say. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

3 hard drives and 1 .38 special revolver have been recovered from Hunter Biden. Andrew.dutil (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

1. ‹The template Fake citation needed is being considered for merging.› [citation needed], and 2. how is that relevant to this article? GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2021

Change the lies you posted to the truth please. There is video footage of Biden discussing this publicly, not only confirming it, but bragging about it.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY 47.201.35.45 (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
This has been extensively debunked. Yes, Biden did boast in the video he got Shokin fired, but not for the reasons that have been asserted. It was the official policy of the US, EU and NGOs that Shokin had to go because he was perceived as corrupt and ineffective. They did not want to give money to Ukraine unless the country cracked down on corruption, unlike Trump, who didn't want to give Ukraine money unless Zelensky announced investigations into the Bidens. That's why this is Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory in contrast to Trump-Ukraine scandal. Hope this helps. soibangla (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2021

Hi Admins,

This page is so biased that it is actually astounding that it could be considered objective. I request you remove the wording "conspiracy theory" and add the facts I have stated below in an explicit and clear manner. Otherwise please explain to me how it is appropriate to exclude the following information that has been corroborated by fact checkers and multiple media sources:

It is irresponsible not to include the fact that Hunter Biden himself openly stated that it is entirely possible that the laptop is his: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hunter-biden-laptop-could-be-his/

Additionally, it is irresponsible to not include the fact that it is very well established that Hunter Biden is currently under investigation for much more than tax fraud. Politico reported that the Southern District of New York is investigating him for money laundering, fraud (relating to a hospital business in which James Biden, Joe's brother, was involved in), and his foreign ties: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/09/justice-department-interest-hunter-biden-taxes-444139

1) It is a matter of fact that a large majority of the people mentioned in the original New York Post except the President himself are confirmed to be under investigation. I would like a thorough explanation as to why the information I provided above is excluded. Both Politico and Snopes are used in citations in numerous Wikipedia pages and if you consider these stories to be "false" I request you remove all information on Wikipedia that is linked to those news sources.

2) Wikipedia cites a New York Times article that released Trumps tax returns. These were leaked in the same manner as Hunter Biden's emails. Please provide me with a detailed technical analysis (including forensics, digital fingerprints associated with the transfer of documents, and all other relevant material) as to why the New York Times leak was more reliable than the New York Post (and "Russia" is not a reasonable explanation). I have studied computer science and cryptography and I have not read a single technical analysis on Wikipedia discussing why the organization treats these leaks differently.

I understand that confirmation bias amongst the admins of this page must make it really difficult to be able to objectively look at facts. Confirmation bias is a well established concept and so I understand that you (the admins) might not be intellectually capable of looking at this through an objective lens. If this is the case, I request you please explicitly state that this specific Wikipedia article is an opinion piece.

Please get back to me at your earliest convenience

Best, ME Pbj224 (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
The article is about efforts to implicate JOE Biden as corrupt, and this effort has been driven primarily - nearly exclusively, in fact - by attempts to transfer the real or invented travails of his son onto Joe. Hunter was and is a middle-aged man, and few would agree a parent is responsible for the behavior of their adult child, yet many are insistent in asserting so, despite Joe living in the public spotlight for close to 50 years without a whiff of corruption, and everyone who has followed him knows this full well, and some know they got nuthin' on him so they have to fabricate something, and they do it through his son. Even if Hunter is indicted in relation to his personal activities, it still will not reflect anything about his father, so extensive discussion of his personal matters belongs in his BLP, rather than including it here to advance this conspiracy theory. Also, read the article to see former intel people saying the laptop is consistent with Russian bogus kompromat they've seen before, Russian agent Derkach saying he had at least one other Hunter laptop, and a Ukrainian disinfo official saying there is in Ukraine a vibrant market in disinfo that is easy to fake but hard to detect. After all, this stuff can be traced to Russians who aren't exactly slouches with computers. I will finish by saying that most of what you assert above is cherrypicked with context removed; for example, Hunter was initially investigated for money laundering, but insufficient evidence arose to continue. soibangla (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Sometimes even though there is no reason for it, in politics one can use a relative to indirectly imply corruption. There was much discussion about Bill Clinton's half brother, who had some troubles with the law. In any case, yes, the whole purpose of the article is to cover attempts to blame Joe for (alleged) crimes of his son. Gah4 (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of source

Firefangledfeathers, you reinserted the following underlined part into our article:

[c]onservative media and personalities pivoted to a "meta narrative" that the press, social media platforms and the "deep state" were suppressing news of the scandal.

The source states:

And conservative talking heads — pundits, politicians and loud MAGA Twitter personalities alike — have been more focused on the meta narrative around the laptop, arguing that mainstream media, social media companies and the deep state are conspiring to prevent President Donald Trump’s reelection by suppressing the story.

Notice that the source talks about "pundits, politicians and loud MAGA Twitter personalities" -- not conservative media. In other parts of our article, we cover that conservative media was critical about the conspiracy theory -- the exact opposite of what you are claiming with your edit.

--Distelfinck (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

"conservative talking heads"
Where do conservative talking heads appear?
Conservative media. soibangla (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
"conservative talking heads — pundits, politicians and loud MAGA Twitter personalities alike" is quite accurately summarized by "conservative media and personalities" GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
a) Those conservative talking heads might appear on conservative media, or they might not. That they do is speculation on your part. A conservative talking head can also only appear on their own YouTube channel, or on their own Twitter, without appearing in the media.
b) Most of the conservative media doesn't comprise of talking heads -- for example non-opinion pieces in the WSJ are part of conservative media, but not by talking heads. Even if all those Twitter etc. talking heads would appear in conservative media (unlikely), then it's still possible that those talking heads comprise only a small part of the whole coverage of the topic by conservative media.
--Distelfinck (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

And later: “But no A-list conservative outlet has published anything living up to those claims. Instead, these outlets have turned their firepower toward other reliable topics: social media bias; deep state plots; and the media’s failure to cover a story they themselves have backed away from, leaving Giuliani and Bobulinski to sell the story to the fringe.” Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

We are talking about a "meta narrative" that the press, social media platforms and the "deep state" were suppressing news of the scandal. What you are quoting is off topic. --Distelfinck (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
I read it as unambiguously on-topic. I look forward to the opinions of other editors. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
What you quoted from the source doesn't state what you are claiming in our article with your edit, so that part of the source can't be used as a source for that. --Distelfinck (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
@Firefangledfeathers:, what you quoted from the source doesn't back everything you readded to the article. In particlular, it doesn't back up your claim in the article of "conservative media [saying] the "deep state" were suppressing news of the scandal". That claim in our article is not in the source. --Distelfinck (talk) 20:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Distelfinck, I think I've made my position on your points clear, and you do not appear to have convinced any other editors. You can stop pinging me. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
So your position is that the claim I just mentioned is somewhere in the source, but you don't want to point me to where in the source it is. --Distelfinck (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare is correct above: "conservative talking heads — pundits, politicians and loud MAGA Twitter personalities alike" is quite accurately summarized by "conservative media and personalities". I suggest we move on.soibangla (talk) 23:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
@Soibangla: Neither of those entities ("[conservative] pundits, politicians and loud MAGA Twitter personalities") is conservative media. A pundit is not conservative media, a politician is not conservative media, a MAGA Twitter personality is not conservative media. --Distelfinck (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

What the source says is "conservative talking heads". If it's author would have meant "conservative media" by that, she could have simply written "conservative media" instead. But she didn't. --Distelfinck (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm with GorillaWarfare here; it seems a quite accurate summary. XOR'easter (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
"Conservative media" is not an accurate summary of "conservative talking heads". As stated above, not all conservative talking heads appear on conservative media, and conservative media doesn't only comprise of talking heads. By your logic, an equally accurate summary would be "leftist media" (conservative talking heads regularly appear on leftist media). --Distelfinck (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Why doesn't this article cite the original NY Post article?

I keep looking at the sources but I only see the articles referring to the NY Post article in criticism but where is the original NY Post article? Is there a particular reason why its not cited so people know what we are talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.170.122 (talk) 09:23, July 2, 2021 (UTC)

The NY Post article is not cited here because it is not a reliable source for U.S. politics, as this episode demonstrates. See WP:NYPOST for more information. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
The NY Post can be cited, according to Wikipedia's rules as far as I understand them, but anyone using them should be very careful about doing so. That being said, in this case, a citation would not be meant to support any statement of fact but just provide a link to the story being discussed. That seems well within the bounds of citation and standard practice to link to a story that is being discussed. Excluding a link to the original article seems like a deliberate attempt to prevent people reading original source material that is being discussed. FroggyJ4(talk) 16:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Counterpoint: The NY Post article is disinformation packaged as an October surprise and spreading disinformation is in direct conflict with the purpose of Wikipedia. Regardless, the contents of the NY Post article are discussed at length in the article, with appropriate and necessary fact-checking. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
I suspect that in this case a web search would find it easily. But in some cases, would it be useful to cite disinformation sources, so others could see for themselves? Is it implied that any reference is mentioned in the positive (supporting) sense? Are there flat earth references in Earth? Gah4 (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Missing information

There are a few bits of information missing from this article about the conspiracy to defame Biden. One bit is this affidavit (https://www.justfacts.com/document/ukraine_burisma_viktor_shokin_affidavit_9.4.19.pdf), which was written on behalf of Dmytro Firtash (Oil oligarch and associate of Semion Mogilevich) or, otherwise, his lawyers. Another missing bit of information is related to Rudy Giuliani meeting with a KGB agent Andrii Derkach (https://www.nationalmemo.com/treasury-sanctions-active-russian-agent-behind-giuliani-smears-of-biden and https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/ukraine-lawmaker-seeking-biden-probe-meets-with-giuliani-in-kyiv/2019/12/05/ead06eae-175b-11ea-80d6-d0ca7007273f_story.html). There also are instances of Russia hacking companies relating to Hunter Biden (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51103556)

This article is severely outdated

I get before the elections this was taken to be a disinformation campaign by the Trump administration, with only the New York Post reporting on it. But since then there's been a lot of reporting in mainstream WP:RS. For starters, the name of the article isn't accurate, the scandal also involves China deals as reported by BBC In 2013, Hunter flew aboard Air Force Two with his father, who was then vice-president, on an official visit to Beijing, where the younger Biden met investment banker Jonathan Li. Hunter told the New Yorker he had just met Mr Li for "a cup of coffee", but 12 days after the trip a private equity fund, BHR Partners, was approved by the Chinese authorities. Mr Li was chief executive and Hunter was a board member. He would hold a 10% stake. [30], the China deals are the main reason of the Justice Department investigation (or at least its origin)[31], even the article currently reads "a White House lawyer and two others affiliated with Trump had already pitched a story about Hunter Biden's business dealings in China to The Wall Street Journal". As it stands now, it isn't clear what the article is even about, is it the Ukraine/Burisma investigation that got Trump impeached? Is it about the laptop scandal? Hunter's deals in China or what?

These allegations are taken seriously by The New York Times Hunter Biden has been under scrutiny for years over business dealings around the world that often intersected with his father’s official duties. His work in Ukraine in particular became a political flash point, helping to lead indirectly to the first impeachment proceedings against President Donald J. Trump, and his business dealings in China became a campaign issue last year. Hunter Biden is also under investigation by the U.S. attorney’s office in Delaware over his taxes. He has said he is confident he will be cleared of any wrongdoing.[32]

And while these allegations were obviously used by the Trump campaign as a smear campaign, they are not a fringe claim by conspiracy theorists (alone). To this BBC says While no criminal activity has been proven, it has raised questions about potential conflicts of interest. A senior State Department official raised such concerns as far back as 2015. [33], and The Wall Street Journal similarly says Hunter Biden ramped up business activities with European and Chinese tycoons as his father exited the vice presidency four years ago. For him it was a potential path to income; for the tycoons, the Biden family name promised to burnish their reputations. The dealings got the younger Mr. Biden a discounted stake in a private-equity firm in China and consulting arrangements with a Romanian property magnate and overall allowed him to maintain a globe-trotting lifestyle, according to interviews, documents and communications reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. A Chinese energy tycoon gave Mr. Biden a 2.8-carat diamond, and entities linked to him wired nearly $5 million to Mr. Biden’s law firm, according to an investigation by Senate Republicans.

The WSJ also reported in another article Two Obama administration officials raised concerns to the White House in 2015 about Hunter Biden serving on the board of a Ukrainian natural-gas company while his father, then Vice President Joe Biden, led U.S. policy efforts toward the country

In this regard, the FAQ here is used contrary to policy. For instance the statement "The core components of the conspiracy theory have been known to be false since 2016", there is no consensus on this, not from WP:RS nor by Wikipedia editors. Fact checkers like Snopes appear to rate the story as "unproven" "unverified", "half truth", etc. not neccesarily false [34]. The allegations are part of ongoing legitimate investigations and mainstream news give credence to parts of them as shown above (be it legal or ethical questions). CNN in its fact-checking summarizes this by saying There is no evidence that former Vice President Joe Biden received money from China. Though when it comes to Biden's son Hunter, Trump's allegations are not thoroughly unfounded.[35]. Again, there seems to be separate issues that the article uses interchangeably. The political use of these allegations by the Trump campaign as if they were proven true may fall into conspiracy land, but these claims by his campaign are used in this article as if the entire scandal was proven false, which, as shown by multiple WP:RS, is questionable. It is not a WP:FRINGE claim as the FAQ undeniably suggests. Loganmac (talk) 08:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The subject of this article is explicitly the conspiracy theory that while Joe Biden was vice president of the United States, he engaged in corrupt activities relating to the employment of his son Hunter Biden by the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, which is still not "taken seriously" by RS. It isn't about whether Hunter Biden has behaved in a corrupt manner in his business life or has used his father's position for personal gain, which are topics that belong at the article on Hunter Biden himself (and that need to be covered cautiously, in a manner compliant with WP:BLP). That said, this article is far from perfect and if there's inadequate coverage about a conflict of interest discussed by RS, you can go ahead and add further detail – just be prepared to justify your additions as this page is a magnet for biased editing. Jr8825 • Talk 11:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
It seems to me that a Biden-China conspiracy theory article could be written explaining what needs to be explained. It doesn't make much sense to add here, since China isn't in Ukraine. Gah4 (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
The article, and especially the so called "FAQ" are a bit flawed. I tried earlier to improve the FAQ a while ago but nobody seemed to be on board with it. If the article is explicitly about a theory about what happened when Joe Biden was the VP, why does our FAQ need a section about Hunter Biden's laptop, news from October 2020? Mr Ernie (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Because the laptop story was exquisitely timed to drop weeks before the election to cast doubt on Joe by smearing Hunter? soibangla (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
What does that have to do with the theory that Biden "engaged in corrupt activities relating to the employment of his son Hunter Biden by the Ukranian gas company Burisma?" Mr Ernie (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. It has nothing to do with it, but it was an element of creating a general sense of corruption: "Hunter's a sleaze, so Joe must be too!" Also, the NYP incorrectly reported an email on the laptop showed Joe had met some Ukrainian guy with Hunter's introduction. soibangla (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Strenuously disagree with adding a sentence to the lead saying that the laptop may belong to Hunter Biden; that was never the central focus of dispute, which was over the veracity of its contents and the chain of custody that ended up with it where it was. We already state that Biden himself was unsure about whether the laptop was his; presenting the fact that it is possible that it once belonged to him (and an opinion piece where a talking head says that this makes them personally feel it is real) as a vital revelation in the lead is misleading and doesn't accurately reflect most of the sources, which don't treat it as a central point. More broadly I don't feel that the article is outdated at all; the conspiracy theory largely stopped being pushed after the election when it became a moot point. This article focuses on that specifically and shouldn't become a dumping ground for every allegation anyone ever makes against Hunter Biden for the rest of time. --Aquillion (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the veracity of its contents and the chain of custody is far more important than whether he once owned it and it was snatched by a Russian operative. soibangla (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The rewritten version also relies incredibly heavily on a single opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal; all other sources are much more dubious and are careful to note that nothing significant was proven. I don't think we should rely on one opinion piece to make what are plainly WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims about a BLP in the article voice, or to determine the overall framing and direction of major parts of the article --Aquillion (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Why is the chain of custody important at all? Korny O'Near (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Chain of custody is always important, which is why it has its own article. It is necessary to protect against both intentional and accidental effects to evidence. Gah4 (talk) 01:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
It has long been well known that Russian intelligence (and presumably others, including US intel) injects disinformation into something that also contains true information, hoping that if an adversary can authenticate some of the stuff then they might conclude all of the stuff is true, or at least be less skeptical of the fake stuff. Fortunately this trick has been known since forever so it's not particularly effective with intel folks, but it still creates useful doubt among the less sophisticated, leading to all sorts of speculation and innuendo and fake scandals. That the physical laptop might have once belonged to Hunter is a red herring, it's barking up the wrong tree. If his laptop got snatched by a Russian operative while Hunter went to the bathroom in a Kyiv diner, there's no way to know how many hands it passed through and any of the myriad ways it could have been doctored before reaching Rudy . soibangla (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, if you assume that Russian intelligence could have gotten a hold of it at any time, then the chain of custody hardly matters at all, since the possibility that the Russians had it can't be disproven no matter what the chain of custody was. By the way, for an article supposedly debunking a "conspiracy theory", this theory about Russian intelligence seems rather conspiratorial... actually quite a bit more conspiratorial than the original theory. The main "Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory" involves basically a politician doing a favor for the company that employed his son. But the "Russian intelligence got the laptop" theory involves a secret Putin-directed team of thieves and cyber-experts, working to fake a trove of emails (and photos?), in cahoots with an American repair-store owner and possibly Rudy Giuliani and Steve Bannon, and everyone doing such a good job that even Hunter himself doesn't know whether they're authentic or not. It's funny how some things are labelled conspiracy theories and others aren't. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
There's a clutch of reliable sources quoting disinformation experts saying Russia may have been involved in the way the laptop/emails were publicised and their content. Not so much a conspiracy theory as an expert perspective worth noting. Jr8825 • Talk 00:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Did you see in the lead what the USIC said in March? Are you aware they said Russia has been trying to smear Joe since at least 2014? Did you see in the lead that the Brooklyn federal attorney is investigating Ukrainians, and Manhattan is investigating Rudy? Did you read about Derkach, the longtime Russian operative, or Novikov? soibangla (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, you're of course right that there are a variety of American "disinformation experts" (what's the accreditation process for that?), in the CIA and elsewhere, who are willing to blame the Russian government for all sorts of undesirable information. And yes, there's always interesting circumstantial evidence, connect-the-dots stuff, etc. None of that changes the fact that what's being promoted is a conspiracy theory. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Just two more questions and I'm done here. Are you aware that as VP Biden urged Ukraine to kick Gazprom and the Russian mob out of the country's natural gas industry? Do you think that might have given pro-Russia Ukrainians a motive to prevent Biden from becoming president, a motive shared by Trump? soibangla (talk) 01:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Since you ask: no, and I have no idea. Let me add that, if you're trying to prove that "the laptop was doctored" is not a conspiracy theory, you're not doing a very good job of it. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
What you believe isn't important; what we have to do is reflect the sources. And aside from the one opinion piece you're trying to put in the lead, there are no sources indicating that anything significant has changed - in fact Politifact specifically says in as many words that little has changed. Unless you can produce strong secondary sources supporting it, I'm going to remove the WSJ opinion-piece and anything that relies on it - this is an extremely WP:EXCEPTIONAL and BLP-sensitive claim, we need more for it than an opinion-piece by a single talking head with no expertise. --Aquillion (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree that what I believe isn't important; I was responding to a question, as you may not have noticed. And of course we need to reflect the sources. As evidenced by the three new sources I added (two of which are fact-checkers), the mainstream media view seems to have changed in the last eight months from "the laptop is fake" to "the laptop belonged to Hunter, but then the Russians and Giuliani may have doctored it" to now "the laptop and its contents are probably real, but they don't prove any wrongdoing". The article should make this transition clear, instead of just being stuck with sources from eight months ago that make it seem like people still think the laptop was cooked up in a Russian lab. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
the mainstream media view seems to have changed apparently in your view, based on selected sources, with heavy emphasis on an opinion piece, which do not firmly establish that. It's quite a reach. soibangla (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, in my view, based on the sources I've found. Are there recent-ish sources that say something different? If so, I haven't seen them. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Korny O'Near, re: "the laptop and its contents are probably real", could you list the RS which say this, columnists and opinion pieces excluded? Jr8825 • Talk 17:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
There don't need to be recent-ish sources because nothing has materially changed in months, despite your evident efforts to make it seem so. soibangla (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Apologies if I mess up the comment. It's my first one. CNN has an article addressing the fact that laptop is now assumed to Hunter Biden's [1] Pgarc90 (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Jr8825 - Do "fact checkers" count as news, or opinion? If they count as news, then at least two: PolitiFact and Glenn Kessler in The Washington Post. They both, while referring to the laptop as "alleged", proceed to talk about its contents as if they are true. PolitiFact: "Nothing from the laptop has revealed illegal or unethical behavior by Joe Biden". Kessler: "new details had emerged from the laptop about the vice president’s movements that day".

soibangla - various things have changed since then: Hunter Biden, when directly given a chance in April to state that the emails were fake, did not do so; Hunter published a memoir that made no mention of the laptop (a strange omission if he was the target of a Russian disinformation campaign); the Daily Mail got forensic experts to verify the laptop and its contents; and, in nine months, not one other sender or recipient of any of those emails has disputed their contents (it just takes one). Korny O'Near (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The Daily Mail? You're citing the Daily Mail now? Do you think some might have no incentive for not one other sender or recipient of any of those emails has disputed their contents? Have you considered that it's a well-known strategy to provoke a target to respond to accusations as a means of keeping the accusations alive in the press, and maybe Hunter is aware of this old trick and isn't taking the bait? soibangla (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
when directly given a chance in April to state that the emails were fake, did not do so You have twice today misrepresented this, the second time after I immediately corrected you. Consider opening an RfC. soibangla (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I have no idea what you mean by that. Anyway, you said nothing had changed about this story since October 2020, and I pointed out that a variety of things had changed. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I said nothing material has changed. There's always plenty of chatter and noise about everything, but some are better at filtering out the noise than others. Please open an RfC. I'm done here. soibangla (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
The fact that Business Insider reported the DM's "claims" is a poor reflection on the quality of its own journalistic standards, not vindication of the DM's "expert verification". You've been around long enough to know why we deprecated the DM – if it's the only source for something you can pretty much guarantee that something is either salacious, false or a sensational distortion. Jr8825 • Talk 19:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, with the Daily Mail and the New York Post, we're in the awkward position of having the two media outlets with direct access to the laptop both be considered unreliable by Wikipedia. And with the case of the forensic analysis, we're in the further awkward position where apparently not a single mainstream media source thought to go to the trouble of calling up the forensics firm in question (Maryman & Associates) and asking them about the analysis. (Either that, or they did call the firm, heard something different from what they were hoping for, and decided not to publish it.) Whether or not this reflects media bias, the fact remains that we're limited as to what we can say in the article. But personally, I think it's pretty clear that the analysis did in fact happen. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/02/politics/hunter-biden-laptop/index.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Biden–Ukraine_conspiracy_theory/Archive_4&oldid=1142754120"