Talk:John Solomon (political commentator)

Columbia Journalism Review

An attributed statement by the Columbia Journalism Review is not undue.[1] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Dear Snooganssnoogans (talk): He is known for biased reporting ... " is a smear and not written from a neutral point of view. Further, citations are to articles in the Columbia School of Journalism Review, as well as an Opinion article; none of these are reliable sources. Please discuss on the article talk page before continuing to re-insert and edit war. -BattleshipGray (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

For the record (the editor above is inactive) the Columbia Journalism Review, its proper name, is the premier journal in its field, read its article. Doug Weller talk 18:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Hill, Huff post, reception section

I am trying to copy edit this to make some sense and not be so wordy and confusing. Can others help please. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Here is what we have:

In January 2018, Solomon published a report for The Hill suggesting that Peter Strzok and Lisa Page had foreknowledge of a Wall Street Journal article and that they themselves had leaked to the Wall Street Journal.[19] According to the Hufftington Post, Solomon's reporting however omitted that the Wall Street Journal article that Strzok and Page were discussing was critical of Hillary Clinton and the FBI, Strzok and Page expressed dismay at the fallout from the article, and Strzok and Page criticized unauthorized leaks from the FBi. According to the Huffington Post, "Solomon told HuffPost he was not authorized to speak and does not comment on his reporting. He may simply have been unaware of these three facts when he published his story. But they provide crucial context to an incomplete narrative that has been bouncing around the right-wing echo chamber all week."[19]

Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Summary in lede

We summarize the body in the lede per WP:LEDE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Repeated deletion of balancing information on Uranium One story

The line in bold type has been deleted twice by the same editor: "No evidence of any quid pro quo or other wrong-doing has surfaced.[20] The Clinton Foundation failed to publicly disclosed four donations totaling $2.35 million from Uranium One's Canadian chairman, Ian Telfer, which were made via his family's foundation.[21]

According to Wikipedia's "Neutral Point of View" policy, "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

The article does not mention the donations made by Uranium One's chairman to the Clinton Foundation, nor does it mention that they were concealed. This is important information that is relevant, well-sourced and neutral, and its omission does not give readers a balanced view of the controversy.

Here is the diff of the 1st deletion. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_F._Solomon&diff=896568920&oldid=896568544

Here is the diff of the 2nd deletion. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_F._Solomon&diff=896975287&oldid=896975012 Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The article is about Solomon and should not be used as a WP:COATRACK for rehashing criticism of Clinton. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The added text has nothing to do with Solomon. It's pure WP:SYNTH to give the appearance that Solomon's reporting has been vindicated. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The current version of the article implies there was clearly no impropriety. This is misleading. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

"As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well." https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0 Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the consensus that this material should be added, primarily per WP:COATRACK. It's just too far afield. This article is about Solomon, not the Clinton Foundation or Uranium One. Whether evidence of a quid pro quo has surfaced has some minor bearing since it reflects on Solomon's reporting. Whether the the Clinton Foundation did or didn't report some transactions has no such bearing. R2 (bleep) 17:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

CJR and Wemple

My understanding is that using op-eds to back up assertions in a lede would generally violate WP:RS and WP:NPOV, at a minimum. Is that not the case here?

I don't have a horse in the race, but for the casual observer, it doesn't look too neutral. From a persuasion standpoint, it's also too blunt to sway anyone. Dorama285 (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources don't have to be neutral to be reliable. See WP:BIASED. Which specific sources are you referring to? R2 (bleep) 20:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm referencing the two op-eds in Columbia Journalism Review (Blake & McCleary) and one in the Washington Post (Wemple). Assuming there are no news items to cite? Plenty of people could be smeared as "communists" if three op-eds served as adequate sourcing for a claim, but the standard being applied here is clearly unusual. Dorama285 (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I believe the sources in question ([2], [3], [4]) are reliable. None of these are op-eds. I don't think that CJR distinguishes news from opinion; regardless, CJR has a superb reputation and is known for fact-checking and advocacy. In fact, they issued two corrections to the "Something fishy" source, so we know that piece was subjected to plenty of scrutiny. As for the Erik Wemle source (a column, not an op-ed), Wemple is one of those rare columns that is very well-cited by reliable sources for facts. R2 (bleep) 21:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The Washington Post explicitly labels the Wemple column as "opinion." They aren't comfortable calling it news. Citing CJR makes as much sense as citing the Media Research Center. It's not a credible way to write an introduction (or a Wikipedia page more broadly), but as I said, this undermines Wikipedia's credibility more than Solomon's. I'll leave it to other users to rectify. Dorama285 (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no requirement that a source be called "news" to be reliable. Both Wemple and CJR have stellar reputations for fact-checking and accuracy, nothing like MRC. R2 (bleep) 22:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

What R2 said. Both are usually excellent sources for this kind of thing, and likening the CJR to the MRC is false balance. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Would a good resolution be to reduce the level of detail in the lede? It does look pretty biased with such a small section other than that, and it is covered in far more detail under Reception. Lensfielding 9:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't follow. It's one short sentence and describes no specific instances of biased reporting or faux scandals. Lead sections are supposed to summarize prominent controversies. R2 (bleep) 22:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

In reference to the BLP guidelines, it says that "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." By my reading, that particular sentence in the lede seems neither conservative nor disinterested. Saying something about how Columbia Journalism Review has attacked him for.... would work, but as the material currently is presented does not appear dispassionate and neutral. Lensfielding 11:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The problem with that approach is that it would treat facts opinions. That's contrary to our neutrality policy. (See WP:YESPOV.) R2 (bleep) 18:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

That only applies to uncontroversial factual opinions though. I'm not sure that the current wording could be called uncontroversial, or that it accurately depicts the facts from the sources linked.Lensfielding (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

How doesn't it accurately depict the facts from the sources linked? Also, would you mind using good indentation to make this discussion easier to read and understand? R2 (bleep) 18:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

My apologies, I'm still learning the formatting. Specifically the phrase 'known for' indicates wide agreement upon the subject matter, and I can't see that justified from those articles. And as I mentioned before, this does not seem to be an uncontroversial factual opinion. Lensfielding (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

CJR is a reliable source. It is in fact the gold standard for reporting about the media. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

You have repeatedly tried to insert a smear which reads "He is known for biased reporting in favor of conservatives, and of repeatedly manufacturing faux scandals." This edit clearly violates both BLP and NPOV; you conveniently omit any mention of violation of these rules. Further, whether or not the Columbia School of Journalism's news articles are a reliable source is arguable at best, and in any event irrelevant - your citations were to two Opinion articles in CSJ as well as another Opinion article. These are not reliable sources. -BattleshipGray (talk) 03:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@BattleshipGray: the [{Columbia Journalism Review]] is "an American magazine for professional journalists that has been published by the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism since 1961. Its contents include news and media industry trends, analysis, professional ethics, and stories behind news." It's chairman is Stephen J. Adler editor-in-chief for and president of Reuters. It actually is what it says it is, "It is the most respected voice on press criticism" in the US. The statements were clearly attributed to their authors and not in Wikipedia's voice. I've edited the lead to replace the "known" bit with "described" Doug Weller talk 08:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Another issue with this was that none of the articles cited say anything about conservative or bias, which indicates a need for rewording. Lensfielding (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

While the language "He is described ... " is better, this edit is still problematic. The sources say nothing about bias and conservative, and the third one (and arguably the first two also) is an Opinion article. Please discuss here on the talk page and get consensus, rather than re-inserting. -BattleshipGray (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Lensfielding:, although I think the Wemple piece implies such bias, it doesn't state it specifically and I'd prefer a better source or leave it out. So I'd say it should go. The CJR articles clearly back the "manufacturing of fauz scandals". @BattleshipGray: I have no idea why you think it violates NPOV to say that he's manufactured faux scandals. I certainly see no BLP issue. If you want to argue that the CJR articles are opinion articles, WP:RSN is probably your best bet. I'm happy btw to quote "This magazine, too, has taken him to task more than once for distorting facts and hyping petty stories." ~ We need to say more about Circa and I found this.[5] Doug Weller talk

I got here via off-wiki criticism. Doug Weller is correct that the CJR articles do allude to something that could be reasonably described as "manufacturing of faux scandals". Neither mentions "conservative bias" as the lede had mis"lede"ingly stated. ^^ I've fixed the SYNTH problem by re-arranging the refs. My opinion is that the lede does not sufficiently summarize the entry or the person's biography, but know better than to get involved. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I again removed the bias statement and reference to the Wemple Opinion piece. If this is to be inserted a reliable source is needed. -BattleshipGray (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Snooganssnoogans (talk): Please stop inserting the sentence about bias. It is not cited to a reliable source. Discuss on this talk page and get consensus, and use a reliable source for citing. -BattleshipGray (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

So @Doug Weller: by my understanding, it would fix this issue if we leave out the bias sentence, as we seem to have reached a consensus on that. As per the other, I would be happy with the quote provided ("This magazine, too, has taken him to task more than once for distorting facts and hyping petty stories.") as it clearly is attributable. Lensfielding (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans (talk): Why do you repeatedly insert the bias language into the article? The only citation is to an Opinion article - not a reliable source. This is a violation of BLP, RS and NPOV, and your edit-warring must stop. As requested, repeatedly, please discuss this issue on the Talk page and get consensus. -BattleshipGray (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

BattleshipGray, Snooganssnoogans is doing the right thing, and you've been warned, yet you persist. Disruptive editing and edit warring, especially after getting a DS and 3rr warnings, are very serious matters. Don't you like editing here? Do you really want to be blocked or topic banned? This isn't worth it. You should self-revert immediately and walk away from this issue, because you don't seem to understand the policies you are mentioning. Until you have a consensus on the talk page, you are not allowed to do what you've done. Blunt force doesn't work here. Edit warring is the wrong approach. Now stick to discussion here and don't repeat what you've done. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Bull, I don't see anything about content above. Please stick to content. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Certainly. We just need the article back to its status quo first. There is no consensus to remove that content, and it has been explained repeatedly that the sources are reliable. A modification of wording might be possible, but the edit warring must stop. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I see now that you have tried to improve the content. Thanks for trying. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c}: I like your edit. It captures the issues with Mr. Solomon without using the Opinion article as a cite, and it avoid the conservative bias issue which is not even stated in the opinion article. -BattleshipGray (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer (talk):

1. I am not sure what the issue was with my conduct, and I don't understand why you stated that Snooganssnoogans was doing the right thing when he kept inserting his language with no discussion on the talk page (his only statement was about Columbia Journalism Review, which was a different issue.) I have tried to get Snoog to discuss his insertion here on the Talk page, and try to get consensus, but he has refused. The issue, as I pointed out, is that the language about conservative bias was from an Opinion article, not a news article. Further, the article doesn't say what Snoog claims it says. And the consensus here appears to be that the bias language should not be included. I admit I do not understand the rules as well as someone who has editted here for years, seemingly all day long every day, but I don't understand how my behavior in trying to get the issue resolved on the Talk page warranted the attack and warning you posted on my talk page and mentioned here. I honestly thought I was handling this properly by trying to resolve the issue here, and I apologize if I have done anything that violates Wikipedia rules.

2. I could not self revert within hours, as you requested, because I had already put my computer away to go to work. And I don't edit Wikipedia at work.

3. This is the citation Snoog used to keep inserting the conservative bias language: As you can see, this is an Opinion article by Erik Wemple - not a news article. Can we all agree that an Opinion article is not a reliable source? -BattleshipGray (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I thought it was explained well enough above, and that enough editors had said you were wrong above, but to make it plain, an opinion article is a RS at Wikipedia. The content is not worded in Wikipedia's voice, but is clearly referring to the source used. That makes it okay. That doesn't mean it couldn't be improved in some manner. That is often the case, but edit warring, no matter how "right" you might be, is never proper.

You had received a DS warning and edit warring warning on your talk page. You had also been reverted several times. Those are HUGE RED FLAGS. As instructed in the edit warring warning, you should not have continued, but should have followed WP:BRD. That means no article editing related to the contested content, ONLY discussion until a consensus has figured out what to do. That's where you went wrong. You insisted on edit warring and not sticking SOLELY to discussion. In the meantime, SashiRolls came along and sought to improve the wording. I hope that clarifies things.

We use many types of sources here, including the opinion articles found in RS, and the two sources used for this content are very RS. To really show how far we go here, take a look at BLP's WP:PUBLICFIGURE. That even allows (often requires) the inclusion of properly sourced content that may well be false allegations and defamatory material, and that is often found in opinion articles. It just has to be worded and sourced with care.

What can you learn from this? When you are reverted, don't reinstate the content. Go to the talk page and discuss until you reach a consensus. Otherwise, you risk starting an edit war, and we try to avoid that here. Just follow BRD. There is only one R there. After the R, Discuss until you have other editors on the same page with you. That's the general picture. As with most things, there are exceptions to every rule, and once you have more experience you'll know when it's safe to deviate from that path. Until then, just be careful. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation. I appreciate it. I don't understand how false allegations (i.e. libel) can ever be considered properly sourced and reliable, and I don't get how an opinion can be considered as reliable either, but I guess if false statements are OK then why not opinions also? You know, this doesn't say much for the supposed reliability and neutral point of view of Wikipedia. -BattleshipGray (talk) 00:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not that anything "false" is "reliable". Obviously not, but if it's mentioned in RS, then it is a fact that the false statement/allegation was made, and we document that the allegation happened. It is the last part which is reliable. We never state the allegation in Wikipedia's voice, but attribute it to the source, and sometimes to the actual person making the allegation. Since allegations against famous people are often repeated in many RS, we actually serve a valuable purpose by not only documenting the issue, but, by using other RS, showing how the allegation is false. That's a good thing, because the news doesn't always go that far.

Regarding opinions, that's what they are, true, false, or otherwise. That's why we don't state them in Wikipedia's voice. We just document that they exist. Our job is to document the sum total of human knowledge, and that includes far more than stone-cold facts. It also includes opinions, allegations, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, religious beliefs, delusions, etc. We have to deal with the entire spectrum, and we must deal with each aspect differently. They all must be from RS, not fringe sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer (talk): One other question. You stated that it is wrong to re-insert an edit after it has been reverted, without discussing it on the Talk page and getting consensus. Then how was Snooganssnoogans' behavior "doing the right thing"? I reverted his insertion since it was to an opinion piece, and more importantly the article doesn't say what Snoog claims it said, which was pointed out here on the Talk page. Yet, he repeatedly re-inserted the edit, without any discussion here. I am not trying to get him banned or suspended or warned or whatever, but it would have been nice if he could have just discussed the issue here and allowed editors to reach a consensus, rather than ignoring my repeated requests to do so and simply continued to edit without explanation. Looking at his user page and talk page, it seems I am not the only person who has ever raised a question about his behavior. Any clarification you could provide would be appreciated. Thanks! -BattleshipGray (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The short version.... Reverting to the status quo version, or version that is according to policy, is generally allowed. Your argument that an opinion source wasn't a RS was automatically rejected, and therefore didn't help you. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Repeated vandalism and bias editing

Please refrain from constantly reverting to a biased version of the page and undoing the work of others. Couple things regarding recent edits:

"American" or any other nationality is almost always used as an adjective to supplement the description of the person's main occupation. Being "an American" is not sufficient to warrant the creation of a dedicated Wikipedia page, hence the characterization based on primary occupation. Award-winning is used on hundreds on Wikipedia articles in the very first sentence description of notable individuals who have been awarded recognition in their main field of work, and is thus perfectly suited for this introduction. Examples include:

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

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

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_DiCamillo

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

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

all of which specifically use "award-winning American" in their introductory description.

The "has a reputation" is blatantly subjective and completely unwarranted given that it comes from a single source that can hardly be responsible for a "reputation", nor does it belong in the introduction, being an opinionated description of a journalist. The "Reception" section is more than sufficient to address these characterizations. This reads as an obvious attempt to sway the opinion of passing-by readers' who will not delve more carefully into the subject. This type of information manipulation does belong to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragore (talk • contribs) 22:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I have removed some of the WP:PEACOCK words from those articles, so thank you for bringing them to our attention. Regardless, problems at other articles should not be presented as an excuse to introduce those same problems here. We work with the sources we have for each article, and Wikipedia doesn't apply precedent to dissimilar articles, unless there is consensus. Grayfell (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, with a very strong preference for independent sources over promotional content. Based on this, and also based on past experience, awards are only noteworthy if they are independently noteworthy, meaning they have enough independent sources for their own award, and should only be mentioned in biographies when supported by quality sources. Further, merely citing a promotional bio doesn't explain to readers what these awards are, nor why they would matter. Additionally, introducing promotional details into the very first sentence is not appropriate, and this is especially bad since this is not explained anywhere in the body of the article... unlike the multiple CJR articles, which are mentioned in the body.

Lacking reliable, independent sources and context, "award winning" doesn't belong in the article at all, especially not the lede. Grayfell (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring complaint

This page was recently reported at WP:AN3. As the closing admin, I wanted to check out the tone of the article. The article does seem very negative against the subject and, without checking all the references, I am hoping that the article is a neutral summary of what is found in the sources. For instance the material in the section John Solomon (political commentator)#Reception might be reviewed for balance. This sentence might be over the top: "He has a reputation for magnifying small scandals and creating fake controversy." I could not find the phrase 'fake controversy' in the sources, so perhaps that can be clarified. Of course the "award-winning" phrase is the usual puffery and can be safely omitted. EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

If there is a clearer or more neutral way of conveying this point than "fake controversy", I would support using that. I think the more common term for this concept is "manufactured controversy", but that article is describing something substantially different from this article's sources. Whatever it is called, the body does mention specific, notable accusations that Solomon has omitted important context to make non-controversial stories (or details of stories) into controversial ones. John Edwards' real estate transaction is one, and the Strzok/Page story is another. Grayfell (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Running through the history of the article, "manufacturing faux scandals" was used for quite a while, and that then changed to "creating fake controversy." To me "fabricating controversy" seems like an easily understood, relatively common, defendable and appropriate term, which would read in the article as "he has also been accused of magnifying small scandals and fabricating controversy."

== Peter NYC (talk) 01:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Prince Charles would say "fabricating contrivances" same difference. SPECIFICO talk 17:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2019

This guy is no longer an investigative Journalist. His colleagues at the Hill complained about his reporting and the Hill moved him to the Opinion side. Specifically, for his reporting on Ukraine. He has several crazy out there conspiracy theories he has pushed since 2016. Fox News even made Sean Hannity stop calling him and others investigative Journalists. Maybe replace Investigative Journalist with Investigative Conspiracy Theorist. See below article as proof.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/leaked-memo-colleagues-unload-on-john-solomon-the-reporter-who-kicked-off-trumps-ukraine-conspiracy 216.8.66.130 (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: "Conspiracy theorist" fails our biographies of living persons policy. Sceptre (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2019

References 7, 11 and 17 on this page all link to the same article. Seems like someone wants to pile on "Something fishy" Suggest removing two of the three. The one with the author's picture is good but hard to read. The others are just reformatted versions with bigger type and ads, etc. 6daveh (talk) 05:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done: I have consolidated the citations to refer to the same named reference, which is the standard way to handle this. All of those links redirected to the same page, and looked identical on my screen. Grayfell (talk) 06:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2019

He is not an investigative reporter and now he is caught up in the Trump Investigation. Please edit any mention of him being an investigative reporter and replace it with former or something.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/biden-ukraine-dirt-file-has-private-email-between-john-solomon-and-rudy-allies 216.8.66.130 (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

From your source: In March, The Hill's investigative reporter John Solomon. Even if he is not currently working as an investigative reporter, it is not necessary to call him a former reporter right away. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

considering he was the investigative reporter for the washington post, and that he has several awards for investigative journalism... i'd say it's okay to call him an investigative reporter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.60.179 (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2019

THIS IS A WHOLLY BIASED OPINION PIECE. Interesting how the accuser is guilty of the very same behavior he accuses Solomon of. This is NOT a factual straight forward accounting of Solomon's history. The prejudice should be removed promptly. You spend the time. I only work for being paid. 65.78.31.71 (talk) 11:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. If you have any specific changes in mind, feel free to propose them. If you think the article should be deleted, see WP:AFD, but you must have a policy-based reason for doing so. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2019

Remove "there is no wrong doing by Joe Biden and Hunter Biden." This is unnecessary and political bias that has clearly been added and removed several times by partisans pushing an agenda. 2600:1700:38F0:3120:4123:A53:D4A9:595C (talk) 04:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: This is currently what is backed up with sources in this section. If you have reliable sources that say otherwise, please submit a new edit request with them. — IVORK _Talk 04:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The Washington Times reported Hunter Biden said his father Joe Biden (at the time Vice President of the United States) knew about the directorship and asked Hunter about it. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/what-joe-biden-said-to-his-son-hunter-about-ukraine-and-burisma-shows-he-knew-it-was-shady

In an interview with CBS Boston, candidate Joe Biden stated he never discussed this matter with his son. https://www.foxnews.com/media/joe-biden-ukraine-hunter-denial

A major indicator of wrongdoing is lying about the activity in question. "Wrong" doesn't necessarily mean criminal. Hunter Biden obtained this Board position, as he's admitted, because of his last name. That's wrong. Illegal? Almost certainly not. But "wrong"? Yes. (It's the same with his Amtrak Board position, but that is not at issue here.)

The statement about there being no evidence of wrongdoing by either of the Bidens is now objectively incorrect as there is now clear evidence that one, the other, or both, are lying. Nearly two weeks have passed since these well-publicized statements were made by the Bidens, and neither has been retracted, walked back, or "clarified." Their statements are mutually exclusive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonyAtlanta (talk • contribs) 05:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

now objectively incorrect as there is now clear evidence that one, the other, or both, are lying is incorrect. soibangla (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2019

In the "Solomon's part in the Trump–Ukraine scandal" section it is Sean Hannity's not Sean Heannity's RAU9231 (talk) 07:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done Typo corrected. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it`

To add to article

To add to this article: the information that, on June 19, 2022, Donald Trump sent a letter to the National Archives naming Kash Patel and John Solomon as "representatives for access to Presidential records of my administration." Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/08/15/trump-fbi-search-solomon-patel/ 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done "Curious timing" indeed. Both have been speculated as having strong Russian ties. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

He is the "registered agent" and Chairman for "The Affinity Media Exchange Inc", on of the advertising agencies that Trump's Truth Social works with:

https://opengovus.com/virginia-business/11282491 (also: TruReporters.com Inc: https://opengovus.com/virginia-business/08279929 )

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1849635/000114036124016719/ef20025342_ex99-4.htm

_W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 20:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Questionable Neutrality

Why is it in virtually every Wikipedia article about a prominent conservative, they are branded a conspiracy theorist? Simply expressing suspicion over potential illicit conduct regarding Hunter and Joe Biden is not a conspiracy theory. It's

I don't see Hillary Clinton labeled a conspiracy theorist for peddling the idea Trump stole the election, for example. CandleinDarkness (talk) 02:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you read the linked articles: Conspiracy theories related to the Trump–Ukraine scandal and Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. This is far beyond "expressing suspicion," but actual false claims that were contrary to the known facts at the time, and are still false.

Hillary has never pushed the theory that he "stole" the election. That he got help from Russia is a solid fact, but if you want to find someone who believes Trump is an "illegitimate president" who did steal the election, look no further than former president Jimmy Carter:

"And I think the interference although not yet quantified, if fully investigated would show that Trump didn't actually win the election in 2016. He lost the election, and he was put into office because the Russians interfered on his behalf."

It takes a lot for any living president to openly criticize a sitting president. They tend to treat each other with respect. Trump is so different in all the negative ways imaginable that living presidents have broken with that norm and heavily criticized him, not only for his serial lying, but his subservience to Russia and Putin. The intelligence community saw so much collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia in its proven election interference, and so much subservience to Putin by Trump, that the leaders of our intelligence agencies openly said he was a Russian asset (not agent) and useful idiot. They see him as being under Putin's influence. So it's natural that there was, and still is, justified suspicion, not an absurd conspiracy theory, that he won because of the Russian help. Maybe, maybe not. We may never know, but it's highly likely. They interfered in myriad ways, including penetrating the electoral systems in most states. We still haven't seen any proof they actually changed any votes, but their influence no doubt convinced many people to vote for Trump, so Putin still got his wish. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)