Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Hunter Biden corruption article

SPECIFICO,

I think the Hunter Biden corruption scandals/accusations (Ukraine/Burisma and others) deserve their own article to properly and fully address and keep separate from any alleged conspiracy theories surrounding his father, President Joe Biden. What needs to be done to start such an article? Loltardo (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC).

Hunter Biden soibangla (talk) 04:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The main reason for any interest in Hunter Biden conspiracy is the possibility of passing it along to Joe. I suppose, though, that there could still be reason for a separate article on the conspiracy theories, in addition to the one about the person. Gah4 (talk) 08:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

This discussion would be better suited to Talk:Hunter Biden. A reasonable path here would be to add reliable sourced, due content to Hunter Biden and propose a split once it grows. Firefangledfeathers 20:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Can someone please start such an article? There should be one focused on the plausible corruption allegations (e.g. Hunter Biden business deals with the Bank of China on African cobalt mines), and another article on the yet-unproven alleged conspiracy theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loltardo (talk • contribs) 07:09, December 1, 2021 (UTC)

Hunter Biden business deals with the Bank of China on African cobalt mines A former BHR board member told the Times that Biden and the other American BHR founders were not involved in the mine deal soibangla (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree and I think it's rash to assume everyone discussing the allegations against Hunter Biden is going after his father. Viktory02 (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Right, it's only a coincidence that Republicans started looking into Hunter Biden when Joe Biden emerged as the Democratic frontrunner for the 2020 election. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Bringing this up again. There really needs to be a separate article for Hunter Biden's laptop scandal and corruption allegations, as this page has become bloated with additional allegations unrelated to Ukraine. There has also been a bevy of recently emerging allegations concerning Hunter Biden and China, among other countries. Hunter Biden needs a page to outline this fast growing list of allegations. Currently pages for Hunter Biden email controversy and Hunter Biden laptop controversy redirect to this page. I propose merging the topics under an article titled "Hunter Biden corruption allegations," or perhaps "Hunter Biden laptop controversy." Can we come to an agreement on the need for/creation of such a page?Loltardo (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

What recently emerging allegations? That Hunter helped broker a deal with China to buy an African cobalt mine? So what? Even the WP:NYPOST can't do any better to claim malfeasance than to point out that cobalt is used for electric car batteries and Build Back Better will facilitate electric cars. But again, so what? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Loltardo: What you are suggesting is a WP:POVFORK or worse. Not encyclopedic and I see no support for it. SPECIFICO talk 20:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I only just noticed that soibangla had already added the comment from a former BHR board member saying that Hunter had nothing to do with the mine deal. So, Loltardo, you want to create a POVFORK about Hunter Biden "corruption" regarding this mine sale, when he is reported to have had nothing to do with it? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Please expain your WP:POVFORK allegation. There is burgeoning current/recent news interest around this topic since at least 2019 (see New Yorker article from that year) and the current page, Hunter Biden does not adequately address these controversies.Loltardo (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Have you read WP:POVFORK? What you're proposing matches what that page says not to do, so I don't think you have. And I don't see any further benefit in engaging in this discussion if you disappear for nine days and then pop back on without acknowledging that these allegations you want to serve as the basis of the POVFORK are bogus. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

“Conspiracy theory” title

This story has proven to be true but the title “conspiracy theory” still remains. I propose changing the title to “Burisma Scandal” or “Biden-Ukraine Scandal” in an effort to make the page politically centrist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mav214 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

All RS reporting says otherwise. SPECIFICO talk 17:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Mav214, you may also want to read WP:NPOV; "politically centrist" is not our goal at all. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

We have new articles from multiple sources, many left leaning, who are reconsidering whether or not this is a conspiracy theory. We need to change the title to something like "Biden-Ukraine accusations". Thecommander236 (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I second the suggestion for changing this article's title to something including the word "scandal" or "corruption accusations."

SPECIFICO, almost all RS now are embracing the laptop and its content as authentic. See these news articles from the past month or so for a few of many examples: · https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-hunter-biden-laptop-is-real-11625868661 · https://news.yahoo.com/independent-source-confirms-authenticity-damning-124601909.html · https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/10/12/hunter-biden-corruption-515583

Given this freshly reconsidered information, it is inaccurate, misleading, and completely disingenuous to continue to title the article with the words "conspiracy theory," as it is now proven fact, not an unfounded, baseless, or debunked conspiracy theory.

Even if Hunter's emails have been "authenticated" by an anonymous source who could not tie them back to the NYP story, and cited by a single source and has not been corroborated by other sources and thus went nowhere, it still does not get around what this article is all about, as shown in the first sentence of the lead. It might belong in Hunter Biden, but even then the Politico story remains WP:EXTRAORDINARY, which might explain why it's not included there already. soibangla (talk) 04:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, about the supposedly damning "10 held by H for the big guy?" in an email on which Hunter was copied. First, it was about a China deal, not Ukraine. Second, there is no indication the Bidens knew anything about any "10 held by H for the big guy" before or after that guy asked that question. Maybe he was proposing that, but that doesn't mean the Bidens knew anything about it, so it doesn't reflect anything about them. soibangla (talk) 04:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Soibangla - Thecommander236 - Loltardo - SPECIFICO - How can an ongoing investigation be "conspiracy theory"? The authorities are investigating the case, so at the moment we know for sure that it's an unproven - at least yet - accusation of corruption. The authorities are investigating this, so the authorities did not dismiss - at least not yet - the case as a fraud or conspiracy. Why are the Wikipedia readers supposed to believe that one or more Wikipedia editors have more authority to decide the truth than the official government? The Wikipedia editors are not allowed to present the Waukesha attack as a terrorist attack (because the authorities didn't label it as such) yet they are allowed to claim this whole issue is a conspiracy without any official statement to state that. Did Russia target Joe Biden and spread misinformation about him? - yes, the officials say so. Does that prove that any accusation (including the one in this article) is a Russian misinformation? Does that grant Biden immunity from any accusation? Is anyone accusing Biden automatically becoming a Russian tool? Every time the Trump team is accusing Biden of anything, the do that because they work for Russia or together with Russia?

In short, where is the proof of conspiracy? This is not a fancy theory about Earth being flat, it is not a ludicrous accusation of a politician eating newborn babies, it is an accusation against a politician and his family where the accuser provided some physical material for it, the material is at least partly genuine, and with an official investigation about the accused, using the material provided by the accusers, without an official statement to prove that the material is fabricated. So is this a conspiracy because the liberal media finds the material suspicious? You can find examples of liberal media spreading flat out lies about the people they don't like - for example CNN about Joe Rogan or about Nicholas Sandman. How is their suspicion automatically becoming the truth? Why is the provenance of the laptop questionable? Because it was presented by the very people the liberal media were attacking every day? Are the Trump team and the NYP questionable? Why? Maybe because everything that comes from them is questionable? Barecode (talk) 03:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

References: It's unclear whether the laptop and its contents are relevant to the ongoing criminal investigation into Hunter Biden's foreign business dealings, primarily in China, CNN previously reported. Federal prosecutors in Delaware are working with the FBI and IRS to examine multiple financial issues, including whether he and his associates violated tax laws and money laundering laws. CNN, April 2, 2021 Barecode (talk) 03:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

You covered a lot of ground here, a good deal of which we've wrangled with on Talk. It's important to remain focused on the core issue of this article: the narrative that Joe got Shokin fired to protect Hunter has been proven false. That is the conspiracy theory. If one reads the body carefully, the provenance of the laptop is both important and questionable (see Derkach) and despite the assertions of some, the emails therein have not been authenticated, by the standards of reliable sources or this encyclopedia. And even if they were, they don't provide a smoking gun to establish corruption by Joe. The FBI seized the laptop as part of their investigation into possible Russian disformation, not to investigate Hunter's financial matters, which was a separate matter having no relevance here. That stuff belongs in Hunter Biden. You say The authorities are investigating the case but in fact there's no evidence of that. There's evidence they're investigating Rudy, his associates and Ukraine. At one time they investigated Hunter for money laundering, but dropped it, and at last word they were looking at his taxes, but again, none of that is relevant here, though many try to blur the lines and conflate it with this matter. soibangla (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Soibangla - I already quoted a link from the liberal media (which seems to be considered Reliable Source here) that clearly states the officials investigate Hunter's financial matters. Was that investigation dropped? Link?

I understand there is no evidence to establish corruption by Joe Biden - as the accusers put it. So those accusations are unproven. Or false. Or proven to be false - by the corrupt (or not completely credible - to put it lightly) regime in Ukraine. And then we are talking about an (officially) false accusation. Since it is centered on Hunter Biden, who already got into Ukraine in a clear conflict of interest (We give you 1 billion $ in aid but we would like the VP son to be hired by a huge company in your country), the unproven accusations are absolutely not outlandish but instead very close to his already dubious moves. Carefully fabricated accusations? Very possible. Conspiracy to fabricate accusations? Again, very possible - maybe even involving Russia in the process - which remains to be seen. Or valid accusations disproven by corrupt officials? Also very possible. It would be an insult to anyone's intelligence to claim that such a deeply corrupt regime like that of Ukraine will surely deliver completely reliable reports. I'm not attacking the Ukraine government, I just point that a corrupt regime can't be completely trusted when they say something.

In any case, this is an unproven accusation (theory) centered on Hunter Biden, and not on the prosecutor. It is about Hunter Biden allegedly trafficking the power of his father, Joe Biden, who allegedly used his influence in order to obtain the firing of the prosecutor. So this accusation is not about conspiring but it's about traffic of influence. Calling your father or your bigger brother to beat a stranger you don't like is not conspiracy but it's mobbing. In fact, the New York Post does not talk about any conspiracy but they talk about influence peddling [1]. Hunter's lawyer introduced the term "conspiracy theories" as a (pejorative) frequently used term to dismiss accusations [2]. A conspiracy require somewhat more coordination and planning than influence peddling. Theory - yes, conspiracy - no. -- Barecode (talk) 14:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Barecode, the officials investigate Hunter's financial matters. Was that investigation dropped? That's covered in Hunter Biden#Investor and lobbyist, where it belongs.

Reference #7 of this article:

In March 2016 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, former ambassador to Ukraine John E. Herbst stated, "By late fall of 2015, the EU and the United States joined the chorus of those seeking Mr. Shokin's removal" and that Joe Biden "spoke publicly about this before and during his December visit to Kyiv". During the same hearing, assistant secretary of state Victoria Nuland stated, "we have pegged our next $1 billion loan guarantee, first and foremost, to having a rebooting of the reform coalition so that we know who we are working with, but secondarily, to ensuring that the prosecutor general's office gets cleaned up."

So the State department, the EU, IMF and World Bank were all in on this scheme to give Ukraine aid if Hunter was given a job at Burisma? I think not. Did Hunter trade on his father's name? Maybe, I don't doubt it. Does that reflect on Joe? No. So you may be right when you say It is about Hunter Biden allegedly trafficking the power of his father... but you go wrong with ...Joe Biden, who allegedly used his influence in order to obtain the firing of the prosecutor. Yes, Joe got Shokin fired, just not for Hunter. It was done as official policy to purge corruption from Ukraine, because the country was being groomed for possible admission to the EU. As of January 2021, Ukraine is preparing to formally apply for EU membership in 2024.

a corrupt regime can't be completely trusted when they say something. We don't rely on anything they say here. We mention some things they've said, but nothing hinges on what they've said.

I often wish there were a better term than "conspiracy theory" for many situations like this, but that's the term commonly used so that's the one we use here. In any event, the narrative that Joe got Shokin fired to protect Hunter has been proven to be a fabrication, and it's that fabrication that is the core of this "conspiracy theory." soibangla (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose name change. The conspiracy theory is that Joe Biden conspired on behalf of his son Hunter's interests in Ukraine. There is still no evidence for this. -- M.boli (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

M.boli For using the term "theory" you only need the lack of evidence to prove that theory. If the evidence is found - that makes the claim valid - a reality. Without evidence - it remains a theory.

For using the term "conspiracy" does not require any evidence or lack of evidence. It only requires that the accusation implies a conspiracy of the accused. It is confusing, I made an error in the first message when I was thinking about the conspiracy of the accusers (as conspiring to fabricate false accusations).

If I claim that "Flying pigs exist" - that's an outlanidsh theory - not a conspiracy theory.

If I claim that "You want to ban me from Wikipedia" - that's a fancy theory - not a conspiracy theory.

If Jimmy Wales is your parent and I claim that you called him to block me - that's a theory about influence peddling - not a conspiracy theory. Similar with the Hunter Biden case.

If I claim that you plot together with other editors to discredit me - that's an actual conspiracy theory.

Whenever I get evidence to prove any of such claims, they become facts and they stop being theories.

Not every unproven claim or accusation are a conspiracy theory. The claim must refer to an alleged conspiracy.

Soibangla Hunter Biden did trade on his father's name and that reflects on Joe for sure, just not in this particular prosecutor firing case. Just as Trump's family trade on their father's name. They both practice blatant nepotism. But that doesn't matter in this article anyways. IMO, in this article, because it is improperly used, the term "this conspiracy theory" sounds very much like "this ridiculous theory". Also unfair because the Trump-Russia conspiracy was not proven officially yet it's not called "conspiracy theory" on Wikipedia. But anyways.. Barecode (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

that reflects on Joe for sure Hunter is an autonomous middle-aged man, not a child under his father's direction and supervision. Imagine a world in which parents are held accountable if their adult child becomes a serial killer. soibangla (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

You missed by one day. Actually, the Crumbleys were charged yesterday, and are fugitives today. Oxford High School shooting Gah4 (talk) 09:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I knew someone would say that, ignoring the word adult. soibangla (talk) 14:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Gah4:When trying to make some kind of pithy rebuttal or comment, try not to miss details. "Adult child" and "child" are obviously different, so whatever point you were trying to make there, it's just... I don't even know what to say. If @Soibangla: is alright with it, I'd suggest just deleting this embarrassing little side-conversation starting from your reply and we can all pretend it never happened. BirdValiant (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't meant to be a pithy rebutal. Crumbley is being charged as an adult, whether you think he should be or not. As well as I know the case, and IANAL, I suspect the parents could be charged even if he was 20 or 30 or 40. They bought him the gun just days before. Aiding and abetting is a crime at any age. Gah4 (talk) 07:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Gah4: On the one hand: "Imagine a world in which parents are held accountable if their adult child becomes a serial killer." On the other hand: "They bought him the gun just days before. Aiding and abetting is a crime at any age." This is exactly like when a relative far across the Thanksgiving table chimes in on a conversation they can barely hear, but adds something that's not even remotely related and just makes everyone embarrassed. I really tried to help you man. BirdValiant (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Soibangla - It would be ludicrous to even suggest he got the job in Ukraine at Burisma as an autonomus middle-aged man. Try to get hired China National Petroleum Corporation in a top position, without any experience in that field. He got the job because he was the son of the Vice President of USA. That is clear for everyone and it was stated by many as a conflict of interest. Both political parties pretend such situations are normal, because they both practice that, at the top level. A corrupt Biden family and a corrupt Trump family. But again, that doesn't make true the theory about firing the prosecutor, which is the focus of this article. Barecode (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

That is clear for everyone... no, that's your WP:OR. We're told Burisma hired Hunter for his legal advice. If they did hire him to try to influence his father, there's no indication that scheme worked. And again, the prosecutor was fired because he wasn't conducting the investigations he was supposed to be conducting. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

that doesn't make true the theory about firing the prosecutor, which is the focus of this article. So you agree the issues you've raised don't belong in this article? It's in Hunter Biden#Burisma Holdings. soibangla (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Of course I agree (except the term conspiracy) - as I said before, the fact that Joe Biden is corrupt is evident. On top of that, it was already stated in article: Hunter Biden's employment was described by commentators as creating a conflict of interest, and advisors to the Obama administration considered the situation awkward.

This is what I said before: "They both practice blatant nepotism. But that doesn't matter in this article anyways." - Because where are no reliable sources to clearly state that and also that's not the point of this article.

As for the conspiracy term: Before being proven true, Project MKUltra was a conspiracy theory. Now that it's proven to be true, it is clear that it was a real conspiracy: a well planned, carefully coordinated and executed illegal activity of the govt. against it's own people. The same applies here: If these accusation would have been proven true, the article would have been about a scandal around influence peddling and not a scandal around a conspiracy. But since there is no proof the accusations remain a theory but this is not a theory about a conspiracy (= conspiracy theory) but it's a theory about influence peddling. The term conspiracy theory makes it sound like it's an ridiculous theory - which is not. The accusations are not fringe and not outlandish. Also unfair considering that the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory is not named a conspiracy theory here at Wikipedia. It adds to the liberal bias of the Wikipedia. But things are imperfect and I will leave it here. Barecode (talk) 09:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

If you believe the fact that Joe Biden is corrupt is evident I encourage you to edit Joe Biden to that effect. "At least 16 associates of Donald Trump had contacts with Russians during the 2016 campaign or transition...Trump and his senior officials repeatedly denied that there had been any contact whatsoever with Russians during the campaign or that there were any ties between the campaign and Russians."[3] Trump's campaign chairman Manafort gave sensitive internal polling data for battleground states to his longtime buddy Kilimnik, a Russian intelligence agent.[4] soibangla (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Support name change. I don't know that the story has "proven to be true" but there seems to be substantial evidence that certain elements are correct. The title of conspiracy theory seems one-sided and in my opinion would stifle serious debate.Viktory02 (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, we've had these serious debates over and over. Does the substantial evidence that certain elements are correct mean recent reporting that the laptop email seems kinda sorta like it might be genuine because an anonymous source said so, which was not picked up by any reliable sources that we need? Again, even if it is genuine, it's a claim that Joe met with Pozharskyi, which eyewitnesses dispute as a fleeting encounter as Joe passed by a dinner table to say hello to an old friend. So Joe shakes hands and introduces himself to others at the table? And even if it's true that Joe sat down and had a long talk with Pozharskyi, how is that a smoking gun? Pozharskyi was an advisor to the Burisma board who may have been so for the same reason Hunter was on the board: to help Burisma clean up its act, rather than being a corrupt operator. With all this uncertainty, the only remaining fact is that Joe did not get Shokin fired to protect Hunter, which is the false narrative — the conspiracy theory — that was fabricated to smear Joe as corrupt during the campaign, and which this article is about. The confirmed "materials" from the laptop include embarrassing photos of Hunter, but that doesn't mean Joe was corrupt, and all the salacious stuff about Hunter being a bad boy should be in his BLP, if even there. soibangla (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Point of order; this is not an actual Requested Move discussion, thus any support/oppose calls are irrelevant. This topic was begun by a random user who has not edited since Sept 30th, and then propped up by Barecode who, judging by post history is only interested in exposing alleged "liberal bias" across a swath of articles. WP:RM has the instructions for initiating a proper discussion, but the Biden–Ukraine affair is squarely & solidly a conspiracy theory. So, good luck with that. ValarianB (talk) 13:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Um, it's obviously a scandal, PERIOD. Can't believe Wikipedia would do this (yeah bias is apparent friends). There's no excuse, corruption is obvious, but people can't decide what is the evidence, wow. Time will tell. But to be fair, despite if it's true or not ... the title could still definitely use some fixing up (at least). Some people just don't know how politics work. Bye. – aSimpleGuyFromEarth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:9600:52C0:3079:B7D1:2FBC:9CCF (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose name change per M.boli's comment. There is no evidence Joe's actions helped his son. On the contrary, if Hunter had been involved in corrupt activities at Burisma, then Joe's actions endangered him. -- Valjean (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - "certain elements are correct" that's usually how conspiracy theories work, motivated reasoning using some selected facts to jump to remote conclusions (a typical example: crop dusting and contrails exist but are not evidence validating chemtrails conspiracy theories). As for the sources presented so far, they have been shown to be about some specific details only that seem best covered elsewhere. —PaleoNeonate – 22:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

To echo the point made above by ValarianB, this is not a Requested Move. Saying "support" or "oppose" has no meaning here. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• The existing title is fine. PaleoNeonate makes a good point about how conspiracy theories work. XOR'easter (talk) 00:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Support name change (sorry for being late). It is a hoax, not a conspiracy theory. I think Viktory02 is confused - it doesn't matter if the theory is true or not. What it matters is if the theory is about a conspiracy. The answer is: the accusations are not about a conspiracy. The accusations are about influence peddling. I am not against term "theory". I am against term "conspiracy". The title can be changed to "Biden–Ukraine hoax" or "Biden–Ukraine accusations" or "Talk:Biden–Ukraine scandal". The last two options are more neutral. -- Barecode (talk) 10:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, if Wikipedia was truly neutral then the title should be something along the line of "Biden–Ukraine allegations" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:9600:52C0:C968:6050:DDB:EF6F (talk) 02:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

(later edit): XOR'easter - PaleoNeonate - the hoaxes work very much the same. Barecode (talk) 11:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The title is long overdue for a change. As much as people would wish this to go away more and more evidence has come to light that the Post reporting was in fact correct and the suppression of that reporting by Social Media outlets was an error the reporting of Politico is very clear on this as well as a pattern of corruption by the current President and his family so terming the events as a ‘conspiracy theory’ is editorializing that should not belong on Wikipedia if it is to be taken seriously. Please refer to both https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/10/12/hunter-biden-corruption-515583 and https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/02/joe-biden-investigation-hunter-brother-hedge-fund-money-2020-campaign-227407/ unless somehow the mods here believe Politico to be some right leaning mouthpiece? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Please read the lead sentence of this article again:

The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of unevidenced claims centered on the false allegation 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.

Not Hunter, Joe. Not China, Ukraine. If you want to talk about possible Hunter corruption in Ukraine or China, take it to Hunter Biden. No wait, it's already there. But the part about Joe extorting Ukraine and getting a prosecutor fired to protect Hunter is false. It was a fabricated conspiracy theory to smear Joe during the campaign. And that remains true even if the laptop emails are proven real, which they haven't been. soibangla (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Biden confessed

Joe Biden is on video bragging about withholding 1 billion dollars of US AID money if the prosecuter wasn’t fired. It’s not a conspiracy theory when Biden himself confessed to the fact in a bragadocious manner to a crowd of people captured on video. 2601:582:C200:4B70:3092:34AC:8A4:C61A (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

This was explained and debunked before the election. He was bragging about getting Viktor Shokin fired because Viktor Shokin was corrupt and not conducting investigations. He had the support of the European community to do so. Doing this put Burisma in more danger, not less. Don't trust memes you see on Facebook. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

"Don't trust memes you see on Facebook." Better yet, never trust Facebook as an information source. No reputation for fact-checking. Dimadick (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2022

It isn’t a conspiracy theory

https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/ 2600:1702:2380:3250:5D79:D976:F827:EC0A (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2022 (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) 14:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Hunter Biden's blp

Editors invited to consider how to describe Hunter Biden in the lead of his BLP here. SPECIFICO talk 15:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Unrelated content must be removed/moved

Continue at Talk:Hunter_Biden#Hunter_Biden’s_Laptop. -- Valjean (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The Hunter Biden/laptop content doesn't belong in this article as it is not part of the conspiracy theory. It only belongs in his biography. If any of that specific material ever impinges on the topic of the conspiracy theory, THEN that content can be used here. Currently it just confuses people. The last paragraph in the lead, the "New York Post reporting" section, and all the content after it must go. soibangla, will you help with this? -- Valjean (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Trouble with that is that this amorphous conspiracy theory seems to adapt and evolve to include whatever elements right wing media pushes. I saw a new talk thread on Hunter's talk page that Mr Ernie responded to saying that the laptop should be on Hunter's page. I agree. We should coordinate in one talk page though. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Since the unreliable sources carry no weight, we should not let them guide our article development. We only do that to the degree that RS mention it, and currently we an only justify doing it in Hunter's biography. I have commented there. This move would fix many of the things that go wrong here. -- Valjean (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, of course the laptop is part of the conspiracy theory because it is the alleged source of verified emails which are part of the theory. The only real question is one of weight. Le Marteau (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

No, that is only a supposition about the email. The conspiracy theory started long before and is about whether Joe Biden corruptly pressured the removal of a prosecutor to protect his son. The facts show that Joe Biden openly carried out the will of the international community to get rid of a corrupt prosecutor who was not doing his job to investigate corruption. By getting a prosecutor who would actually investigate Burisma for any corruption, Joe Biden's actions placed Hunter Biden in jeopardy if he as involved in any corruption there. If it is later proven that laptop material actually disproves the conspiracy theory, then, and only then, should we mention it here. -- Valjean (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of the case for inclusion here, there is nothing to hinder we copy the material to Hunter Biden. -- Valjean (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

What part is clearly suitable to leave here?

Please reply further down where I have copied this subsection.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Before we remove content, we need to determine what part is clearly suitable to leave here? It can't be more than a few sentences. Which ones? To be clear, the false conspiracy theory asserts that Joe Biden misused his position as Vice President to pressure the firing of a prosecutor who might investigate Hunter Biden and expose corruption. The facts say otherwise, but what content from the laptop debacle is related to exactly THAT conspiracy theory? One reason this is important is that we need to avoid duplication in two articles. We also need to follow WP:Summary style so we can link to this article and include summaries in both articles. -- Valjean (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

NOT A CONSPIRACY

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.

---

Why are we still lying? Why are we still blaming Trump for things that Biden did? Biden is on video laughing repeatedly about how he threatened a prosecutor in Ukraine to be fired or he would withhold $1 billion in funding for the Ukraine! It’s live it’s a video and everyone seen it! So why are we lying and saying it’s a conspiracy. Brain dead Biden was not elected president. And another thing I’m sick and tired of hearing now that Trump was impeached for withholding funds to the Ukraine. President Trump was never impeached! How do we stop Democrats from rewriting history with lies and nonsense. Why don’t we write history with facts! 71.127.219.67 (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

We are not lying, this page contains nothing but facts. You are swallowing fake news talking points which we have rebutted over and over again on this talk page. Search the archives at the top of the page and read the FAQs. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/16/us/politics/hunter-biden-tax-bill-investigation.html

New York Times disagree with you. New York Times is fake news? 131.175.28.194 (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't even bother. The goalposts will keep being moved and the definition of 'reliable sources' will likewise change depending on the context most favorable to the article's subject. Disagree and the label of 'far-right conspiracy theorist' will come trotting out on cue, attached like a scarlet letter to your username. It's not like anyone comes to Wikipedia anymore to seriously read political articles, anyway. Except perhaps for the comedy and to look-in now and again on the sheer depth of the madness. We are now way beyond the emperor having no clothes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.74.196 (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

In fact, this is practically the only place where transparent and rigorous analysis is applied to achieve the best possible understanding of these matters. Those who think it's all so unfair have only themselves to blame for not participating in the article but rather incessantly whinging on Talk pages without accountability. soibangla (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

As well you know, there is plenty of participation in the article and talk from people opposed to the 24/7 transparent shielding of Biden going on by devoted sentries such as yourself. But don't worry, the 'incessant whinging' will be gone soon too. In fact, my comment above has already been censored once. Then you can have this place all to yourself and start eating each other. In fact, I see that has already begun in places, much to my amusement but not my surprise. I was slightly heartened to see that even you saw the embarrassing, audacious folly in synthesizing a grand over-arching article about Trump's supposed collusion with Russia. But then I realized that, ever the catty egoist, you blanked your friend only because you didn't come up with the idea first! Tsk Tsk. Happy editing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.74.196 (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what any of that means. But hey, maybe login and prove the errors of my ways in the article. Go on...do it. soibangla (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2022 (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.

this entry needs to be registered, completely.

this entry needs to be registered, completely. Jhcolson (talk) 11:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• revisited Jhcolson (talk) 11:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

resurgence?

Hearing a resurgence of this story in 2022, any particular reason why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 675930s (talk • contribs) 16:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The laptop (which was tangentially related as one of several failed attempts to push the theory) was referenced in passing in a NYT story and a lot of opinion-piece writers seized on that. --Aquillion (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

What part about the laptop is clearly suitable to leave here?

See RfC below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Copied from above. Before we remove content, we need to determine what part about the laptop is clearly suitable to leave here? It can't be more than a few sentences. Which ones? To be clear, the false conspiracy theory asserts that Joe Biden misused his position as Vice President to pressure the firing of a prosecutor who might investigate Hunter Biden and expose corruption. The facts say otherwise, but what content from the laptop debacle is related to exactly THAT conspiracy theory? One reason this is important is that we need to avoid duplication in two articles. We also need to follow WP:Summary style so we can link to this article and include summaries in both articles. -- Valjean (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Yovanovitch

Former US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch said "Rudy Giuliani was a 'personal dirt-digger' for former President Donald Trump and worked with corrupt actors in Ukraine to bring about her unceremonious ouster in 2019....Lutsenko was aware that Giuliani wanted to paint then-Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden as corrupt and sought to 'undermine' his candidacy in the 2020 election. So Lutsenko 'had concocted a tale of lies and half-truths to oblige Giuliani,' Yovanovitch writes. 'Lutsenko reshaped actions that Biden had taken to hold corrupt Ukrainians to account and twisted them into the opposite.'"

"She goes on to detail how Lutsenko falsely claimed that Biden had ordered the firing of a former Ukrainian prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, to stop him from investigating the Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings, whose board Biden's son, Hunter, worked on. In fact, the opposite was true."

"She goes on to detail how Lutsenko falsely claimed that Biden had ordered the firing of a former Ukrainian prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, to stop him from investigating the Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings, whose board Biden's son, Hunter, worked on. In fact, the opposite was true."[5]

Valjean (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes. And? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

What parts of this can we use? She's a RS for the events in Ukraine, and expressly undermines the conspiracy theory. -- Valjean (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

She isn't a "reliable source" as she isn't a publication that undergoes rigorous fact-checking. That said, she's a highly credible witness / victim of this whole situation. We can use these things that she said, as long as we attribute what she says to her. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Correct. Sorry for my muddled use of terms. -- Valjean (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

She describes this as the "Giuliani-Lutsenko conspiracy theory". That would be a good title. -- Valjean (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

It would be, if only it were referred to that enough to become an argument for WP:COMMONNAME. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Why isn't there a wiki page for Tony bobulinski?

I was very surprised to see that bobulinski did not have his own wiki page. I just wanted to check out some facts about his claims. Instead I find that the data is missing and I have to assume it's on purpose. This does not smell like teen spirit to me! 173.76.155.127 (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay there, Kurt Cobain. Tony Bobulinski is a bit player in this conspiracy theory and is not notable per WP:GNG standards, I assume. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

WSJ ref, agree on title change?

My 2 cents: This talk page is funny and I respect the efforts for sanity on this topic. As a centrist myself, I think it would be "fair" to accept that the term "conspiracy theory" is a label coined to signal to people that what a person has to say or topic is unworthy of consideration.

So it's come to light that there is at least (Some) truth to the topic. So I would motion to change the title of the page so it doesn't include terms that are not pre-biased labels used to signal to others that a person might be mentally unwell because they talk non-sense.

It's rather funny that conspiracy theories just become "news" when it's not a theory anymore.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/all-the-news-thats-finally-fit-to-print-hunter-biden-laptop-new-york-post-new-york-times-joe-biden-11647637814

67.245.196.244 (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Z

It's still a conspiracy theory and as of yet not proven true, so what would you title it? CUPIDICAE💕 18:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

What "truth to the topic"? There is no evidence that Joe Biden did anything inappropriate regarding Ukraine or Burisma. If Hunter failed to pay taxes or register as a foreign agent, that's some wrongdoing I guess but it's also not proven. As for that WSJ editorial piece, it's a WSJ editorial piece. Their right-wing POV is known. Here's a source with actual analysis from WaPo by Philip Bump. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Good article. Highlights some speculation but unfortunately offers no evidence. On the other hand we have the NYT, which authenticated some of the contents, and the Guardian, which reported that almost nobody disputes the laptop’s authenticity.

This is of course entirely unrelated to the conspiracy theory. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• That's an opinion piece. Obviously partisans are going to have strong personal feelings and opinions on this topic (especially conservatives outlets like the WSJ, who are still frustrated this didn't have the same impact as the Podesta emails), but we can't use that to decide article text. --Aquillion (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  • In my view the opinion section of the WSJ should be treated as no different than Fox News. Dronebogus (talk) 11:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree and think we often do. The editorials and opinions are usually lacking the quality and fact-checking expected of a RS, IOW they are like the pundits at Fox News who push uninformed misunderstandings, misinformation, disinformation, and conspiracy theories. The right-wing bias of the WSJ (like the left-wing bias of other sources) isn't enough to disqualify them. It is their extreme bias and literal inaccuracy that does it. -- Valjean (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I looked at the WSJ’s take on the NYT’s article and find it lacking. Here is the NYT’s exact quote: “Those emails were obtained by The New York Times from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop. The email and others in the cache were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation.” This looks to be somewhat sloppy wording; all the NYT is confirming is that some of the emails and other information from this supposed laptop were authentic. That doesn’t mean there was an actual laptop, and it doesn’t mean that some of the other emails supposedly from this “laptop” are fake. I still think this is a case of the right still upset that these files, unlike the Podesta emails, were largely ignored by the 2020 voting public, as they should had been: This could very well had been a hack by foreign agents. Samboy (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Yeah, the title change is warranted as per the OP. XavierItzm (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
        • Not even close. The basic conspiracy theory is still what it is. -- Valjean (talk) 03:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Bueller 007 edit

The Politico story was never corroborated by any other reliable source. It relies solely on an unnamed source.

The "10 held by H for the big guy?" is not related to Burisma.

Bueller 007 says "no claim was made in the text you removed about Pozharskyi," but that's what the Politico article he added was about

I could do without insults, too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspiracy_theory&diff=1077725758&oldid=1077724251

soibangla (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Amost the entire first paragraph of the entry uses articles as sources that have now been completely discredited. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 05:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

24rhhtr7, you have made numerous false assertions about this and other topics on this page, as well as engaged in personal attacks. I suggest you reconsider your approach. soibangla (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Whatever you say.

I'm only even responding to this because you tagged me. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 06:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

This sentence:

Some information from the laptop had also previously been authenticated by Politico journalist Ben Schreckinger, including a 2015 email from a Burisma representative, thanking Hunter for giving him the opportunity to meet then-Vice President Joe Biden

clearly suggests the NYT authenticated the Pozharskyi email, a linchpin of this whole article.

It did not. It should come out. soibangla (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

There is quite a desperation to maintain the "conspiracy theory" now that even the NYT admits the whole thing is true..XavierItzm (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

If what you gleaned from the NYT story is "the whole thing is true", then you really did not read it. ValarianB (talk) 12:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

How true. -- Valjean (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Lev remembers

Lev Parnas agrees:

It remains true that there were meetings with Rudy in early 2019 discussing the Russians having Hunter Biden’s emails, months before the same material ended up on the Hunter Biden laptop in that Delaware repair shop.[6]

There's lots of fascinating information on Twitter that doesn't get published in reliable sources we can use in articles. That's a shame. soibangla (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. We need to find some RS that mention this. We know there was more than one Hunter Biden laptop, and apparently emails from them were being shopped around in Ukraine before this started. They were for sale. Then one laptop "ended up" (wink, wink) in Delaware, in the hands of Bannon and Giuliani, the same Giuliani who had been spending a lot of time in Ukraine colluding with shady criminals, corrupt prosecutors, and literal Russian agents, concocting a fictitious story to harm Joe Biden. Something stinks. When and how did Hunter lose his laptops? Who took them?

I find it difficult to imagine that any enemy of Joe Biden who worked for Trump would not jump at the chance to buy these things and then try to launder it all through the New York Post, a Murdoch paper known to aid Trump in many devious ways. -- Valjean (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Source? Why do you think that? There’s no evidence the laptop contains disinformation. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Did I say that? No, but since you bring up the subject, one must ask: "Is it likely?" Yes. From previous Russian intelligence hacks, especially the DNC material they gave to WikiLeaks after hacking the DNC and RNC, we know that they do mix fake material within the real, so anything coming from them, such as these Hunter Biden emails, is suspect.

All intelligence agencies do this type of stuff. They do not allow an opportunity to pass without exploiting it, otherwise they exist for no purpose, an absurd thought.

You know that the Steele dossier has been the subject of such speculations, and that Steele and the FBI were always aware of that danger, examined the possibility from all angles, and found no evidence it actually happened. The Horowitz investigation came to the same conclusion. That's likely because Russian intelligence was not involved in the process of gathering the allegations, yet one can always wonder..... -- Valjean (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

We know there was more than one Hunter Biden laptop - source?

Emails from them were being shopped around - source? Mr Ernie (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, we don't know there was a second laptop, but did you read about Derkach as I asked you to many days ago? Derkach is a long-time Russian intel associate whom the Treasury sanctioned for his involvement. Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory#Ukraine material. soibangla (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes I read about it but I couldn't find any evidence that counters what CNN, The Guardian, and the NYT say about the laptop. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for just assuming that editors at this article were familiar with the sources.

1. A second laptop belonging to Hunter Biden's business contacts in Ukraine has been seized by law enforcement there. I mistakenly assumed it was one of the three laptops mentioned below.
2. I did make one error. There were actually three laptops.

This last source should be used to document how Solomon originated the conspiracy theory from misinformation provided to him by Giuliani and people associated with Russian intelligence. -- Valjean (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Alleged Hunter Biden Emails Circulated in Ukraine as Rudy Giuliani Dug for Dirt There Last Year. Note they are "alleged emails". -- Valjean (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Some of which were authenticated by Politico and later the NYT. And even in October 2020 when that piece ran there was no evidence they were not genuine. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

As sources at the time said, some of the contents of the laptop reflected material that was circulating in Ukraine long before it started. That is, yes, evidence that there is something deeply sketchy about it. Either way, the key point which has not changed since the start is that the laptop's provenance is unknown and, therefore, nothing on it can be trusted unless it has been individually verified; verifying one email specifically does not verify any of the others (again, especially given that some of the emails on the laptop were circulating in Ukraine by people trying to sell them prior to the time the laptop was supposedly left at the store.) The sources emphasize these things as core points and, therefore, we must emphasize them ourselves. I can understand the frustration that this laptop did not have the same impact as eg. Weiner’s laptop and the Comey letter, but the fact is that the media, who had learned from that incident, overall made the correct call to approach it with caution and treat it as a nothingburger (after all, you concede that it was a nothingburger yourself), and none of the core points that made it a nothingburger have changed since October 2020. --Aquillion (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Aftermath

In the "Aftermath" section, I added the following:

Before the 2020 United States presidential election, the Washington Post, CNN, NPR, Politico, and MSNBC all said the New York Post story on Hunter Biden's laptop was false. However, after the election, all of them admitted that it was true.

User:SPECIFICO deleted it, and commented, "Misrepresents "sources")"

I'd like to hear what others think about this.

Mulva? Gipple? Dolores! (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Complete misrepresentation of sources. Even if your edit was accurate, it's awful writing to say "they all said it was false and now say that it's true". – Muboshgu (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• You are flatly misrepresenting those sources. One by one:

• [7] says It's unclear whether the laptop's contents are relevant to the ongoing federal probe and whether investigators can even use them, given potential chain of custody requirements for evidence, ie. it remains meaningless; it also mentions that some of the material reflects emails from Hunter Biden that were circulating in Ukraine long before the laptop appeared, which continues to be one of the most suspicious aspects of the story.
• [8] literally does not mention the laptop at all, even once, not even obliquely.
• [9] again does not mention the laptop at all.
• [10] - again, no mention of the laptop whatsoever, aside from a quote by Trump.

Likewise, the initial stories you linked (putting aside two opinion-pieces, which obviously cannot be compared to news reporting) are more cautious than you are saying and are all 100% the same as is being reported today - ie. the laptop's provenance is unknown, which makes it useless as evidence; and the so-called "smoking gun" email is unconfirmed (as it remains). Nothing substantial has changed since October 2020. --Aquillion (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Aquillion, you keep using the word "providence" when you mean "provenance".

You make a good point above, about how the media learned from their previous mistakes. In Wikipedia terms, they made "recentism" and "not news" mistakes. They also learned that material from dubious or unvetted sources should be treated with caution. At Wikipedia we have the obligation of citing, with attribution, and without having to vet or fact-check what RS say, which, for us, would be an OR violation.

Also, the laptop and emails have nothing to do with this conspiracy theory. When are we going to move this content to the Hunter Biden article? I have the green light to do it but can't do it before we know what part is relevant here. We don't want to be editing the same content in two places. Please address this point. -- Valjean (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

References

"No new evidence"

In the Politico piece that kicked off the laptop disinformation narrative, the story made clear that there was no evidence of Russian disinformation, saying While the letter’s signatories presented no new evidence, they said their national security experience had made them “deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case” and cited several elements of the story that suggested the Kremlin’s hand at work. I tried to make this clear in the lead but was reverted with an edit summary implying I was mischaracterizing Politico. Should our article more clearly reflect that the laptop disinformation narrative currently has no hard evidence, only speculation? Mr Ernie (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The only problem that I have with the sentence It was later confirmed that at least some of the laptop materials were genuine, though fake material may have been mixed in with it despite any existing evidence, and Hunter Biden said that it is possible the laptop could be his. is the grammar. We're jamming in too many clauses. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah the grammar is bad. I couldn't figure out a simpler way to say it. Sources say some of the materials have been confirmed as genuine, some fakes could be mixed it, but there isn't any actual evidence yet of this. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Taking a quick stab before I get back to IRL work... Some of the materials have been confirmed as genuine and Hunter Biden said that it is possible the laptop could be his. Though fake materials may have been mixed in with genuine materials, there is no evidence to support or refuse this. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The deep suspicions should be described and attributed, and the writer's comment that "no new evidence" was presented should also be stated and attributed. There is no basis for the editorializing "no evidence" claim. -- Valjean (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

That's fair. First part attributed, who is the second attributed to? Some of the materials have been confirmed as genuine and Hunter Biden said that it is possible the laptop could be his. Though retired intelligence officials suggested that fake materials may have been mixed in with genuine materials, there is no evidence to support or refute this. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Isn't there "no evidence" that it's disinformation? That's not to say that there's evidence that it isn't. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

"They presented no new evidence..." Maybe just cite the full quote. -- Valjean (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Why are we bending over backwards to promote Fox/Giuliani equiviocations. There's abundant tertiary analysis based on deep knowledge of Russian propaganda techniques and their documented use of Trump surrogates to promote Trump-enabling nonsense of all kinds. A few editors' personal opinions shouldn't make us cram weasel-worded "though" text into the lead. We don't say "Giuliani's apartment was raided though he has not been imprisoned yet" for example. It's a big leap from "it's Biden's laptop" to "it's never been tampered with since he lost possession of it." SPECIFICO talk 17:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

We're talking about material from Politico, NYT, The Guardian, and CNN. Not sure where we mention equivocations from Fox or Giuliani, so hopefully you can specifically point to that or the other weasel words to which you refer. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

It's plain enough that the text you inserted, including "though" -- as I just stated immediately above -- and the logical fallicies I have previously referred to a couple of days ago wrt your advocacy of this content -- is not straightforward descriptive representation of the sources. SPECIFICO talk 17:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I would go as far as observing it was a misrepresentation of the source, which is why I removed it. ValarianB (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Just remove the "though fake material may have been mixed in with it" part. It gives undue weight to the conspiracy theory that Russians (etc.) inserted fake material into the laptop cache. There's absolutely no evidence of fake material being inserted, and the part where it says that "at least some of the laptop materials were genuine" leaves open the possibility that some of it might be fake. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The lede obviously gives undue weight to the possibility that the laptop might contain fake, inserted material: a claim that might be true but for which absolutely zero evidence exists. Almost everyone in the news industry has known for a long time that they went batshit crazy over the laptop and in retrospect it's obvious that an admitted crack addict (who has said the laptop could be his) might accidentally leave a laptop at a repair shop in exactly the way The Post described. As per The Guardian in February (before the NYT story): "Now...almost no one disputes its authenticity."[11] Hence, the NYT used the laptop cache as a source and they were able to authenticate what they checked. And Politico already authenticated the two most famous emails. (Note that "authenticated" does not mean that they verified that the contents of the emails were accurate; they verified that those emails were really sent.) As of March 2022, the burden of proof has clearly shifted. There's no reason to take the default stance that the laptop story is fake or that any of the contents of the cache were inserted by Russians, etc. At this point, *that* is a conspiracy theory. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that Joe was not engaged in a corrupt endeavor to protect Hunter, which remains what this conspiracy theory and article are all about, regardless of the authenticity of the laptop or its contents which everyone has gone batshit crazy over while taking their eyes off the ball, there remain vexing unknowns. Yet these unknowns remain entirely irrelevant to the central issue because even if the laptop and every email from it that we know about are proven genuine, it still would not implicate Joe. Maybe some should read that sentence again. Hunter might accidentally leave a laptop at a repair shop in exactly the way The Post described, except for the involvement of a blind repair shop owner who gave contradictory responses to media questions, as well as the involvement of Rudy and Bannon, the former having physical possession of an item in question, and the latter saying he did on Dutch television weeks earlier. The Post account is further complicated because reportedly neither the WSJ nor Fox News would run Rudy's story, so Rudy got The Post to run it because "either nobody else would take it, or if they took it, they would spend all the time they could to try to contradict it before they put it out," and even then, as this article explains: editors at the New York Post "pressed staff members to add their bylines to the story", and at least one refused, in addition to the original author, reportedly because of a lack of confidence in its credibility. Of the two writers eventually credited on the article, the second did not know her name was attached to it until after The Post published it. And then there's the involvement of Derkach,[12] and now Parnas saying Rudy discussed Russians having Hunter emails in early 2019. So we're really at a point where there remains lots of unknowns that don't give us confidence at this time to make significant changes. The importance of the NYT story is being blown way out of proportion, and the other reports are tantalizing but not sufficiently conclusive to clear the bar of inclusion in the article in any decisive form. I don't get the impression that everyone has taken a slow, deep dive into this article to understand all the variables at play here. And I'm not sure including admitted crack addict adds much to this discussion. soibangla (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Bueller 007, you're creating an extreme strawman argument. RS note the possibility for fake material, and we document what they say. That does not mean that there actually IS fake material. Simply documenting the "deep suspicions" of the intelligence community is proper: "While the letter’s signatories presented no new evidence, they said their national security experience had made them “deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case” and cited several elements of the story that suggested the Kremlin’s hand at work." The facts surrounding the suspicious provenance (who had control of it while it was missing and the shopping around of the emails long before the laptop suddenly appeared at the shop with no evidence that Biden himself delivered it there) of the laptop justify such suspicions, and we mention that. It would be an NPOV and balance violation to leave that out. Short mention is due. Your concern that we not "leaves open the possibility that some of it might be fake" is your editorial opinion and POV censorship which should not affect the article, and it carries no weight against the informed concerns of myriad seasoned intelligence people. I think they know more than you, and it is their experience that is described by RS, not yours. -- Valjean (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The whole point of the retired intellince officer narrative was to allow social media outlets and mainstream press to bury the story so it wouldn't impact the election, even if, and as it has turned out, the story was a nothing burger. They had no evidence then, and they have no evidence now. Surely after 2+ years of a full on FBI investigation something would have turned up.

This is very similar but directly flipped to the now discredited Steele Dossier. Everyone believed every word of it when it was originally released, and now after a couple years more and more pieces of it fell apart. With the laptop, everyone declared it misinformation, and now after a couple years more and more of it has been authenticated.

I've been searching very hard for any RS coverage outside of speculation and innuendo, but I have found nothing in sources that sway me more than The Guardian saying "Now, however, almost no one disputes its authenticity." It seems like the few people who still do just happen to be Wikipedians. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

That sounds strikingly similar to something from Hannity on any given night. "almost no one disputes its authenticity" is a very vague assertion. How does the author know that? Did he conduct a survey? Did he talk to the FBI? It's really not much to hang our hats on. I'd like to think that the few people who still do just happen to be Wikipedians because as an encyclopedia we have higher standards than most. soibangla (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

“Almost no one”. Classic WP:WEASEL. Dronebogus (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

If you have issues with The Guardian I guess you can take them up at RSN. Otherwise we shouldn't be in the game of second guessing reliable sources. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Similarly, if you had issues with Politico, you should have taken it up at an appropriate venue, rather than adding your own analysis to a reliable source, as you did in hte most recent edit to this article. As for "the laptop", it is approaching the mythic-like quality of the Pulp Fiction's briefcase. Whether Mr. Biden once possessed the laptop or not has never truly been the focus of the controversy around it, the issue has been the contents therein. The contents, which the conspiracy theorists claim range from everything from Burisma smoking guns to child porn, is what is a part of the conspiracy theory at hand. ValarianB (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Not this conspiracy theory. This one is about whether Joe Biden abused his position to protect his son. All else belongs in other articles. -- Valjean (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Nothing in modern political theatre is as cool as anything left ambiguous by neoclassic Hollywood! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I thought no evidence meant no evidence, but I guess there are other interpretations. On your second point, I agree completely. The laptop has never been the focus of the conspiracy theory, and the contents are a nothing burger. My focus at this article has only been on correcting the false narrative that the laptop is Russian disinformation which seems to have been manufactured to keep the story from spreading on social media before the election. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The source said "no new evidence" not "no evidence". -- Valjean (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

So you're suggesting a deep state, MSM and Big Tech conspiracy to suppress this, consistent with the narrative that the FBI, Clinton and Mueller hatched a collusion hoax, and this is all an elaborate scheme to destroy Trump and protect Dems? soibangla (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

It sounds like you're suggesting that. Twitter admitted it erred and Facebook never released any results I can find for that "fact check" they promised when they buried the story. There was never any real evidence anything regarding the laptop was disinformation. I don't care about anything the laptop revealed or didn't reveal, but thankfully now RS are coming around. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm just trying to connect the dots of various things you've said in various contexts to understand where you're coming from. You'll recall that in 2016 various Big Tech companies got seriously gamed with the "flood the zone with shit" strategy and in its aftermath they took measures to prevent this from happening again. So along comes a NY Post story two weeks before the 2020 election about a laptop that appears out of nowhere containing suspicious emails, with Rudy's fingerprints all over it. If I were working at Big Tech, knowing the power of their platforms, that would certainly raise a big red flag for me and I'd put the brakes on it at least temporarily before it can go intergalactically viral as established fact and cannot be undone. It absolutely reeked of an October Surprise dirty trick, and it's all too easy with the benefit of hindsight to say Big Tecn acted improperly, to create a false narrative that it was a deliberate conspiracy of suppression to protect Joe. soibangla (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• The core conclusion of the sources today is essentially that since the laptop's provenance is unknown and the "central" emails are unauthenticated, it has no value or significance and was correctly disregarded; that is more-or-less what our article says. It is not "this is definitely disinformation", it is that something with a dubious chain of custody obviously cannot be used to prove anything, especially when it passed through and was presented by partisan actors. --Aquillion (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

New evidence unearthed at Fox News [13] SPECIFICO talk 16:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Erlend Kvitrud edit

Erlend Kvitrud, this information is vital to know. The IC didn't say this was pushed by Russia per se, but rather Russian proxies, such as people Rudy et al. associated with. I think this should be restored. soibangla (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

That is classic WP:COATRACK and is better left out. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Soibangla. Thanks for the comment. I think it was a mistake to restore the sentence. The IC report in question doesn't say anything about the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. Keeping this sentence in creates the false impression that it does. If this report is to be mentioned, it should at the very least be followed by a sentence clarifying that the report does not mention the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, so readers are not led to believe that it did. Erlend Kvitrud (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Is the New York Times pushing conspiracy theories?

Now that even the New York Times has recognized the laptop and emails are and have always been real are you going to get your head out of the sand and make a fair article or are you going to keep the facade on because you are unwilling to accept the fact that you were blinded by your beliefs (and a good dose of propaganda)?

Times Article: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/16/us/politics/hunter-biden-tax-bill-investigation.html 37.163.63.146 (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

emails are and have always been real All of 'em? Is that what the Times reported? no. Do the emails seem to show that Hunter was adamant about avoiding even the appearances of influence peddling? well...yes soibangla (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Please try to make more sense. No one is claiming that all of the emails are necessarily realon the basis of the evidence presented to date. That is not claimed by Shreckinger (he specifically notes that he did *not* verify all the emails), nor is that claimed by the NYT. However, there is literally ZERO evidence that *any* of the emails are fake. The NYT has specifically said this: "...no concrete evidence has emerged that the laptop contains Russian disinformation..." [14] The intelligence community report upon which the claims were made that the laptop was Russian disinformation also specifically says that they have NO EVIDENCE that any of the information found on the laptop was falsified: "We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement..."[15] Bueller 007 (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

No one is claiming that all of the emails are necessarily real actually someone just did soibangla (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

So basically the goalpost has now moved from "you can't prove the emails are real" to "you can't prove ALL the emails are real". I guess we'll just have to wait till the Times posts an article listing all the emails one by one and slapping a "yep, it's real" label on each, cause that's definitely a normal article that a normal newspaper would make.

If you're gonna say we must stick to the bare facts and nothing else i can get behind that. But then 90% of this article needs to be purged because it's all about not what the facts are but what some people's opinion on those facts is. Which is just a strawman. Something doesn't become true no matter how much "experts" repeat it, and it doesn't become false no matter how much air time it gets on Alex Jones.

Having "hunter biden emails" redirect to a page titled "conspiracy theory" when at the very least some of those emails are confirmed to be real is laughable at best and actually kind of sad at worst. 87.13.95.32 (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Considering the conspiracy theory is not about whether or not the laptop and emails are real, but that the conspiracy theory is about Hunter Biden committing great offenses in Ukraine and involving his father in it, it makes sense. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

From the start, the Pozharskyi email was the alleged and only link to Joe. The article has always reflected this. The NYT did not report it authenticated the Pozharskyi email. It reported on other emails it had authenticated, some of which actually appear exculpatory for Hunter. And even if the Pozharskyi email is authenticated, what would it prove? That Pozharskyi and Joe had a brief encounter at DC banquet attended by many, not an intimate dinner with just the two of them whispering. Do we know what they may have talked about? No. Should we presume they talked about anything related to Burisma? No. Politicians commonly work a room, shake hands, banter, leave. This is a long way to go to reach a dead end. soibangla (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

This is literally nothing but a whole comment of biased editorializing. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 05:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. That has been my whole point this entire time. This Wikipedia page is a complete embarrassment. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 05:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Someone here, like User:Muboshgu and User:Soibangla are trying really hard to pull the wool over our eyes with cheap semantics. The.Barbaryan (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The.Barbaryan, if by "semantics", you mean "accuracy", sure, whatever. BTW you violated WP:1RR by reverting me. I recommend you self-revert now before you are blocked. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Keep your recommendations to yourself. And here's the English lesson you asked for:

People familiar with the investigation said prosecutors had examined emails between Mr. Biden, Mr. Archer and others about Burisma and other foreign business activity. Those emails were obtained by The New York Times from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop. The email and others in the cache were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation.

In some of the emails, Mr. Biden displayed a familiarity with FARA, and a desire to avoid triggering it.

In one email to Mr. Archer in April 2014, Mr. Biden outlined his vision for working with Burisma. In the email, Hunter Biden indicated that the forthcoming announcement of a trip to Ukraine by Vice President Biden — who is referred to in the email as “my guy,” but not by name — should “be characterized as part of our advice and thinking — but what he will say and do is out of our hands.” (From said article) The.Barbaryan (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Nowhere in there is the laptop confirmed to be "fact" or "accuracy". Your edit warring is demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt, however. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Not in the "authenticated" sentence? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Emails have been authenticated, the laptop has not been. So this edit is problematic even before the edit warring to maintain it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

That is a sloppy edit, and yeah, war is crap. But it doesn't seem to address the laptop's veracity, just the story about its contents. I don't even comprehend how any computer can be true or false. Are you trying to say it wasn't Hunter's? That's potentially true or false. But data can't be stored in and retrieved from a device that never even existed...I hope. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, what is "true" or "false" about the laptop is whether or not it belonged to Hunter. The laptop and its contents may be genuine, or it may be that the laptop was his but has fake material mixed in with authentic material, or the laptop itself could have never belonged to him. We don't really know and so should tread carefully around it, rather than implying that that segment Barbaryan quoted verifies the whole thing. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The relevant material isn't fake, at least according to sources three NYT reporters trust. Who cares if some other file was digitally manipulated by another user or whatever? Dennis Rader was caught through Christ Lutheran Church hardware. I am not equating their deeds. But the authorship seems to be the "real" clincher in both cases, not the ownership. Regardless, I, both Bidens and Ukraine in general have more serious accusations to face in 2022, we surely agree. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The NYT does not mention the relevant material, namely any purported Pozharskyi email related to Joe, but rather verifies emails that are actually exculpatory to Hunter, showing that he would not seek to influence anyone in American government. soibangla (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Relevant to its own report, I mean, as in "about Burisma and other foreign business activity". Nobody is sure what constitutes relevance in the context of this convoluted article. Hence the RfC. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

We know some knowns and some unknowns. We must limit inclusion to knowns and not conflate them with unknowns, as some editors seem determined to do, perhaps because the media sources they consume have also done that, as they have a long history of doing. soibangla (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, is the email in which we know he indicated that the forthcoming announcement of a trip to Ukraine by Vice President Biden — who is referred to in the email as “my guy,” but not by name — should “be characterized as part of our advice and thinking — but what he will say and do is out of our hands.” the same as one of those you find actually exculpatory to Hunter? It seems like it does refer to a meeting by his father, the Biden actually alleged by "a series of unconfirmed claims" to be culpable of corruption in our lead. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

"characterized as part of our advice and thinking — but what he will say and do is out of our hands" suggests Joe might provide Hunter with some insight, but not that Hunter would seek influence with Joe. The latter might be corrupt, but not the former (as long as it's not classified). "what he will say and do is out of our hands" means "we can't influence him" and that interpretation is supported by other things Hunter wrote (which, oddly, no one trying to include this stuff has mentioned). I don't see it suggests any meeting between Joe and Burisma, and there's no evidence to suggest there was any meeting. These are unknowns that must be excluded. soibangla (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I can't load Politico pages, but if They specifically denied that Joe Biden ever had a formal meeting with Pozharskyi, and said that if they had ever met, it would have been a brief encounter. is an accurate reflection, that strongly suggests a brief informal meeting is exactly what happened, but that's just me. You interpret differently. It's all good! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

It appears you are confusing the purported Pozharskyi email about a meeting in DC with an allusion to a possible meeting with Burisma when Joe was in Kyiv. soibangla (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, I would revert your most recent edit about "staff" vs. "witnesses" but I've hit the 1RR limit. I suggest you search the article and read about Rick Leach and Alex Karloutsos, then consider a self-revert. soibangla (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I didn't see either name or "witnesses". I see a campaign spokesman, a foreign policy advisor and a special enoy/coordinator. That last one is who I meant might not suit "staff", but he "worked with" Joe. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

You didn't see them because you didn't read what I just asked you to. soibangla (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

If you mean our article, I see them now. Seems to be about a different purported meeting, from a later New York Post article, in Washington. Whole other country. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Is this really a conspiracy?

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.

---

Lets recap.

1. Hunter Biden was business dealing in Ukraine. 2. Trump tries to investigate this. 3. Trump is impeached by a democratic majority house. 4. Biden is elected and willing to go to war to protect Ukraine.

Seems to me we have evidence that some one important has investments there or we wouldn't be in a rush to war. 67.61.103.98 (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, what you wrote is a baseless conspiracy theory. Since this article is based on what reliable sources tell us, it pretty much debunks your fringe view. Since WP:Advocacy of WP:Fringe POV is forbidden here, please do not continue down this path or argue to defend what you wrote. -- Valjean (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

1. Hunter Biden was involved in business in Ukraine (this part is true!) 2. Trump tried to manufacture a scandal out of it by threatening to withhold Congressionally approved funding to the Ukraine (so close to what he's accusing Biden of doing, which sounds like psychological projection to me) 3. Trump is impeached for his crimes (also true) 4. Biden wins the election and then Putin escalates the war rhetoric, likely hoping that Trump's influence would have split us off from Europe. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

You literally just wrote baseless conspiracy while accusing the other person of posting baseless conspiracies. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

"would have split us off from Europe" Who is "us"? Dimadick (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The U.S., the country where I live and of which I am a citizen. Coulda been more clear there. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

It appears this article needs to be cleaned up. The NY Times has acknowledged that the laptop is in fact Hunter Biden's which is giving far more credibility to the claims derived from content found on that computer. There is also the Bobulinski interview and the fact that Tiwtter worked to suppress this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Conspiracy does not mean, "false." It's the "theory" part that you're questioning. 2600:1700:5DB0:1040:804A:6DFC:CCC3:4D0E (talk) 01:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

When facts are dropping in now are just "opinion pieces". Some wiki "redditors" here do pimp a lot of bullshit. Maybe they're just trolling for the lulz, or maybe they're DNC employees. Regardless, is good to see Wikipedia is turning into a Snopes kind of rag. Can't say I'm sorry. "You can BS all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot Bull Shit all the people all the time.” The.Barbaryan (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2022 (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.

Politico article again

This edit by XavierItzm cites a source that merely regurgitates, rather than corroborates, the Politico report, which was WP:EXTRAORDINARY and did not garner consensus for inclusion. The edit should be removed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspiracy_theory&diff=1079761797&oldid=1079681991

soibangla (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. The recent NYT piece corroborates the Politico reporting, so we could cite that as well. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, the source is independent. The assertion has been corroborated by The New York Times. Nothing extraordinary. XavierItzm (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

corroborated by The New York Times is flatly false. soibangla (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

As explained before, the NYT story does not corroborate the Politico story. soibangla (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

XavierItzm and Mr Ernie, do you care that "it was confirmed that at least a portion of the laptop materials were genuine, including the 2015 e-mail about the Burisma meeting" is a misleading conflation of the NYT story that confirmed emails that appear exculpatory to Hunter, but the NYT did not mention the Pozharskyi email, whereas Politico reported on the Pozharskyi email which got no notice by any other reliable sources and was exhaustively discussed here but no consensus was reached for its inclusion? This has been repeatedly explained here, and it strains credulity that anyone actively participating here could not have seen it and understood it such that they would not include it here. On that basis, unless another editor beats me to it, I will restore the original content as soon as my 1RR 24-hour limit expires. soibangla (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Go ahead and revert whatever you want. It's clear that there is no intention to enforce 1RR here. How can we get it removed? Mr Ernie (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Based on this incident, I'm now prepared to propose the article be fully locked down with maximum protection. soibangla (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I reverted content that stated that "the 2015 email" was confirmed genuine. The email is not mentioned in the NYT piece, and the Brown student journal piece (which should be removed as unreliable), the Politico playbook mini-mention, and Schreckinger's longer Politico piece do not use language as strong as "confirmed" "genuine". Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 16:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• The Politico article was previously added and removed, so citing it again requires consensus. I'm completely opposed, since it's a passing mention in a morning mix and hasn't received the sort of coverage you would expect for the WP:EXCEPTIONAL interpretation presented here. More generally we're already giving the laptop aspect undue weight given that it ultimately went nowhere, so I'm opposed to expanding it here (especially given that we're already discussing moving most of this stuff to another article.) --Aquillion (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  The mention in the morning mix pointed to the book which contained the details. I found an article which contains some background of the laptop in general, and a blurb specifically about the book.

  Last summer, Politico reporter Ben Schreckinger published a book called, The Bidens: Inside the First Family’s Fifty-Year Rise to Power. In it, he said he verified several emails from the laptop by, among other tactics, sending an open records request to the Swedish government for communications between its embassy staff and Hunter Biden, who rented office space at the facility in Washington, D.C. Emails resulting from the request matched those on the laptop, Schreckinger said. "There is at least some authentic material in this leak," Schreckinger said in an interview with CBS in 2020. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Correct. The e-mails were confirmed in a 2021 book published in the UK by Little, Brown and Company and published in the U.S. by Hachette Book Group's division Grand Central Publishing. The book's conclusion was reported by blue-linked authors Ryan Lizza, Rachael Bade, and Tara Palmeri, who wrote: “The Bidens: Inside the First Family’s Fifty-Year Rise to Power,” out today, finds evidence that some of the purported HUNTER BIDEN laptop material is genuine, including two emails at the center of last October’s controversy." How people want to deep-six these WP:RS, is just sad.. The book scooped The New York Times by a full six months. XavierItzm (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Here is a summary of mainstream sources discussing the laptop. The Guardian, saying "Now, however, almost no one disputes its authenticity." NYT, saying "No concrete evidence has emerged that the laptop contains Russian disinformation." POLITICO, saying "a purported leak of Hunter Biden’s computer files contains genuine material." The NYT (again), saying "The email and others in the cache were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation." Vox, saying "And no evidence has emerged to back up suspicions from former intelligence officials, backed by Biden himself, that the laptop’s leak was a Russian plot." Mr Ernie (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

And you know what? Even if all that is stone-cold true, it still doesn't provide any support for the subject of this article. This is exactly how good conspiracy theories are designed, to keep them alive by people running off with red herrings. If Rudy had a true smoking gun email that would've torpedoed Joe, don't you think he would've released it in October 2020? Y'all barkin' up the wrong tree. soibangla (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you. There's nothing on the laptop that supports anything related to the conspiracy theory. But on the flipside, after years of investigating it, if the FBI found anything remotely like evidence that it was a Russian plot it would have been leaked immediately and gone mega viral. My participation here has only ever been focused on the laptop and the veracity of its contents. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

soibangla, Mr Ernie, Muboshgu (and others I've forgotten), this again reinforces the need to split off this laptop/emails content from this article. XavierItzm suggested Biden laptop controversy as a good article title. I believe it may belong in such an article or in Hunter's article, just not here where it only serves to confuse people. Note I have stricken Hunter's article as it now would be a due weight violation demanding immediate treatment following WP:Summary style. Will you support the removal of this content into a new article? -- Valjean (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Valjean I'd be in full support of moving the material to the proposed article and eliminating all laptop references from this here article. But just like Aquillion came in and mass-deleted all kinds of WP:RS just today without the due care of analyzing each one, under the guise that he was going back to "a stable version" (!), I still believe Biden laptop controversy will also be deep-sixed within 120 seconds of its creation, unless it can be shown that the reason it is created is because of some sort of agreement on this here page. Otherwise, insofar as the article here makes reference to a laptop, any followup to the laptop situation is WP:DUE. XavierItzm (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

My guess is that any complaints about a spin-off would likely come from those who know its creation deprives this article of any oxygen, causing this nontroversy to asphyxiate. soibangla (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Given how confusing this laptop thing gets, I think the only two possible solutions are (1) keep the laptop stuff here but reorganize the article so that we have it separated as (a) first is the Joe Biden/Viktor Shokin part and (b) is the Hunter Biden laptop, while moving it to Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theories or some such title, or (2) split the laptop off to that separate article. Probably (2) is the better choice. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

It shouldn't be here because it isn't part of the conspiracy theory. -- Valjean (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Isn't it connected though? Trump campaign/Rudy go digging for dirt on Joe Biden / Viktor Shokin, want Zelenskyy to set up investigations. It goes nowhere. Then in October 2020 Rudy shows up saying he's got this laptop with Biden / Ukraine related dirt. It seems connected to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Muboshgu, your question reveals how keeping the laptop/emails content here creates confusion. That is not accidental, so we need to stay focused on the original conspiracy theory occupying a very small area on the edge of the Venn diagram describing the activities of the Anti-American Russia/Putin/Russian intelligence/Trump/Manafort/Giuliani cabal. With this conspiracy theory and the laptop/emails kerfuffle, they also impinge on Joe Biden by attacking him and his son, but are all attacks on the Bidens by that pro-Russian/anti-American/anti_Ukraine cabal the subject matter here? No. Are they all tangentially-related? Yes, in the sense that all aspects of a Venn diagram are all tangentially-related. Read the first sentence of this article and focus on that. If some part of the laptop/emails matter ends up being proven to be part of the conspiracy theory, we will still cover it here. The conspiracy theory preceded the laptop/emails matter.

In some ways, this is similar to the Spygate (conspiracy theory), where believers keep trying to throw stuff at it to see what will stick. They seek to prove the conspiracy theories are true by attaching later events to them, but both conspiracy theories are rooted in false claims of specific actions at specific times in history and later events do not change what did NOT happen at those times.

The conspiracy theories are falsifiable claims, so in the true scientific spirit, we are always open to evidence that proves them true. If that happens, we will document it and change the titles of the articles while documenting the history of the original theories and the later proofs that they were actually true. -- Valjean (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, they are related since, as we can see now, the Obama administration (with Biden, Hilary Clinton) took a harsh stance toward Russia. Trump ran a campaign touting the virtues of appeasing Putin, in opposition to the sanctions that were imposed after the Crimea annex in 2014. Trump welcomed and publicly invited Russia's assistance during his campaign. The conspiracy theory goes: Biden was corrupt because his son was on a board of a Ukrainian company (bad optics, to say the least) that was soon to be investigated by a newly-appointed prosecutor, who gained the position after Joe Biden essentially caused the removal of his predecessor. Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine in an effort to shake down any potentially useful information of Joe Biden's impropriety (corruption). That failed to provide results. Biden won election; Trump continues claiming that he did not. The theft of Hunter Biden's laptop is an ongoing effort to gain any suggestion that paints Joe Biden as corrupt. Similar to other tactics by GOP members ("tea-party") since 2010, simply by keeping the issue in the press through seemingly never-ending "investigations" (Benghazi, ACA, 2020 election...) leads to political benefits during elections. So, given the adversarial personal relationship between Biden and Putin, the official stance of the US government towards Russia, it's in Russia's interest to have a more sympathetic figure in the White House. Even if the official policies of the US government are not necessarily friendly (e.g. during Trump's presidency), at least the executive branch won't be leading the charge to introduce more harsh policies towards Russia, or to rally Europe and other countries to take actions against the interests and stability of Russia (with Putin as the leader).

As I said, for what it's worth, that's my understanding of the issue, based on reputable sources: PBS, NPR, CBS EVening News, NBC Nightly News, Washington Post, The Guardian, NYT. Maybe if I get a chance to edit this I can provide specific sources. I assumed that most people were watching the impeachment hearings live; read the Mueller report; have seen Trump during his 2016 campaign... ILMostro (talk) 08:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

ILMostro, serious analysis is always "worth" something here, so your comments are much appreciated. I have read this comment and your next one immediately below and am trying to reconcile them. Below you seem to zoom in and focus on the conspiracy theory itself and how it is false. Very good.

Now to your comment above. I may be wrong, but you seem to be zooming out and taking an overall, big picture, view by describing how all these things are related because they are part of the intense efforts by Trump/Giuliani/Russian intelligence, et al to create the appearance of wrongdoing by Joe Biden, and even though they failed in doing so, they push on with the laptop issue. In that sense, yes, the laptop/emails issue is related to those efforts. The question to be settled here is whether, when you zoom back in, the laptops/emails issue is directly related to the conspiracy theory described in our first sentence (what you describe below). I'd like to hear your thoughts on that. To me, when we zoom back in, the laptop/emails disappear out of the picture, even though there are still part of the bigger picture.

Wikipedia covers all this with these articles, starting zoomed far out: Putin's hostile efforts against the United States became very visible with the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, which never stopped and continued as Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections. In that context we have the Trump–Ukraine scandal and Conspiracy theories related to the Trump–Ukraine scandal. The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is part of those efforts, but where does Hunter Biden laptop controversy (currently a redirect after an AfD) fit in? As I see it, they are all related, but Joe Biden's specific actions, as described in the first sentence of this article, are not directly affected by or related to the laptop controversy. They seem to be related to Hunter Biden, not to Joe Biden's actions. What do you think? -- Valjean (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

We live in interesting times. I feel uneasy potentially contributing to another conspiracy theory at a time when a major political group in the most influential country on earth has made it their modus operandi. While foreign influence has always played a part in geopolitics, disinformation being a very effective tool in this Information Age. However, when disinformation is (ab)used by authority figures against their own people, the arbiter of record has an especially vital role (burden) placed at its feet to balance preserving information while also avoiding the role of a catalyst for new (dis)information. I hope that makes sense.

So, to summarize a few of the ideas that were discussed here as a potential resolution to the issue at hand:

- Leave the more recent events around the stolen laptop within this "conspiracy theory" article as is

- Move that story about the laptop to the "Hunter Biden" page

- Create a separate page for this (part of a/the) conspiracy theory

- Rewrite the article with clear context

- Ignore this extension of this conspiracy theory altogether

Feel free to copy/paste/edit the list for completion/clarity/corrections.

As I said before, it is a strange position in which we find ourselves, discussing the place of new events that are tied (at any level) to a conspiracy theory. Nevertheless, I do recognize the role we have to play surrounding these claims, as they are part of the Zeitgeist. Within this context, the information should be separated into a sub-section of this article, as it is a source of details for the discredited claims outlined in the first sentence. It is a continuation of the efforts to feed this conspiracy theory. The fact that the theory is another dangerous part of the disinformation campaigns from foreign and from domestic actors should not play a part in determining how the theory is categorized or presented.

My opinion is based on the cited sources, specifically Politico newsletter, where one of the e-mail messages contains a line "10 held by H for the big guy?". The theory contends that "H" refers to Hunter and "the big guy" refers to Joe Biden. That goes to the claim expressed in the first sentence of this article here. The next question, in my opinion, is to decide how much context to add towards presenting that detail as part of this theory/article. ILMostro (talk) 05:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I would also advise that a clean-up of the information be done to highlight the timeline of public events or claims that gave any credence to this theory. The other issue at hand is if this should be included at all, since the New York Post is not generally viewed as a reliable source of information, but a tabloid publication. This is also indicated in this article here:

Giuliani was later quoted as saying he had given the copy to the New York Post because "either nobody else would take it, or if they took it, they would spend all the time they could to try to contradict it before they put it out"

Reliable sources reviewed the information and deemed it to be dubious or unverifiable. The references that other reliable sources make to this part of the theory is to contradict the NY Post publication. So, I don't know enough about your process to say if/why it has to be included at all. For me, personally, it has little value, other than to record that some authority figures used disinformation, with help from tabloid publications. ILMostro (talk) 06:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually, if that e-mail is not related to the Burisma company, then it doesn't belong here. Sorry, I was under the impression that the "Chinese deal" was part of his work for (position on Board of) Burisma. ILMostro (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Worth mentioning, just in case, that there is no confusion in how that theory is presented here. The claim is that Biden removed the previous prosecutor to save his son (and himself presumably) from being investigated as part of the corrupt Ukrainian company Burisma. However, evidence shows that the reason the prosecutor was removed was actually because he was seen as too soft on corruption (presumed to be corrupt himself), which is in direct contradiction to this theory. And the theory kept going from there, as with the other previously mentioned "investigations" by the so-called GOP tea-party members. ILMostro (talk) 08:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Bingo. -- Valjean (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Is there any credilbe sourcing that establishes the laptop as a significant issue or even a significant Republican fantasy? SPECIFICO talk 19:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

It should be covered because of RS coverage. -- Valjean (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Recentism, IMO. Nobody cares about it except for certain Republican media pandering to an ignorant viewer base. It is not discussed in what we consider the weight of RS narratives. SPECIFICO talk 19:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I would support removing any and all mention of the Hunter Biden laptop saga from this article, the "Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory." It is just too confusing for readers who may see something in a news story and wind up here as this is where the details (wrong or right) currently are. It should be a sub-section on the Hunter Biden page, as I don't think there is enough content or weight for a stand-alone article. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and, BIG IF, later split it off if it creates an undue weight situation. Does that make sense? -- Valjean (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

That would be a POV fork. The elephant on this page is that we continue to consider the possibility that this is significant because of the false and logically absurd claim that if the laptop was Hunter Bidens, then Joe and Hunter are mixed up in some kind of weird plot. That's why this discussion and the insistent editing of related article content has not died down long ago. SPECIFICO talk 20:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, we wouldn't want that. We could just keep it at Hunter Biden and see what happens. -- Valjean (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Valjean, that's my thinking as well. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

How people want to deep-six these can be understood by reading this Talk page or its archives to see that this was exhaustively discussed months ago and found to be EXCEPTIONAL and UNDUE and thus should not be included. This remains a settled matter. soibangla (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The book scooped The New York Times by a full six months is a bogus conservative media narrative. Shreckinger and the NYT reported on different, mutually-exclusive emails. The NYT did not confirm Shreckinger. People need to stop conflating them as the same. soibangla (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

As explained previously, that still doesn't matter because it is EXCEPTIONAL and not reported by any other source, and this was exhaustively discussed and found UNDUE for inclusion, yet you continue to ignore this and BLUDGEON. Also, Ben Schreckinger is not Bob Woodward. soibangla (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The page should not be full-protected. We just need to enforce BLP on both the article and -- once the issue has repeatedly been explained -- on the talk page as well. SPECIFICO talk 17:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

"MORE: Emails released by a Swedish government agency also match emails in the leaked cache, and two people who corresponded with Hunter Biden confirmed emails from the cache were genuine.

While the leak contains genuine files, it remains possible that fake material has been slipped in."

Singling out specific items to further a conspiracy theory is petty, disruptive, and needlessly obstructionist to the general workflow. If it's not clear to someone by now that the facts simply do not support the conspiracy theories, I doubt they will ever be convinced otherwise. Ultimately, however, looking at the overall picture, one could infer that even the tone of voice is not conveyed in an informal text. So, one or two red herring instances that support a tunnel-vision motive do not rise to the level of truth or facts.

If for nothing else but the sake of ones general welfare, it would be beneficial to play devil's advocate from time to time, to question one's own entrenched position on an issue. ILMostro (talk) 07:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

If, effectively, blackmailing the Ukraine government by Trump didn't provide any useful evidence of Joe Biden's alleged corruption, then it's highly unlikely that such evidence exists. Furthermore, one or two vague references on Hunter Biden's stolen laptop can not outweigh the relatively large number of verifiable evidence that disproves or contradicts those claims/inferences; especially when you consider the methods taken to find any hint of supporting evidence for a circumstantial case, to put it mildly. ILMostro (talk) 07:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Theory vs Fact

I have just read the entire comment section, and clearly what is needed is an article split to discuss the actual information coming out, separate from the fake news.

For example the "Hunter Biden Corruption Allegations" and "Joe Biden Corruption Allegations", similar to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. This way any substantiated information is covered, and the fake news can be pruned or excluded.

The current state of affairs is beyond unproductive and may damage Wikis standing (on this topic) in the long run. It is bad for Wiki if readers are chased away to a fake news website for their information. The only thing I have ever seen resolve these quagmires guickly enough to retain the #1 spot as a source of information, are article splits.

I'm going to leave it to a senior editor to call a vote if they deem it prudent. 2605:8D80:6E2:3678:80FF:D185:5B84:4FD0 (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Look above at the section called "Who will back moving the laptop/emails content to Hunter Biden laptop controversy?" -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes thats the right idea. But laptop controversy is being moved out to an existing article, and has nothing to do with the corruption allegations; It is being moved BECAUSE it has nothing to do with this article. We need fact articles for Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory and probably delete the original since its completely useless (title doesnt even specify which Biden, or who in Ukraine). 2605:8D80:6C1:1D4E:840:A614:6089:ED77 (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)