Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Rearranged the lead

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

---

I think it's better to say who made the claim and when. Also removed all "conspiracy theory" talk, unsupported by sources. Three easy paragraphs: Claim, counterclaim, possible foreign meddling. Feel free to dispute it, of course. But keep civil! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

After some tweaking, this revision is what I'd call a good version. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Now showing Biden (two supporting cast below). InedibleHulk (talk) 08:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I have restored part of the old text in the 2nd para. Claiming that the "video shows Biden bragging about getting Shokin fired" is carrying the water for the conspiracy theorists. It did not happen like that, nor does the WaPo sources say it happened like that. Zaathras (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

But Biden had exaggerated what happened. At a January 2018 Council on Foreign Relations event, he bragged about firing the Ukrainian prosecutor, telescoping the timeline from months of diplomacy into hours. “I’m leaving in six hours,” Biden claimed he had said. “If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch, he got fired.”

I think that's fairly reflected in my version. The source certainly doesn't say the video showed why he acted (or claimed he acted). Your version suggests he denied an allegation in 2018 which was made in 2020, refers to a "conspiracy theory" that isn't cited or previously mentioned, essentially repeats "in accord with the official and bipartisan policy of the federal government of the United States" and omits the setting of the boast for no apparent reason. Is the word "bragging" your main complaint? If so, perhaps we can find middle ground. If it's something else, what? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

After learning what "carrying the water" means, I'll also categorically deny that. I don't even believe there are conspiracy theorists in this story, just regularly lying lawyers and politicians. Saying Biden bragged about personally getting Shokin fired to prevent him from prosecuting Burisma might be carrying Trump's water, but I said nothing about his motive. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Zaathras, forgot to ping you. No rush. Just letting you know I'm willing to compromise. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• I'm a hard no on anything that would remove "The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is..." or the words "falsely" and "unconfirmed" from the lead; these are an extremely well-cited summary of the subject, accurately reflecting what the top-quality sources say, and therefore must appear in the first sentence per WP:LEAD In particular "unconfirmed" and "false" are very well-cited and therefore must be stated prominently for WP:BLP reasons - as far I am aware, among high-quality sources that have examined them, it is completely undisputed that the central points of the conspiracy theory are false. Either way, all of these things have been extensively discussed here the past and shouldn't be removed from the lead without an extremely clear consensus on talk. EDIT: See the sources I listed above if more are needed in the article. Also, you have said that you feel that the term "conspiracy theory" is unsupported by the sources; it appears to me to be extremely well-supported, as the most well-cited point in the entire article. If you have objections to individual sources, raise them one by one and explain how you don't think they support the text - there's enough there that we can remove the weaker ones anyway without much objection; and since the description of this as a conspiracy theory is so basic and uncontroversial, it is easy to find dozens more (see above.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  In the section immediately above, I individually objected to all three of the citations actually used inline, explaining how none verified the claim. Called them #8, #32 and #5. If you know of dozens of sources that do share your description, replace those three. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  As to your first point, adding "falsely" before "claimed" could have been easier, without keeping the claimants anonymous and everything else the old version had wrong. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

The rewrite was worse in every respect and went against several long and detailed talk page discussions that improved the article. Any specific suggestions, taking account of established consensus and presenting policy and source based reasons to change, should be brought to the talk page indivudually. Thanks to Aquillioni for restoring the article text to the status quo. SPECIFICO talk 00:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I've seen how you "improved" Donald Trump's biography with these stalling tactics and incessant insults. I'm not going through any of these time-wasting hoops. I think my version is way better, and I'm glad I accomplished that, but will accept how you continue to disagree in every respect and go away accordingly. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Four quick questions

Does anyone want to defend uncorrecting points A, B, C and/or D? If so, go for it. If not, restore the facts. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I've restored A, B and D. Still waiting on the editor who had a problem with following the source on C. No hurry, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, this is bullshit. There is no ongoing discussion on these points. I tried to start one, and everyone declined. I'll ask again, though. Does anyone have a reason to say the firing was about protecting Hunter Biden, rather than his business interests, as the source says? Anybody see why we should mistake an ODNI report about Russians against Joe Biden as "intelligence community" analysis about both Bidens? Is it a good idea to be wordy with that list of organizations and perceived flaws? Why call Shokin "the prosecutor"? Why not follow the source about where Biden was filmed bragging about personally getting Shokin fired? Discuss or don't, but don't pretend we are if we aren't. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Silence <> consent, your edits really didn't seem to be an improvement. Zaathras (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

They reflect the citations. The alternative is unverified claims about living people. How is original research better? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Was there consensus to add these three lies, one half-truth and two clunky lists in the first place? Can someone link the discussion? Is consensus only needed to correct misinformation? Can I make something up, refuse to defend it and revert anyone who doesn't wait for the silence to end, alleging ongoing discussion? Why or why not? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Hiya Hulk. The list copyedit you did, and the one extra naming of Shokin seem like improvements to me. I don't care much about A, so count me in favor of whichever option leads to less discussion. For B, source do indeed refer to it as an analysis presented by the intelligence community, so I'm fine with that wording. I support your change from "found that" to "said". For C, I have a slight preference for "taking credit for" over "bragging" just to steer a bit clearer of the source's exact wording. I don't think the setting matters and it's not a focus of the source's coverage.

D is meatier to me. The report itself and this Politico source evidence the involvement of the Biden family, more than just Joe, in the narrative supposedly pushed by Russia and its proxies. I propose keeping the status quo language but adding the secondary and primary source to better support it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I can't load Politico and don't want to download the PDF, but if you say they cover both Bidens, I believe you and support the change. On C, do you know of a source saying the CFR video showed why Biden acted? If so, that's more important than word choice or setting. If not, are you OK with deleting the last clause (acting to implement bipartisan US policy rather than for the reasons the conspiracy theory alleges)? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

And yeah, B is essentially the "one half-truth" I meant in my first of five unanswered questions above, if anyone's lost. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:48, 14 April 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.

False allegation?

This should be updated to alleged allegation. There is physical proof that says its true, there is verbal proof that says its not. Since it will never go to court to prove either way it's hard to imagine how it can be closed as either or. 2600:387:15:614:0:0:0:C (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no physical proof that says its true. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

There's also no physical proof that the laptop contains fake material inserted by Russians or anyone else. Look how the article balances both of those unevidenced allegations. In the one, the unevidenced allegation against Joe Biden is flat-out said to be false; in the other, the unevidenced allegation that Hunter's laptop contains fake material inserted by Russians is given credibility. This is an obvious case of bias. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

allegation against Joe Biden is flat-out said to be false because it indisputably is and we flatly state so. allegation that Hunter's laptop contains fake material is uncertain, as are many other unknowns surrounding it, and we treat it accordingly. soibangla (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Joe Biden corruptly got a prosecutor fired to protect his son. To the contrary. What he did endangered Hunter. You also need to define "it". -- Valjean (talk) 01:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Regardless, flat-out saying that the conspiracy theory is false (despite the impossibility of *proving* this negative) in the first sentence is inconsistent with how conspiracy theories are generally written about on Wikipedia. For example: 9/11 conspiracy theories Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories Robert F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories Martin Luther King Jr. assassination conspiracy theories Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge conspiracy theory QAnon. The closest I can find to flat-out saying that it's "false" is Pizzagate, where it calls the conspiracy theory "debunked": Pizzagate conspiracy theory. In general, the way conspiracy theories are written about on Wikipedia is to describe them, describe the evidence against them and state the general consensus that they are false. Not for Wikipedia itself to flat-out say that the conspiracy theory is false. The term "conspiracy theory" itself already contains the implication that the evidence for something is inadequate and that it is not generally accepted to be true. I don't see why this article would be written about differently than any other. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Different conspiracy theories are constructed in different ways, so drawing direct parallels between conspiracy theories here is problematic. Many conspiracy theories are constructed with unverified and unverifiable claims such that the purveyors can assert (and people will believe) it can't be disproved so therefore it "must" be true, thereby ensuring it will persist. But in this case, the conspiracy theory is "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..." It is an irrefutable fact that Joe acted on the basis of official American foreign policy, in alignment with the EU and international NGOs. It is beyond exasperating that this simple and indisputably exculpatory fact is routinely ignored by many. It's like ignoring a 16-ton pink elephant in the middle of the room and instead running off to chase shiny objects, and this goes a long way toward explaining why unreliable right-wing sources dwell on this "BOMBSHELL DEVELOPMENT" while reliable sources shrug and move on. It's a replay of Benghazi, when Fox News became The Benghazi Channel for two years, insisting that everyone else was ignoring a massive scandal, though six Republican investigations ultimately found nothing. And if Republicans take the House this year, it's not a question if there will be Hunter laptop investigations, but only how many. What a circus shitshow this is gonna be. soibangla (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• despite the impossibility of *proving* this negative - that is a misunderstanding. It is often difficult to prove a negative, but it can be done, as is the case here. As it says in the article, the basic well-established facts contradict the conspiracy theory on every point (ie. Shokin's removal was due to corruption, was a long time in coming, and was part of a larger policy that was not set by Biden; in fact, part of the issue was that he had failed to investigate Burisma. His replacement continued the investigation.) Not a single speck of serious evidence of any sort for the conspiracy theory has ever been produced, which is hardly a surprise when it flagrantly contradicts every established fact. --Aquillion (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Lets start a consensus list for this article so there is no more time wasted on this and the laptop bit. SPECIFICO talk 23:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with this 100%. Let’s see what your sources say about the laptop. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear, your argument is that the reason this article says the conspiracy theory is false but that the 9/11 conspiracy theory page doesn't can be summarized as "there's more evidence against the Biden-Ukraine allegations than there is against the planes on 9/11 being holograms"? Bueller 007 (talk) 22:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The terminology "False allegation" makes no sense. Either an allegation was made or it wasn't. If the latter? then this entire article should be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

GoodDay, you've been here long enough to know it doesn't work that way. If the allegation is found to be true, then the article gets retitled and the dispute and grounds for correction all get documented here. We document all phases of history here. We WP:PRESERVE content. -- Valjean (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The grammar doesn't appear correct. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Please clarify. -- Valjean (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I already did. There's actually no such thing as a false allegation. Either something was alleged or it wasn't. On that basis, I've no opposition to deleting this article. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

An allegation can be true or false. Regardless, RS have documented a controversy about this conspiracy theory, therefore we will NEVER delete the article. That's an extremely unwikipedian thought. -- Valjean (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Goodday, when someone speaks of a "false allegation", they are speaking in regards to the truthfulness (or lack thereof) of the allegation being made. Not to whether the allegation was or was not even uttered. I'm having a hard time believing that someone is confused by this. Zaathras (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no such thing as a false claim, it is a simply a notion of one's opinion or personal gatherings.

It is not our job to tell people what is truthy or falsy, rather we are here to define what the topic is and its impact. DevSpenpai::talk 12:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect. We follow what the sources say on a topic. Zaathras (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I have a peculiar feeling that if anyone edited the article citing a source which doesn't state the conspiracy is bogus, it would be reverted. The reason? The source isn't "reliable". Why wouldn't it be reliable? Because they don't tell the same narrative other sources do. Does that seem neutral to you? DevSpenpai::talk 15:16, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, in Wikipedia terms, that is exactly what we mean by neutral. Please read our policy in which "neutral" is explained. In brief, if all the other sources tell a certain narrative and one source deviates, our article text must reflect whatever narrative is presented in those N-1 sources. SPECIFICO talk 15:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

DevSpenpai, you can test your hypothesis right now by posting such a source. Please proceed. soibangla (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

No need to call it an "alleged allegation." Calling it a "false allegation" is weasel wording at best. It should obviously just read, "allegation," as that's what it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:268:964E:A882:512B:6AF6:8E78:221E (talk) 07:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

"False" is how the allegations are characterized by reliable sources. Zaathras (talk) 12:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

How do you establish the reliability of a source beyond simply agreeing with its verdict? 2A00:23C5:118E:A00:E42C:4468:9443:409 (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The reliable sources noticeboard is where the reliability or lack thereof of news outlets is determined. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC: WHAT content about the laptop and emails is clearly necessary for this article?

WHAT content SOLELY about the laptop and emails is clearly necessary for this article? The question of alleged corruption by anyone is off-topic in this RfC. -- Valjean (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• The email where Hunter and Pozharskyi discuss meeting with Joe. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Clarification by nominator

• This is not a FOR or AGAINST RfC, but a place to discuss the issue of WHAT. There is no voting here, just discussion.

We need to stay on-topic. While alleged corruption by Hunter Biden is tangentially related to the conspiracy theory, it is not a main topic, and even if he were found to be very corrupt, that has no effect on the truth or falsity of the theory. It is primarily about allegedly corrupt actions by Joe Biden.

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 his alleged corruption. The facts say otherwise, but what content from the laptop and emails debacle is related to exactly THAT conspiracy theory?

Several editors here believe that most of the laptop and emails content should be moved to the Hunter Biden article (where it is barely mentioned) as it isn't really part of to the conspiracy theory described here. Before we remove content, we need to determine what part needs to stay here.

One reason this is important is that we need to avoid unnecessary duplication and editing in two articles. We also need to follow WP:Summary style so we can link between the articles and include summaries in both articles. -- Valjean (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion: What content should be removed from or stay in this article?

• Just remove the laptop material from this page and Hunter’s page. Wikipedia should not amplify conspiracies. 2600:1700:1111:5940:C1C7:3A2E:D03D:E567 (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
  • We document, not delete, such things. The point is that the laptop issue is not part of the conspiracy, but it is certainly covered by lots of RS, so we are required to document what they say. -- Valjean (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Continuing to insist "it's all a conspiracy" is disruptive editing and violates WP:NOTGETTINGIT. That the Hunter Biden laptop a) exists; and b) its contents are legitimate now meets WP:Consensus and is easy to reference. Please stop. Lexlex (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Lexlex, only a couple editors are advocating the complete deletion of the laptop material from all of Wikipedia. Regardless of the dubious political motivations for using it to create a faux controversy to damage Joe Biden, rather than treating it as an embarrassment for Hunter, it is discussed in enough RS to make it notable enough for significant mention at Hunter Biden and likely its own article. Most editors here want to move it to its own article, so you may want to !vote in the section below at #Who will back moving the laptop/emails content to Hunter Biden laptop controversy?. -- Valjean (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

  We should include it and not censor it just because it does not fit someone's politics. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Step one to solve this embarrassing disaster (where Wikipedia's main and only substantive coverage of the factual Hunter Biden Ukraine material is in a "conspiracy theory" article) is to start an article on the factual Hunter Biden Ukraine related items. Then divide the material accordingly. Conspiracy theory material here, the other material in the new article. North8000 (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
  • That is exactly the problem. The laptop/email material belongs in Hunter Biden's article, not here. Unless someone can clarify why any of it belongs here, then ALL of it will be moved. -- Valjean (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I agree with North that a new article is the better place. Possibly Biden laptop controversy. Hunter Biden himself has very little input in the kerfuffle, it's mostly dozens of outside observers and two newspapers calling each other's credibility into question. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Agreed - The Hunter Biden Laptop deserves its own article where the contents and known facts are detailed and referenced. Those who insist on deleting such attempts are now disruptive editing and clearly violating WP:POV. Lexlex (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  • The "factual Hunter Biden Ukraine material" consists of simple, factual errata such as serving on the board of a Ukrainian natural gas producer, nothing more. The man's entire notability stems from 1) his famous father, and 2) the crackball conspiracy theories that the far-right float by the day about him. Zaathras (talk) 04:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
    • • Biden laptop controversy sounds like a good article title. I anticipate it will get deleted within 120 seconds of publication, under the so-called argument that this here article already exists or that it belongs under Hunter Biden. XavierItzm (talk) 06:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
        • XavierItzm, the laptop/emails content may belong in such an article or in Hunter's article, just not here where it only serves to confuse people. -- Valjean (talk) 06:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
        • Xperson, neither of those is the reason such an article should be deleted. The reason is that the only facts are 1) Biden owned a laptop -- just like hundreds of millioins of other people in the world, and 2) Various politicians, media, and opportunist promoters have claimed its one of hundreds of smoking guns they flog to line their pockets. Neither is the basis of WP notability. It's no more notable than the Texas Talking Bear story. SPECIFICO talk 13:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

  They are closely linked. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Moved here from above by Valjean. I don't know if this is the place to discuss the clarification section, but can somebody fill me in on to what alleged corruption by Hunter Biden refers? I don't see something like this in either article. If Hunter Biden is allegedly corrupt (truly or falsely), I think this "Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory" article could and should encapsulate both Bidens (and key Ukrainians). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC) Anything either corroborating or contradicting "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", if such content exists. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC) InedibleHulk, I'm sorry for any misunderstanding. That is likely my fault and I have added markup above to hopefully make clear the topic of this RfC. Here it is: "WHAT content SOLELY about the laptop and emails is clearly necessary for this article?" The question of alleged corruption by anyone is off-topic in this RfC. We need to know what parts, if any, of the content about the laptop and emails should stay here before moving all of it to the Hunter Biden article where it really belongs. -- Valjean (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC) You make a big point of saying 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 his alleged corruption. The facts say otherwise, but what content from the laptop and emails debacle is related to exactly THAT conspiracy theory? How can alleged corruption be both off-topic and exactly what the article/conspiracy theory is all about? And why can you assert without evidence that Hunter Biden, a BLP, is alleged to be corrupt, but I can't ask where you read that? What good is a Request for Comment if you're only going to keep moving and boxing up responses? If there's an answer you want, just state it and ask for Yes or No votes, it'd probably be easier than repeatedly changing the question. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC) Answered on your talk page. -- Valjean (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Valjean wrote on my talk page, Question (of this RfC): Does the laptop/email material have anything to do with the conspiracy theory? His answer was "No", but that's beside the point. Anybody attempting to answer the question of "WHAT content" with a description of specific content should be aware of the alternate unwritten Yes/No question as well (so don't hide or delete this comment, please). InedibleHulk (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Honestly, this RfC confuses me. Isn't the Hunter Biden laptop part of a conspiracy theory? Or just an extension of the Hunter-Joe-Burisma-Shokin conspiracy theory? It's hard to keep up. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• It is too early for an WP:RFC per WP:RFCBEFORE - RFCs can't generally answer broad sweeping questions like this. We need to first have a discussion of what goes where (or nowhere), and figure out which parts are controversial or uncontroversial in the process, then hold an RFC on very specific questions of "should this paragraph go in this article, that article, etc", plus any compromises or alternatives that come up in the discussion. --Aquillion (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• This RFC seems to be poorly formed, or I cant understand it at least. However, I support inclusion of the laptop info at the Hunter Biden article and here, both broadly construed. For Hunter article, it is in fact what he is most known for and to whitewash it is violation of WP:NOTCENSORED. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• Bad RfC. For one, whining is not tolerated. Sorry, I should have described the prompt as yelling. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

NOTICE. #Hunter Biden laptop controversy article recreated. See below and stop discussion of the laptop and emails here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Not conspiracy theory

The words “conspiracy theory” need to be dropped right away as Wikipedia is quickly losing all credibility and is becoming untrustworthy among all readers who see this article. Senators Grassley and Johnson published a senate investigative report of clear evidence and facts that describe in no uncertain terms that it is certain that Joe Biden was involved in a great deal of corrupt acts in Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:5E85:D000:894C:3377:7B1F:9CD8 (talk) 09:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

a senate investigative report of clear evidence and facts that describe in no uncertain terms that it is certain that Joe Biden was involved in a great deal of corrupt acts in Ukraine is false. soibangla (talk) 10:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC) Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Biden admitted he threatened to hold funds

This is a biased and incorrect article. 2603:8080:F901:7F00:E842:C0FC:662D:E762 (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Not only did he admit it, he boasted about it. On video! Just not for the reason you think. You don't need to read very deep into the article to see why. soibangla (talk) 00:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory" not ideal title. Let's discuss other options.

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus not reached to change the title. Andrevan@ 04:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

---

I have noticed a couple serious suggestions above that appeal to me:

• Joe Biden corruption allegation, similar to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation
• Smear campaign against Joe Biden (Maybe add Ukraine to the beginning?)

"Conspiracy theory" isn't the ideal title, so let's discuss these suggestions (and others). -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Adding Biden-Ukraine corruption allegation as another option. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

As the guy who raised both, I support both and love them equally, you decide which one lives. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

As to putting "Ukraine" before "smear campaign", I think it suggests Ukraine was behind the smear campaign. I get that the lead says a few unnamed officials may have, possibly (or not) "used" Rudy Giuliani, but then the body says that same poor unfortunate soul "spearheaded" the whole project. Can't have it both ways, blaming Ukrainians and a vampire, at least not in the title. The body is more debatable, open to twists. Some readers like not knowing whodunnit, and legit can't see why others who don't bother enjoying Crime & Mystery at all. Others, they most certainly don't, it's about seeing the heel get his or her comeuppance. Still a third (fringe?) demographic treat the dates and places as if they were pieces of historiography, those perverts! Long story short, you gotta give divergent storylines room to grow, organically, let each reader think they came to their own conclusion after careful independent review, avoid explicitly casting the villain, don't forcefully spoonfeed (potential) red herrings, less is more...you know what I mean? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support Joe Biden corruption allegation. It is NPOV and encyclopaedic. I know some people have enjoyed using the C-T thing but now that cigars are exploding all over the place it looks like they were the theorists. "Conspiracy" prejudges the outcome. It was always unseemly and it is time to go back to NPOV titles and let the long-term WP:RS speak for themselves.XavierItzm (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Definitely not "Smear campaign against Joe Biden". A "smear" is a false accusation knowingly made to damage someone's reputation. Calling it a "smear campaign" requires you to get inside the heads of the people making the assertions. To say they were smearing him, you have to demonstrate: (1) that the assertions are false, (2) that they *knew* they were false. Also, the article should not be about the *campaign* (i.e., focussing on who said what), it should be about the actual allegations being made. Joe Biden corruption allegation is the better option. Bueller 007 (talk) 04:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support Joe Biden corruption allegation. Calling this a conspiracy theory is misleading as it involves some things that are clearly true. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, like the 9-11 conspiracy theories don't claim the towers fell? The JFK conspiracy theories think he's hiding in hyannis? SPECIFICO talk 17:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  What exactly is the conspiracy in this "conspiracy theory"? Aren't they just alleging that Biden's stated motives for firing Shokin were not his actual motives, which were financial/familial? That an allegation is incorrect does not make it a "conspiracy theory"... There has to be an actual conspiracy proposed. Hard to see what that would be here. Bueller 007 (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The conspiracy theory is still the crux of the topic here, as it revolves around the tinfoil accusations that President Biden unduly influenced internal Ukrainian affairs, ordered Shokin fired, etc... People seem to think that a handful of authentic emails on a laptop invalidates all the crazy around this topic. 19:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)ValarianB (talk)

  First, this is an accusation about Vice President Biden. More importantly, it doesn't matter if any or all of it is true or crazy or unproven or unpopular or persistent. All you need to ascertain to determine if a theory is a conspiracy theory is whether it's about a conspiracy. If a neckbearded Nazi in his mom's basement tells you Richard Gere once put a gerbil in his ass, that's not a conspiracy theory. If an old wife high on meth swears she got her warts from a toad, that's not a conspiracy theory. When Ralph Wiggum doubles down on his delusions about seeing Snagglepuss (going to the bathroom) or Skinner and Krabappel's closet babies (one of the babies looked at him), guess what? Exactly! There is no such thing as a conspiracy plotted by a single person and never has been. And unless I'm missing something, this is exclusively a smear/allegation against 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

  I realize this is from a few weeks ago, but, nothing in this response refutes what I said. ValarianB (talk) 12:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: Should avoid calling it vaguely titled "Joe Biden corruption allegation", as this precludes there being multiple separate corruption allegations now or in the future. Make sure to include Ukraine or something that specifically sets the scope of the article and the allegation. Perhaps simply Firing of Viktor Shokin as suggested higher up on the talk page. I strongly Support moving away from an article that frames all discussion of this as a Conspiracy theory -- just because you can gather some reliable sources referring to it that way, the majority of sources discussing this subject do not frame it as such. So discussion of it being conspiracy should be part of a larger article. This feels like a general failing of Wiki on NPOV -- you can find enough reliable sources calling something a conspiracy then you can frame all discussion of the subject under that name. Deserves a general audit. -- 136.49.80.62 (talk) 07:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

  I think this article has too much focus on Biden, Trump, and Giuliani for "firing of Viktor Shokin" to be a good title. I liked your previous suggestion of "Biden-Ukraine corruption allegations", and supported that below, though. Endwise (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support Biden-Ukraine corruption allegations (or allegation?) which is better than the vague "Joe Biden corruption allegation", which could be referring to anything. When I google "Biden Ukraine Shokin", I do not see the term "conspiracy theory" anywhere, so this title is not in keeping with the labels reliable sources use to describe the allegations/WP:COMMONNAME. "Corruption allegations" is the most descriptive of what this article is actually discussing and reflective of the verbiage recent reliable sources appear to be using, so it is what we should go with. Endwise (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose both Joe Biden corruption allegation and Smear campaign against Joe Biden. Neither is neutral, the former for suggesting this corruption allegation has weight and the latter for more obvious reasons than that. The current title is not good and there is no good COMMONNAME idea that I can think of, but I think the status quo is still better than those two options. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Muboshgu, I see your point and agree. I now think that Biden-Ukraine corruption allegation is a better option, but open to other suggestions. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support Biden-Ukraine corruption allegation as another option. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  Are there really multiple allegations? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps "Biden-Ukraine corruption allegation" would be better. Endwise (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  Oops! Good catch. Now fixed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. If there was a conspiracy, it was Giuliani's conspiracy in search of evidence that he sought to manufacture from the flimsiest of pieces with the help of Russian intelligence and Russian proxies. Being a lie, it didn't work and fell apart. Yet, the lesson Giuliani absorbed from Russian disinformation "while working for Trump ahead of the 2020 US election" is that "the allegation can be just as damaging as the action," damage that cannot be undone in most minds. This Trumpian tactic works with his supporters. He throws nonsense at the wall to see what sticks. All of it, even the most ridiculous, sticks in the minds of his supporters, while only that backed by evidence sticks in the mind of his critics and mainstream media. "Giuliani spearheaded Trump's pressure campaign in Ukraine." This is about Giuliani's efforts. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. As Muboshgu says, there's no COMMONNAME, so we need the least bad description of what happened. Both proposals are considerably worse than the existing title. Guettarda (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose all. Reliable sources overwhelmingly treat this as a conspiracy theory. Some examples:

Collapsing list of sources and quotes
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[Donald Trump] soon developed his own magical thinking about Ukraine. He decided, despite the consensus of the U.S. intelligence community, to believe not that Russia had hacked the election on his behalf but that Ukraine had hacked it on behalf of Clinton. He also seized on a conspiracy theory that former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden—now a candidate for president—helped fire a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor general not, as was actually the case, to advance U.S. anticorruption policies but to protect his son Hunter Biden. Some pro-Russia commentators insisted they were right. Many blamed Mr. Biden, dredging up old conspiracy theories about his son Hunter and Hunter’s employment at a Ukrainian gas company when Mr. Biden was vice president and engaged in diplomatic efforts with the country. There was no evidence of wrongdoing by the Bidens, but conservatives seized on the narrative during the 2020 election. Various other conspiracy theories have alleged that the Obama administration knew about potential corruption in Ukraine involving Biden, but the information was somehow covered up. These conspiracy theories, again included in the Facebook post, also occasionally allege that Pelosi impeached Trump as a political move for Biden. There is no evidence that the Obama administration conducted investigations into Biden’s involvement in Ukraine. Trump has more than one conspiracy theory about Ukraine. They have two things in common: Their origins are murky and they lack evidence. Trump and Giuliani, who was known as "America's mayor" for his leadership after 9/11, have pushed unsubstantiated allegations that Joe Biden sought to help his son by persuading the Ukrainian government to dismiss a general prosecutor named Viktor Shokin. The focus on the Bidens indicates that the Democratic managers expect Trump's legal team to heavily lean into the conspiracy theories involving the Bidens and Burisma later in the week and gives them the opportunity to set the tone early on. Still, addressing the allegations as part of the highly publicized impeachment trial risks giving them more attention, potentially hurting the case for impeachment and hindering Biden on the campaign trail. Hunter Biden’s work with Burisma has been the subject of scrutiny from Republicans as well as far-right conspiracy theories that have been widely debunked. The US president is facing an impeachment inquiry that could remove him from office, precisely because of his relentless pursuit of conspiracy theories. Here are the five such theories that lie at the heart of the Ukraine scandal: 1. Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire its chief prosecutor, to shield his son Hunter Hunter is the younger of Joe Biden’s two sons. He never showed as much promise as his brother Beau, stumbling through life and often trading on his dad’s name and position for financial gain. He’s more or less operated in the background as something of a black sheep in the family, but he emerged at the forefront of American politics in 2019 over work he did in Ukraine that fueled a bogus conspiracy theory at the heart of Trump’s decision to strong-arm the country’s president. References

There are obvious BLP issues beyond that in implying that there could be any truth to things that sources overwhelmingly describe as false. Possibly it could be changed to something like Biden–Burisma conspiracy theory or the like, since there are other (much less well-known) conspiracy-theories concerning Biden and the Ukraine and are likely to be more following the war, but I don't think it's necessary. --Aquillion (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Aquillion: huh? Every single one of those sources is from before the reports from the New York Times and Washington Post were released, after which he media started to change the kind of language they used to describe all this (i.e. I seem to see "conspiracy theory" less). Endwise (talk) 13:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, those are not acceptable sources for this situation. PackMecEng (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• You're going to have to support the assertion that there were NYT and Wapo stories that changed things with evidence, which I'm not seeing. The NYT article (if you're referring to the one I assume you are) was a passing mention of no import and the Washington Post one largely said that nothing had changed - I see neither as significant. Obviously because they are quite recent it is difficult to find any non-opinion coverage after them, but that very absence suggests that they are not as important as some opinion pieces have implied. At the very least the insistence that two very recent articles whose wording largely does not support your implication that there was any significant shift in opinion somehow changed everything to the point where we must disregard all sources before them is WP:RECENTISM. --Aquillion (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
• Endwise: "all this," or one aspect of it? media started to change the kind of language they used to describe all this Where? soibangla (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support - "Joe Biden corruption allegation" seems the best title per WP:COMMONNAME. From what I can see recent sources seem to describe it this way. Sources pre-NY times story are not longer valid descriptions of the situation as you can see by Aquillion's use of outdated sources. PackMecEng (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

PackMecEng: recent sources seem to describe it this way Seem? Cites please? I am aware of a new narrative that has been constructed: "Even the NYT and WaPo finally admitted the whole thing was a huge hoax, just like the Trump-Russia hoax, fabricated by the deep state-fake news-DNC cabal." That dog don't hunt, and I see it creeping into our Talk discussions. soibangla (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Because that is the new reality of the situation. Like it or not, you are not required to like it but you do have to accept how RS describe it. It is not to the ridiculous hyperbolic level that you quote there, since from what I can tell, no one besides you is saying that. But we cannot pretend it's as black and white as it once was. So we need to move forward with a title that accurately describes the common name and knowledge of the topic. Simple as that! PackMecEng (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

you do have to accept how RS describe it I'm happy to, which is why I asked you to provide them. no one besides you is saying that Maybe pay closer attention. soibangla (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe pay closer attention. Weird, I did a search of the talk page for "Even the NYT and WaPo finally admitted the whole thing was a huge hoax, just like the Trump-Russia hoax, fabricated by the deep state-fake news-DNC cabal." and it was only you. Even broken up, only you. So I am not sure what you mean by pay closer attention? But anyhow, that is getting off topic. =) PackMecEng (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

That's a peculiar way of "searching." Is it your reasoning that because I used quotation marks that I was repeating an exact quote, even broken up? Well OK then. Got those sources yet? soibangla (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC) soibangla (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose all basically per Aquillion; insufficient evidence that the treatment in RS has actually changed to a sufficient degree that the current title is a poor description. XOR'easter (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support - for "Joe Biden corruption allegation" or something similar since several aspects of the allegations have proven to be true. Conspiracy theory makes it look like everything is false and absurd and puts it in the same venue as other completely unfounded conspiracy theories like covid vaccines having nanomachines to control your mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:1A3F:C906:5B72:D462:32D:5171 (talk) 09:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  What aspect of this do you think has been proven true? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I object to these types of RfCs, nothing personal, but I feel WP:TITLE is clear enough..."Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources"...The content most commonly referred to as Conspiracy theory is for a reason that we should remove ourselves from as much as possible. It is somewhat egotistical for us to "rename" something because some might find it objectionable, unless it is within reason AKA against WP:TITLE or MOS...The main reason for this is because it confuses the readers, and makes it harder for them to find what they are looking for, just for starters...However, I digress and will probably end up casting a vote eventually....but not today.(edit) Additionally, I will expect who ever objects the use of term "Conspiracy theory" in the title to be at almost every other article on Wiki with the same "issue" as this...You have a lot of work to do, I'll make sure to check around to see that you are staying on task ;-P ...DN (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose all. As many other editors have pointed out there's no COMMONNAME, Both proposals are essentially editorialized (no offense). It's fairly simple everyone, the bottom line is we say what sources say. There should be consensus for that. DN (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose all proposed changes "allegation" elevates this to sound as if it were a good faith suspicion. The WEIGHT of mainstream sources call it a conspiracy theory. And, not surprisingly, it also happens to be a conspiracy theory, so there's that. SPECIFICO talk 23:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support Calling this a "conspiracy theory" is partisan and does not fit NPOV. Allegations against notable politicians and their kin will always be controversial. Since nothing is proven nor disproven, the article should reflect this. eta: it makes no sense to refer to allegations of political corruption as a "conspiracy theory". Conspiracy theories involve paranoid & absurd claims, often with a shadowy group somehow pulling everyone's strings. But there's nothing unbelievable, or even unusual, about corrupt, nepotistic politicians, in fact it's all too mundane. Thus, the term should be "allegations" or "scandal". Xcalibur (talk) 04:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment This has been lingering for 3 months, so long that I almost opined again, forgetting that I already did near the beginning. This should be closed by someone uninvolved as a pretty straightforward "no consensus to change". ValarianB (talk) 11:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@ValarianB: I agree with ValarianB in the observation that there is no consensus to change and that the discussion should be closed. BirdValiant (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

yes, it should probably be closed. although I'd like to add that calling corruption allegations "tinfoil" seems downright gullible. it may not be proven, but there's nothing unbelievable about this. Xcalibur (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Nothing about it is believable if you read the cited sources. I urge you to review them. SPECIFICO talk 01:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll admit, I haven't delved into this too much, so I'll take a look. My first impression is that there's nothing absurd about the possibility. It seems like ppl refuse to believe allegations against Biden, simply because he's not Trump. I'm not sure if gullible was the right word, or naïve, or something else, but the resistance to this seems rather biased. However, I'll withhold further judgment until I familiarize myself further. Xcalibur (talk) 02:05, 16 July 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.

First sentence

The opening sentence as of now is as follows:

"The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, also known as the Burisma conspiracy theory, is a series of unconfirmed 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."

Sooo... are the claims "unconfirmed", or are they "false"? If the allegations are "false", how can the claims be "unconfirmed"? The lady doth protest too much. 2404:4408:4741:800:54C9:B4A1:6AD2:380E (talk) 11:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

They can't be confirmed because they're false. ValarianB (talk) 11:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

"False claims centered on the baseless allegation" might be better grammatically. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed Andre🚐 16:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Hunter Biden's salary being cut two months after Joe Biden left office should be noted in the article.

I feel this is clearly notable, and relevant to the article. [1] I understand that there is some debate about the reliability of the NYP, so I am adding this for discussion. I will add it if there is no consensus opposition. Thespearthrower (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The NYP is unreliable. Andre🚐 05:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

OP: You would need consensus for your proposed edit, not lack of consensus against. SPECIFICO talk 15:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Politifact says that Hunter Biden's pay remains unverified, so I oppose this addition from the WP:NYPOST. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2022

hey why is this call a conspiracy its been proved true by multiple sources? 2600:1700:5264:1490:C99D:E526:D01B:FE (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Off topic rant. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 22:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Cannot say bad things about Dems in wikipedia, unfortunately. Everything bad about their politicians is just conspiracy around here. –Daveout(talk) 13:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC) I'm here to rectify my previous statement, not due to any threat coming from above at all. I, by my own free will (can't stress that enough), am here to guarantee to everyone that all articles about Democrat politicians are 100% true and impartial. And that all editors have the most absolute freedom to question and disagree with that statement without fear of facing any threat or retaliation. Here, at Wikipedia, free speech and plurality of opinion are sacred. Thank you all. (did i say that right? do you think the admins are gonna like it?.... wait is the mic is still on?....) –Daveout(talk) 20:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Not an edit request. – Recoil (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

"Conspiracy Theory"

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.

---

There's literally video evidence of him threatening to withhold funds to Ukraine until they fire Viktor Shokin. Why do you always do this? Anything that even remotely makes democrats look bad is labeled conspiracy. Why can't you be neutral? 72.213.55.139 (talk) 05:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

As the article indicates, and is well known, Shokin was NOT investigating corruption, and especially not Burisma. Firing him would be bad for Burisma and Hunter. Gah4 (talk) 22:32, 1 October 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.

US Senate Committee report

On September 23, 2020. a U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and U.S. Senate Committee on Finance Majority Staff Report was published titled "Hunter Biden, Burisma, and Corruption: The Impact on U.S. Government Policy and Related Concerns". The report highlights many verifiable facts related to Biden family interests in Ukraine which gave rise to the "Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory". Impartiality and motivation of this report as a whole has been challenged by Democrats.

Requesting addition of the section above.

It's not right that this article doesn't mention the report published by a U.S. Senate committee that details a lot of the dealing that gave rise to the "Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory". It doesn't point any fingers at Joe Biden specifically, but it does highlight significant conflicts of interest and personal gains by the Biden family members. If the goal is to present a balanced view, then ignoring the report by the U.S. Senate is self-defeating. https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/HSGAC%20-%20Finance%20Joint%20Report%202020.09.23.pdf. This report must be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasili.zolotov (talk • contribs)

Lol, no. This is the report that Senator Johnson openly admitted was produced to benefit Donald Trump's ultimately-failed 2020 reelection bid - Republicans tell the truth about Biden probe: “It would certainly help Donald Trump win re-election”. This was a partisan hit piece. Zaathras (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

You are highlighting differences of opinion. It's not about judging who is right. It's a historical fact that this report has been produced by the U.S. Senate. The existence of this report (it's not a question of content) is relevant to existence of the conspiracy theory. The objection is not valid. Vasili.zolotov (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

That it exists does not make it relevant or useful to this article. Zaathras (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

"This was a partisan hit piece." I agree, but this is business as usual for the Senate. They are not even pretending that they are interested in facts. Dimadick (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

We could add a sentence on it, but we'd (1) have to mention that it's a partisan hit piece, and (2) include the Wyden-Peters rebuttal.[2] – Muboshgu (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Mentioning the rebuttal is fine. We have to state the facts. Using the "partisan hit piece" language is not quite appropriate as it's not factual (it could be a direct quote I guess, but it feels like cherry picking). Whenever the Senate has a clear majority most of what it does is "partisan", it's just how the Senate works. We have no choice but to make peace with that fact. Vasili.zolotov (talk) 12:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Hatted BLP vio

Apparent BLP vio
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[BLP vio deleted per policy.] While the Hunter Biden laptop is related, much of the the laptop contents have nothing to do with that relationship, therefore separate articles are warranted. Lexlex (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC) WTF? What qpq? That's a BLP violation. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC) Assuming good faith that Lexlex meant the quid pro quo falsely alleged by Trump. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC) Then Lexlex needs to tweak their comment. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC) The topic here is this article's focus, the veracity of the claim itself is handled by article sourcing and policy. Crying "BLP" in this thread and subsequent response suggests Valjean might be a bit too invested in the article's subject and should consider stepping back. It happens to all of us. Lexlex (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC) Your dismissive response was unhelpful. To make sure there is no misunderstanding, please clarify. Your comment appears to claim there was a qdp. If so, that's contrary to facts and a blp vio that should be refactored, stricken, withdrawn, whatever. So please enlighten us about what you're really trying to say, because advocacy of fringe pov is not allowed at Wikipedia, especially if it's a blp vio. I hope I'm wrong, but what is written is what is written. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC) No, thanks. Your ongoing insistence to use pejorative interpretations seems like a bad rehash of Man of La Mancha. While I can't help but admire your enthusiasm (and excellent grammar), I don't take your pearl clutching arguments as anything more than invisible dragon hunting. Perhaps a re-read of quid pro quo might help you clear up any lingering doubts—as there's no there there. Lexlex (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC) BLP vio deleted per policy. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Does this really warrant a separate article.

Shouldn’t this just be folded into the Biden Laptop stuff or one of the many other pages on the topic? 16:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC) 71.190.233.44 (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

This is the page for the baseless conspiracy theory that Joe Biden had Viktor Shokin fired to benefit Burisma, when really Biden was a spokesman for the world community and Shokin was fired for not investigating corruption. The laptop conspiracy theory is that the laptop proves that Hunter Biden was engaged in unspecified nefarious deeds. One conspiracy theory led to the other, but they are not the same. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Well it sure looks as if it’s all part of the same story and should be covered in one place but it’s not a hill worth dying on. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

We should really have Republican conspiracy theories meant to discredit Democrats, but that would be too long, so we have to split it up into reasonable sized articles. Gah4 (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, not taking the bait. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 02:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

In what way is this "all part of the same story"? Do you have any RS which connect them in some other way than just the words Biden and Ukraine? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me)

I could tell you, but it would probably be WP:BLPVIO. It seems that many of the same people are involved in the different projects. But since they are actually separate, other than that the same people were involved, they can have separate articles. Gah4 (talk) 04:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Gah4, why have you been commenting while logged out? Please don't do that. Use only one account. There is no BLP vio if your comments are backed by RS. Please explain what you mean. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Which comments are while logged out? I can't say that it has never happened, but it isn't supposed to. It normally keeps me logged in, and I always use the same computer. But okay, Rudy Giuliani and Roger Stone seem to be connected to many conspiracy theories. Rudy Giuliani seems well known to be part of the Ukraine story and the laptop story. But again, that doesn't mean that it should be one article. Gah4 (talk) 08:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Your reply was worded as if you had been IP 71.190.233.44. That's why I asked. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Not me, you’re making assumptions and own the editor in question an apology. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 11:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, but I can only go by Gah4's language when they responded to my question to you in a way that implied they were you. Gah4 is welcome to refactor their comment to remove any cause for confusion and then explain, but it's no real big issue right now. It's better to move on and respond below after my comment that starts with "To avoid confusion." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

It was a tiny bit supposed to be a joke, but also remembering previous comments removed for WP:BLP reasons, and I didn't want to try to be sure that my comments were fine. And since the previous ones were deleted, I didn't have them as a reference at the time. And I might not be completely sure about who did what, and when. Gah4 (talk) 23:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Gah4, I deleted part of an edit by Lexlex. Maybe you should join us on my talk page where we can clear this up. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

To avoid confusion, remember that this article is about this first sentence:

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

ONLY that sentence. Just because the words "Biden" and "Ukraine" are mentioned together somewhere in some manner does not mean it automatically is about THAT sentence and therefore belongs in THIS article. My point? Stay on this VERY NARROW TOPIC here. This article is not about any other alleged corruption by any member of the Biden family. Those articles are elsewhere. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

OK, now I am not sure. There is the 2015 event with Joe in Ukraine. There is the 2019 telephone call. There is Rudy Giuliani going to Ukraine in (I believe) 2019. I thought those were all the same conspiracy. Since Hunter Biden laptop controversy also involves Rudy, it seems possibly connected. But even so, it seems to me that separate articles make sense. Gah4 (talk) 00:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

This article is about the 2015 events. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

The only thing that struck me is that this is all part of one long tale and in essence would be a section in another article not a standalone article itself. This was the only point I was trying to make at the start of all of this. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 16:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

This is about Joe Biden's actions in 2015, long before 2019 when Giuliani traveled to Ukraine and started trying to fabricate/uncover misdeeds by the Bidens in Ukraine. When he started doing that, Russian intelligence played him as a useful idiot to muddy the waters. That's where this conspiracy theory by Rudy comes from. It's a counterfactual narrative that's solidly disproven. Joe Biden did nothing wrong. This being a specific, very notable and well-known, false allegation in the form of a conspiracy theory, it is large enough and notable enough for its own article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

IP, it's best to keep this page in existence. GoodDay (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

False claims

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article suggests that the claims are false but provides no citations that the claims are indeed false. Grieverheart (talk) 11:26, 3 December 2022 (UTC) Those little bracketed numbers are citations. Feel free to click them. Zaathras (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC) @Zaathras those little bracketed numbers are citations to several media organization who all have one thing in common: they have a well known bias. This entire article cites exactly zero sources who have a right wing bias. Relying instead on left wing sources. You can't possibly think an article is unbiased if every single citation points to biased sources in complete agreement with one another. Per Wikipedia policy sources don't have to be unbiased, but they have to be balanced by sources who have an opposing bias in order to create a balanced article. This here article only uses center left to far left news organizations. There is not a single center right to far right source. You can't possibly think an article about a contentious political topic is fair and balanced when it exclusively cites media biased one way 79.54.91.168 (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC) Reliable sources aren't necessarily left or right wing. Thinking in such binary terms can really cloud one's judgement and cause a WP:FALSEBALANCE issue in their process that eventually becomes a WP:POVPUSH for WP:FRINGE, or so I'm told... DN (talk) 03:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC) No one here cares what you private views of the sources are. They are deemed reliable by this project, so they are usable in articles. It is not the fault of the Wikipedia that most right-wing sources tend to be of poor quality and dubious accuracy in their reporting. Zaathras (talk) 05:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC) "There is not a single center right to far right source." That means that there is no problem with the sources. Anything sourced to the far right is not actually worth reading, and can not be trusted. Dimadick (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC) "Anything sourced to the far right is not actually worth reading, and can not be trusted." Let me guess ... any source that disturbs your predisposition is "far right"? I would just casually note that MLK, Nelson Mandela etc. have been pushed into that category because what they stood for is today problematic for the "looney left" who apparently, are the voice of reason! Got to wonder if this is going to be the umpteenth "conspiracy theory" that turns out to be true in a few years time? Ukraine is currently cleaning house re. corruption and every single managerial member of their Customs Service has just been fired (ever wondered why Ukraine Aid is never audited?). They are widely regarded as the most corrupt nation in Europe and yet somehow you seem to think the Bidens flew above all that ... hope your innate self-righteousness protects you from the perspection of time. 2001:8003:70F5:2400:999D:CB8C:8335:7BB4 (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC) That ain't how it works here. Check out WP:RS WP:V Andre🚐 18:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC) An appreciation of how modern media (and scholarship) works should be a prerequisite for qualifying WP:RS. For example, The Guardian is regarded as a reliable source and yet an organisation can pay them money to disguise advertising as an authoratative article. Falsehoods and bad scholarship are published in "reliable sources" all the time and yes, they circular reference each other to the effect that they dominate the narrative. So a throw to "WP:RS" does not denote any form of quality or reliability! For an example in scholarship: A "spoken narrative" was traditionally dismissed as 'unreliable' - and yet when packaged in a historical text and then re-referenced it suddenly becomes 'reliable'! Much of Modern History is being rewritten using sources the discipline of History has long since regarded as unreliable using this simple trick (and yes, it is widespread on Wikipedia ... so that's exactly how Wikipedia can be leveraged to perpetuate falsehoods and one of the reasons that Wikipedia is not itself, a reliable source). 2001:8003:70F5:2400:999D:CB8C:8335:7BB4 (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC) If you really think the Guardian is just spamvertisements you can start a new discussion on WP:RSN. But this is how Wikipedia works and you will not change that. Andre🚐 21:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC) Why wouldn't I be able to change that? 2001:8003:70F5:2400:999D:CB8C:8335:7BB4 (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC) What you describe about relying on history and published works, that is by design. If it's wrong in reliable sources it will be wrong here. WP:NOTLEAD Andre🚐 21:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2022

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request to add film My Son Hunter under section Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory#See_also. 223.25.74.34 (talk) 12:10, 25 December 2022 (UTC) Lol, no. We would no more link to that tripe here than we would provide a pointer to 2000 Mules from the 2020 United States presidential election. Zaathras (talk) 13:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC) Does it make sense to you that the artist formerly known as the natural gas consultant, Hunter Biden, was put on the board of a foreign company despite never being on the board of any other company in his life all while Joe Biden was in charge of US-Ukraine policy? Has it occurred to you that the World Bank, IMF, and EU (unelected reps) are all corrupt working toward the same end? Who did Shokin's replacement prosecute, since that was the justification for his firing? All of you come across as either corrupted or completely biased to mere observers. Whether you know it or not, you are helping usher in totalitarianism the likes of which have never been seen. If I were a powerful billionaire bent on hiding truths from people, why wouldn't I compromise wikipedia, and how would wikipedia thwart me in preventing such a corruption of its processes and output. I would discredit any entity telling the truth as non-RS, feed misinformation to those deemed RS, and wikipedia's editors would defend it like an Orc in front of Mordor. Apparently, only elected representatives can be manipulated and bought by billionaires; no scientist, no academic, no journalist, and certainly no wikipedian can be bought off. Absurd. 69.144.246.119 (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC) Well stated. This article is one of those perfect examples which hollow out any credibility Wikipedia might have as an independent and unbiased source of information. It is heavily biased and uses the typical absolute MSM narrative ("false claims centered on the baseless allegation") that closes all doors to any kind of intellectual and educated discourse on a complicated subject. Very sad times indeed. 73.3.212.228 (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Quite the contrary. There's extensive discourse but you out yourself by critiquing the "MSM narrative" because you are advocating for a departure from the consensus reality. That isn't how it works here. Andre🚐 18:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC) So, the corpus of Liberal Media is consensus reality? 2001:8003:70F5:2400:999D:CB8C:8335:7BB4 (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC) The media isn't liberal, and there are reliable conservative media such as the Wall Street Journal. See WP:RSP Andre🚐 21:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC) Conservative media has only just over the last 20 years re-emerged. Media in the Western World over the last 40-60 years was overwhelmingly liberal. They enrolled almost entirely from liberal arts students in liberal colleges. The one example you cite as a conservative rag requires a "non-liberal" skill-set to actually do its performative mission. Journalists today typically go from colleges to the corporates and/or public services. It is no wonder that the issues that dominate the air-waves mirror those of collegiate campuses. There are currently three major wars ongoing, a collapse in logistics that will leave 100's of millions impoverished and a shift to authoritative regimes around the world. The most pressing issue for the "consensus-reality" set: Personal pronoun usage and associated liberal arts nonsense! 2001:8003:70F5:2400:999D:CB8C:8335:7BB4 (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC) No, there's no reliable source for your claims. This is either original research or WP:RGW but, just no, that's not how it works here. This is basically right-wing talking points. Andre🚐 22:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

False claims

I'm concerned about false information in this page. Many claims without references, some are old and have been proven to be false, please recheck all references and update accordingly. My previous concern was removed due to beeing unhelpfull and without sources - check your own sources at first, they are misleading. 78.84.159.8 (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

No. We're not you're servants, my friend. You identify a passage that you find problematic, then present it here for discussion. Zaathras (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Is Hunter Biden Laptop real or Russian Disinformation

51 former FBI agents swore that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation. In 2022, the contents of Hunter Biden's laptop was entered into the Congressional records

Therefore, can information with references to Hunter Biden's laptop be accepted as a reliable source or not? wbenton (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes the contents of the laptop are genuine and came from a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden. There is no evidence to support the claim that this was a Russian disinformation scheme. It did however provide a basis for social media companies to suppress the story a few days before the 2020 election, which at least Twitter later stated was wrong. The contents of the laptop show no evidence that Joe Biden did anything illegal or inappropriate. All that’s been shown is that Hunter was paid handsomely by a few organizations who may have desired access to his father or his influence. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

This is straight nonsense. There is no evidence that the physical laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. A large number of emails were verified as real (but not all of them), so it's more than likely that the emails were hacked, downloaded, and thrown onto a hard drive that then was left at a repair shop in Delaware. There's no evidence that Hunter Biden took a laptop that was still under warranty across the country from LA (where he lived) to a no-name computer shop in Delaware and just left it there. None. JimKaatFan (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

There's not been a single reliable source that's ever had any evidence the emails were hacked, downloaded, and thrown onto a hard drive. Instead, reliable sources say things like:

"The existence of emails about getting Buckley Carlson into Georgetown has been known for some time, thanks to a laptop once owned by Hunter Biden that was obtained by Donald Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and pushed to media in 2020." from the Guardian.

"Further details about those activities were found in documents obtained from a hard drive in a laptop Hunter once owned. from the Financial Times.

Republican lawmakers and their staff for the past year have been analyzing messages and financial transactions found on a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden. from PBS.

From The Guardian, which states House Republicans and their staff have been studying messages and financial transactions found on a now notorious laptop that belonged to Hunter.

Or the Washington Post's fact checker Glenn Kessler who wrote about content plucked from the hard drive of his laptop left behind for repair in a Delaware shop in April 2019.

The Guardian acknowledges how the perception shifted as more facts came to light, saying On the political flip-side, House intelligence committee chair Adam Schiff said the laptop was a “smear” from Russian intelligence, and 50 former intelligence officials said it was probably Russian disinformation. Now, however, almost no one disputes its authenticity.

Or Vox, who wrote that 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. They go on to write about the owner's statement that the person who dropped it off identified himself as Hunter Biden and signed a receipt with what appears to be Hunter’s name. The article also notes One of the laptops had a Beau Biden Foundation sticker. The article, which is very comprehensive, goes on to report that Some commentators did go too far in asserting that this was part of a Russian plot, when the evidence hasn’t emerged to back that up.

Finally, take a look at this article published by CBS News.

There's a lot more sourcing I can share if helpful. I've looked very hard for sourcing to back up your claim that it's more than likely that the emails were hacked, downloaded, and thrown onto a hard drive that then was left at a repair shop in Delaware but I haven't been able to see that in any reliable sources. Can you share them? Mr Ernie (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

No, the contents of the laptop are not completely genuine. It is a mixture of genuine material and material of a dubious or unverified origin, as the laptop's hard drives passed through several unclean hands. The idea that reporting on the situation was "suppressed" is also a fanciful lie, brought to you by the same people who think the Twitter files are damning. What you wish to cite and from where depends entirely on the context of what you wish to add to this or anther article. Zaathras (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Zaatheas: If you can stand it, it's really instructive to read the NY Post and watch Fox television from time to time. The illogical and unsupported narratives that regularly arise on various article talk pages are directly related to the substance and timing of those and other Republican media content. SPECIFICO talk 17:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Who is pushing NYPost and Fox television narratives? Let me know so we can help inform them about what reliable sources say. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

It is not true that "51 former FBI agents swore that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation". The "laptop is real" vs. "Russian disinformation" dichotomy is a false one. It would not be helpful to try and make a blanket decision on whether "information with references to Hunter Biden's laptop" is reliable. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Formatting of the lead

I can see that the lead has been much discussed, but shouldn't we try to integrate the article title as per MOS:BOLDLEAD? Just looks a little weird starting with "A series of false claims...", rather than "The Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of false claims...". — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 12:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2023

Remove the word "false" from the following sentence: The Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of false allegations that Joe Biden, while he was vice president of the United States, engaged in corrupt activities relating to the employment of his son, Hunter Biden, by the Ukrainian gas company Burisma.[1] Flynehome (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Request denied, as numerous reliable sources correctly refer to it as such. Zaathras (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Please see the following:

https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/HSGAC%20-%20Finance%20Joint%20Report%202020.09.23.pdf

https://nypost.com/2023/03/03/hunter-biden-advised-joes-office-on-answering-burisma-queries-emails/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11934105/Joe-Biden-pushed-fracking-Ukraine-days-Hunter-joined-Burisma-board.html

There is enough debate going on in mainstream media to remove the word "false" and just call it an allegation. Flynehome (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

A primary source, a tabloid, and an even worse tabloid. We're done here. Zaathras (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:NYPOST and WP:DAILYMAIL are unreliable sources that cannot be used here. As for that Republican investigation, see this:[3] soibangla (talk) 01:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm new to editing on Wikipedia. How do I appeal your ruling? Flynehome (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, I could tell you but I wouldn't want to give you false hope on this. soibangla (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Various noticeboards, like the biographies of living persons or reliable sources noticeboards could be appropriate, but this has gone there before and they will tell you that the false allegations are false and that we should say so explicitly. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2023

Biden has been found out about his corrupt dealings. 2.28.80.69 (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: You sure about that? "Comer releases Biden family probe update without showing link to president" – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Adding People

I did not make edit yet given the contentious topic but I was going to add Andrii Derkach and Konstantin Kilimnik to the "People" subheadings as active participants in creating and spreading the narrative. Jgmac1106 (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

That seems fair to do. Andre🚐 17:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Jgmac1106, it's alarming to see you are depending so much on primary sources. Try to limit that and mostly use secondary sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Given the contentious label on the article I am saving each claim with a citation for the supporting evidence. If you feel any violate "original research" you are welcome to revert or edit.

I could see how “Foreign Threats to the 2020 US Federal Elections,” Office of the Director of National Intelligence, March 2021, https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ICA-declass-16MAR21.pdf would be a primary source with possible bias. I will use secondary sources that cite to the report moving forward if needed. Jgmac1106 (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I went back and added secondary sources where I cited Government research reports (though I would call a Government report a secondary source. Somebody already curated the primary sources into a report). Jgmac1106 (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of “Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends,

This is the first reference to quid pro quo. It was removed given Schweizer connection to Government Accountability Institute.

Given this is the first mention of the conspiracy I suggest it belongs in the article Jgmac1106 (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

User:HeyElliot I rolled back your reversion. I went through and added secondary sources anytime I used a primary source. I did not know Government researcvh reports were considered primary in this context. That made sense. If you see an issue I made every single citation and claim it's own revision. You are welcome to trace them back.

As far as mentioning Schweizer I think you have to as the first mention of quid pro quo came from him. Then the Solomon editorials in The Hill.

Those are just factss.

You also took issue with me calling the conspiracy a disinformation campaign but provided no such evidence. This is a page about the conspiracy, and not a place to argue if the conspiracy theory exists.

Please feel free to change any claims I made you feel are not supported by a secondary source. Jgmac1106 (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@heyelliot and @valjeen I tried to address you concerns. I will hold off on making further edits so you have a chance to comment on the proposed inclusion of history from secondary sources around the provenance of the lies about Burisma and Biden Jgmac1106 (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

and my apologies @heyelliot I did not see "Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page" until I reverted.

I am happy to hear how you do not think "Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends" was the first mention of President Biden and a quid pro quo with Burisma. Jgmac1106 (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring

Jgmac1106, you'll see both above on this talk page, and in an edit notice when editing the article that Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page. You have violated this sanction, and if you continue you'll be blocked from editing this page. Valjean, in the future please note in your edit summary that you're invoking the 1rr exemption of Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll try to remember. I figured my warning on his talk page and the mention of BRD would be enough. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes I noted in my reply I missed that sanction.

If you notice in my revision I did try to address the person concern that my mention of Steve Bannon could cause a perception of bias.

I will not make any further revisions but reverting all of my edits when I was addressing Valjean comment on too many primary sources, and me asking in talk BEFORE I bifurcated people and background was not in what I would consider a good faith effort.

The editor could have just reverted one revision linking to disinformation page or my one revision mentioning Banon. Rolling back so many edits was not called for or helpul as I was following best practices Jgmac1106 (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Some of the issues

Jgmac1106, the status quo version has been restored while we deal with the issues here.

1. Too much use of primary sources. They must be used very sparingly for totally uncontroversial matters, such as confirming a birthday, getting a quote accurate, etc.
2. Conspiracy theories are being presented as fact.
3. Bad sources are being used: Bannon, Solomon, Kilimnik, and Derkach are terribly unreliable sources and pushers of Trump's conspiracy theories and Russian propaganda.
4. The nature of the Government Accountability Institute isn't revealed, even though the sources, an article by Mayer, details how it, Bannon, and Solomon, are all part the effort to spread false conspiracy theory allegations. That's a misuse of the source. The source's bias must be evident. It is debunking lies, so it should be used to debunk lies. Attribute it to Mayer and let her speak.
5. "This was the first reference to Biden canceling a Burisma investigation to protect Hunter Biden." Is that a false claim, or a documentation of a false claim? Big difference! Make it clear by saying it's "false" because the source does that. Framing means everything.
6. "removing mention of Steve Bannon as founder of Government Accountability to remove perceived bias" Why do that? The source is making it clear that Bannon is a key figure behind these false allegations, so that should be clear in our article.

We are documenting false claims that make up the conspiracy theory. The facts about people's actions should be described and framed accurately. False claims should be labeled as such. We don't present the details as isolated details. We describe their context. People should be identified accurately. That Derkach and Kilimnik are considered Russian intel, or closely associated, should be noted. That gives readers a chance to view them in the right light: "These people are pushing Russian propaganda. They cannot be trusted."

If RS start to uncover facts that make the false claims seem to be true, then we may end up changing the title of the article, but until then, the current title is the RS narrative. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree, Bannon and Solomon should not be used. Kilimnik and Derkach seem like they could be included - but as attributed viewpoint of pro-Trump Russian agents. Andre🚐 01:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. All these people should be mentioned, but only because RS (Mayer) mention them in this connection. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Valjean You said my edits were "seriously wrong."

I would like to know which of the claims I made were wrong.

I added

• Andrii Derkkach as a major player
• Konstantin Kilmnick as a go between
• false Conspiracy first being mentioned in a book published by GAI
• Solomon editorials based on the false conspiracy published in The Hill with his special access granted to the Archives

Nothing in my edits I think was ""seriously wrong" or even "wrong" but I am allergic to adverbs. Which of these claims that I made is incorrect?

Also is helloelliot a bot? How does one make 31,000 edits in 11 months? Jgmac1106 (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

1. Too much use of primary sources.

I used one The DNI report. Which in my opinion isn't a primary source as it gathered research and presented conclusions. I noted that I understand how US Government documents would be considered primary and I went back and added a secondary source every time. You can check. I followed @Valjean suggestions. Fixed each one.

2. Conspiracy theories named as fact

When? I never did that

3. Bad sources

I never cited Bannon, Solomon, Kilimnik. I cited Derkach's publications Interfax Ukraine. This was just to establish the first time he called for investigations.

4. Government Accountability Institute

I was editing the history section and on this element when the article was reverted. I removed Bannon founding GAI to reduce a perceived bias since the other editor had issue with my inclusion

5. First claim

Happy to say it was the first time the false claim was made. You are correct I should not have asked the reader to infer.

6. removing Steve Bannon

I don't want to but the other editor took serious issue with my inclusion of Bannon and GIA and reverted all of my edits.

I did not want to start an edit war so I was willing to remove an appositive Jgmac1106 (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Side note: I don't like the subheadings but I was using "Impeachment" "Derkach Tape's" and "Burisma Emails" only because there was only one subheading at the h3, and well, you don't have just one. Jgmac1106 (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2023‎ (UTC)

Mention of Bannon

"I removed Bannon founding GAI to reduce a perceived bias"

What does that mean? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I had the sentence Government Accountability Initiative, founded by Steve Bannon."

I changed it, before revision just to "Government Accountability Initiative," as I thought the person was reverting my entire article because I made a connection to Bannon in the history section of the Burisma Biden Conspiracy article.

He was mentioned in the Mayer article. In the context I used. I think Bannon is important in the provenance of the false lies, but if it meant not losing all my revisions I was willing to lose the appositive. Jgmac1106 (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I still don't know what you mean by "to reduce a perceived bias". What's "a perceived bias"? Whose bias?

Bannon should definitely be mentioned.

With the exception of the first two sentences, if I was a reader who knew nothing about this matter and read the History section of your last version before it got reverted back, I would have thought the "Government Accountability Institute" was an official government body and believed everything they said about Hunter.

Each part of the History section reads in a way that looks like they all got the goods on Hunter Biden and he sure looks guilty. That's why each mention should be framed better. That Solomon is a discredited conspiracy theorist whose been ripped apart by other journalists (find sources for that in his article), that Dirkach is a dubious character, clearly in the pocket of the Russians, etc. Framing is important. That's one reason we rely mostly on secondary sources. They give the subject flavor and add the right context, in this case, "these are people out to frame Hunter Biden" context. We are supposed to stay neutral and let the sources speak. We let their bias shine through. We don't censor or neutralize it. It is editors who are supposed to edit neutrally. Neither sources nor content must be neutral. That's how NPOV works. We neither add our own bias nor act to remove the bias of the source. We stay neutral.

BTW, Jane Mayer is one of the most thorough investigative journalists around. Her contributions. When she writes one of her often-very long stories, her research is impeccable, and you will really understand the subject. Read her stories about the Koch brothers, Trump's Big Lie, and about Christopher Steele and the Steele dossier. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Do not remove mention of Bannon. The source goes out of its way to mention him, and so should we. A pivotal source of the allegations against the Bidens, for instance, is the Government Accountability Institute, a Florida-based opposition-research operation that was founded by the former Trump political adviser Stephen Bannon—the same conservative nonprofit that ginned up questionable stories about the Clintons during the last Presidential campaign. starship.paint (exalt) 09:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

My entire goal was to frame the conspiracy this way and thanks for the links to Mayer's work.

I was trying to remain nuetral. The article as is while framing it as a "falsehood" still paints a confusing picture by being poorly written and focusing on Shokin and Hunter Biden and not the people responsible for the conpiracy

Derkach, Scweizer, Kilminik, Solomon, etc. My article was reverted before I could add "flavor." My editing method was add a topic sentence with a secondary source. See if other editors are okay with the claim and evidence. Add more evidence as "flavor" I edit one claim and one citation at a time.

Editors can challenge each one, not revert the entire article.

Shokin and Hunter Biden are the targets, not the source of the conspiracy. The article as written still makes the story about them. That is literally the conspiracy,

I was working to remain neutral and letting the sources tell the story. It sounds like I was not explicit enough in my exclamations that:

-This is a disinformation campaign involving the FSB, GRU, and Trump universe.

-Everything about quid pro quo is a lie

Look at @helloelliot comment when he reverted my work. They were upset I called it disinformation campaign and blaming GAI and Steve Bannon for being THE FIRST to mention the connection. Jgmac1106 (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Shokin Infobox

I do not see the benefit of having an info box for Shokin. He was the subject and not a target nor the perpetrators in creating lies around his dismissal.

I recommend deleting it and replacing it with someone else or not having an infobox at all given contentious nature of topic. Jgmac1106 (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I moved the Shokin photobox down to the Shokin section. Though I still prefer deleting it as it would be displayed in search results and thus lead credence that "there is a there, there." Jgmac1106 (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Take Background subheading and make it Two Subheadings

The article currently goes:

• Introduction/dfn
• Background
  • Viktor Shokin
  • Impeachment
  • Rudy Guiliani

I suggested revising article so it does not read as a plausible fact and organized more around defining the exact lie of the conspiracy, the timeline of how the conspiracy spread, and the people involved.

Even as I wrote the article the last two sections history and people seemed redundant, but I wanted to respect past editors. They organized the article around people and events under the subheaing background

So my first step was separate people and events. Jgmac1106 (talk) 02:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm a little confused Jgmac. Can we slow down and simplify and limit ourselves to one set of changes at a time. We're discussing in 4 different sections and I'm really confused what's being done and what's been proposed or where we are coming from here. Andre🚐 02:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I am saying take Background, which has subheadings for events and people, and bifurcate that into two h2 "history" and "people"

I was saying I don't think the People section is truly needed but best practice is to respect past editor choices and make incremental changes.

but the ask is :

Take "background" h2 and bifurcate it into "history" and "people" Jgmac1106 (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

This version before you started had a nice flow and "how each character played their part" feel to it. Now just add whatever more you've found in the right spots. A "chronological narrative flow" usually works nicely for these types of subjects. "These characters" started saying this, then that one added that, and this happened, causing that to happen, etc." Write like Jane Mayer does and you'll win a Pulitzer Prize!

There can still be a condensed "cast of characters" section, with a short summary of their backgrounds, alliances, and reputations but the description of when, what, and why they did belongs in the narrative flow. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I’m confused by the article at present (which is also the article before the changes by Jgmac). Why is everything now and then under Background? That’s definitely a problem if we never get to the point of the article. It seems that “impeachment” and “Rudy” should not be under background. starship.paint (exalt) 08:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Either due to poor text structure (mixing caterogical and chronological) or in the worst case to highlight Shokin to leave questions of doubt about the falsehoods of the conspiracy.

This is why I suggested getting rid of the background section. Background knowledge is a link to a different article and not a section.

Then we have one section on history and one section on people. I only kept “impeachment” to respect past editors. I do not think a third heading level is warranted for this article.

I would also like to here @helloelliot opinion since he reverted the work. It s that an official wikipedia bot? How does someone do 300,000 changes in 11 months. Do you have an opinion @helloelliot ? Jgmac1106 (talk) 12:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no such user as "Helloelliot". Are you feeling ok? Zaathras (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I meant @heyelliot sorry I do not have the database of wikipedia uders memorized by heart. I will try harder to memorize every editor per your request.

Eliot Wrote:

"Restored revision 1157802174 by HeyElliott (talk): I'm really sorry to do this, but Russian disinfo from Derkach, Bannon, etc is being used, as well as lots of primary sources. Deal with this on the talk page and develop each aspect in its own thread to get a consensus."

but it may have been @Valjeanwho reverted. Don't blame me for bad revision UX.

This was not true

-I sought consensus before editing

-I addressed every time I cited a research report from the US Government as a primary source (they aren't) and added secondary sources like Mayer's work.

-Not once did I use disinfo from Derkach. I linked to an press link in Interfax Ukraine, a secondary source, literally a wire service, to establish the chronology of the NUBA investigation happening after Schwiezer and Solomon went on a media blitz.

I find it funny in my effort not to present the secondary sources in a bias manner gets me reverted for spreading Russian disinfo.

In the future no need for ad hominem attacks on editors Jgmac1106 (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

there is no user "heyelliot" soibangla (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

No one is asking for usernames to be "memorized", but being able to identify which editor and which edit in question you are talking about is a basic necessity of WP:CIR, among others. User:HeyElliott had no part in the recent editing back-and-forth, all that editor did was remove a category back on May 31st, 2023. User Valjean's edit summary begins with "Restored revision 1157802174 by HeyElliott (talk):..." which simply means that all of the edits have been reversed to the time before you started editing this article. HeyElliot's version just happens to be that last version. Zaathras (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I was the one who reverted you, not Elliott (two Ls and two Ts). Now let's just move forward. (An edit summary is very short and not always fully accurate, so don't place to much weight on what it says. It's basically saying "I see a problem, so we need to discuss this before it can stay in the article.) It's entirely possible for there to be a sort of consensus among two or three editors to do something or they think a proposed idea sounds good (at least in theory), but what really counts is when the actual edit is made, when the rubber meets the road, IOW when the actual edit is performed. Did it end up being what the other editors thought they were agreeing to? Not always, and how does it look to other editors who were not part of the original conversation? There are usually far more unknown page watchers who also have a right to make their voices heard, and sometimes they do it by reverting an edit, and when there are lots of edits, it's often easiest to just revert back to the last stable version. That is okay.

No one owns the edits they make. The moment they click that "Publish changes" button, they lose all rights to their contribution. Anyone can come along and delete, move, and/or alter that content. Experienced editors will leave some sort of edit summary so one knows it's not an idiot or vandal. In fact, try to always leave an edit summary. (My edit summary rate is 95.6%.) Their objection should be taken seriously, so move to the talk page and discuss. If, after some discussion, there is a more solid and informed consensus to restore the content, then it gets restored. If not, a compromise version might end up being installed.

We develop content together as a team, and anyone can come along, object to the edit, and essentially say that "I see problems that others may not have noticed, and I want to be part of the process of developing that content so it's better." (Vandals who give no reason or don't participate in the discussion can be ignored.) If the original contribution is properly sourced, framed well, placed in a good spot in the article, and is policy compliant, it will often just become part of the article. That's what we really like to have happen with our contributions, but, for controversial topics, it's rarely the case. There is one editor who has a remarkably good record at making contributions that are accepted, just as they are, and that is User:Soibangla. Always well-researched and good work. They have a very low reversion rate. A good example to follow. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good I will just go back to adding Derkach and Kilminik under the current "background" heading. For Derkach I won't use any Interfax articles while he was still deputy director as these could be considered primary sources.

---------

Though I still say the heading should be edited as should the first topic sentence under "background". Hunter Biden is not the background of the conspiracy. This is what I mean with my belief the current text structure might be shaped to make Shokin and Hunter Biden display prominently. Jgmac1106 (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@Soibangla: - as you are the #1 editor of the page, can you explain why everything is the in the Background? Changes are in order. starship.paint (exalt) 03:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I was active here in the early months, but much less so since, and not much inclined to participate in an overhaul as I'm focused on other stuff now that consumes most of my bandwidth soibangla (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Starship.paint at @Soibangla I am trying to stick with your original intent as an editor. I added a topic sentence framing background as Russian Involvement, Media Involvement, Trump Campaign involvement.

I am adding a second level heading for each. Does that sound like a plan? Jgmac1106 (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Starship.paint @Valjean I am going to pause here and let comment on or revert what I am doing.

My next step would be to add media involvement section. Here we would describe evidence from secondary sources of Schweizer's book, Solomon's articles, their media campaign which spread the lies, the Derkach documentary, and OAN. Jgmac1106 (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

OAN isn't usable. I don't think Solomon should be used either except for the fact that he exists. Andre🚐 20:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I did not mean use OAN nor Solomon but use secondary sources to describe their role in spreading the disinformation. OAN was only mentioned as it aired Derkach's movie. Sorry for the confusoon Jgmac1106 (talk) 00:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

And do you have some secondary sources that cover OAN and Solomon critically as such? This one should work for OAN [4] Or this one perhaps: [5] Andre🚐 00:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I am going to include Mayer's piece and these.

If you have not read Dr. Kennedy's Dissertation I highly recommend it. I don't cite it on Wikipedia as dissertations aren't peer reviewed but it is a great collection of research into 2016 and 2020 Russian election interference.

One of the few voices saying the real part out loud, "2020 was worse not better."

https://baylor-ir.tdl.org/bitstream/handle/2104/11847/Kennedy%20G.%20Thesis%202022.pdf?sequence=1

Looks like most of you are editors on contentious MAGA election conspiracy pages (h/t for the service). You may find many of the sources Dr. Kennedy uses helpful. Jgmac1106 (talk) 11:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts so far. I'll make some copyediting improvements and leave edit summaries as they contain tips for you. If you follow those tips, your future editing will be better and save work for other editors. You seem to be a fast learner. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I like how Dr. Kennedy thanks her Nana at the end. Anyway, thanks for slowing down to discuss. IMHO, I think you can go ahead and continue with this line of editing, no need to wait up for me to catch up. Just remember to take it one small piece at a time. Andre🚐 19:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I have been through most of the article and made a number of copy edits. The condition of the article is significantly improved. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2023

This has been proven to be much more than a conspiracy theory. There are bank records and trusted FBI informants who have confirmed that not only have the Biden's taken millions of dollars from Ukraine and Joe Biden very likely took a 5 Million dollar bribe while Vice President. Also, it ahs been revealed that a Ukrainian Oligarch gave James Biden a person loan/mortgage to pay off his Florida vacation home and there is no record it was paid back.

https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/joe-biden-bribery-allegations-involve-ukraine-first Headh60 (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: None of what you said is accurate. Justthenews.com is not a reliable source, it the website run by John Solomon (political commentator), following his firing by The Hill. This John Solomon. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Bias

When is this page going to be edited to reflect evidence? This is gross 2600:8803:950A:6600:B961:13A4:7E1C:8A1C (talk) 02:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

It does reflect the evidence. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Interesting parallelism related to the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory

Is there any logical way to include this parallelism (not necessarily with this exact wording)?

Biden and Trump performed similar actions, the withholding of financial aid to Ukraine, but for very different reasons.

Then-Vice President Biden withheld loan guarantees to pressure Ukraine into firing a corrupt prosecutor because he was not performing his job of fighting corruption, which included investigating Burisma and its corrupt owner, actions which would have placed Hunter Biden in more jeopardy if he had been involved in corruption in Ukraine.

Then-President Trump unsuccessfully tried to pressure Ukrainian President Zelenskyy in a quid pro quo manner to start a publicly announced investigation of Burisma and the Bidens in exchange for the release of congressionally mandated financial and military aid to Ukraine and the promise of a Trump–Zelenskyy meeting at the White House. This predicated Trump's first impeachment charge of abuse of power.

Can this be done? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it can be added to the background section, we should define quid pro quo in the background. I will work on it.

I began by first bifurcating background from the people involved. Jgmac1106 (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

ValjeanI wrote the background to get us to the comparison. I will leave the edits for review and swing back later and make your requested edits if everyone finds the current direction of the background section okay Jgmac1106 (talk) 12:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2023

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.

---

This is now confirmed and not a conspiracy theory. Please do better. 170.205.190.133 (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

This is indeed a conspiracy theory. Zaathras (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

What's the difference between a conspiracy theory and the truth? 6 months. You guys are going to look foolish. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-allegedly-paid-5-million-by-burisma-executive 2601:48:8101:4720:6859:E2:8BEA:634E (talk) 01:49, 9 June 2023 (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.

Fox News is not a RS. "An FD-1023 form is used by FBI agents to record unverified reporting from confidential human sources. The form is used to document information as told to an FBI agent, but recording that information does not validate or weigh it against other information known by the FBI."

This "unverified reporting from confidential human sources" is an allegation, and not reported by RS. Including it as truth would be akin to adding the unproven pee-tape allegation in the Steele dossier as fact in Trump's article. When this is covered by RS, we will cover it here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

New Heading for Allegations

If we were to add Comer and Marjorie Taylor Greene reigniting the lie what is a good heading?

-Conspiracy Reignited as Indictment Cover- -False Conspiracy Returns -Trump Allies Spread False Consporacy

Other ideas? Jgmac1106 (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure any additional section or coverage is merited yet. WP:RECENTISM, WP:10YEARSTEST, WP:NOTNEWS, etc. Andre🚐 00:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

FBI Update

I don't see the latest information released by the FBI that a historically credible informant has implicated Joe and Hunter Biden in a "pay-for-policy" scenario. When will that information be added?

Auctoris (talk) 23:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Nothing to that effect exists, so it won't be added, unless of course it's a reliable source debunking it. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey Auctorisif you look above we are trying to determine the best path forward. Does the flare up of the Biden conspiracy again deserve a subsection? Or is the current batch of lies the same as the old batch of lies and not warrant a subsection?

If you look closely reliable sources, Fox News, have headlines like "According to a source, the FBI has evidence an informant said"

Here is their headline: Trump allies link ex-president's indictment to FBI's Biden document: 'Radical Far Left will stop at nothing'

So they didn't say there is proof beyond "Trump allies say stuff:

I have been watching and I can't find a single source, that is not blocked on Wikipedia, suggesting any evidence of any FBI, doing anything. Jgmac1106 (talk) 13:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

As you say, if it's mostly being covered in propaganda sources that are banned for use, we aren't going to cover it in the encyclopedia either. This isn't a breaking news tabloid with every little story that some kooky right winger starts spouting about. In fact, we should definitely not increase coverage of this in my view, since it seems to be nothing new and just a recycling of the same discredited claptrap. If something new shows up, it will get across the board coverage in reliable sources. Andre🚐 00:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

a historically credible informant has implicated is not accurate, and Comer and Hannity and @BrookeSingman and all the rest know it isn't, but they want everyone to think it is. the credible informant told the FBI what a Ukrainian guy claimed, but could not vouch for its veracity. just passing along something he heard, but Comer wants everyone to think this "highly credible" informant had personal knowledge of Biden bribery. soibangla (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Fox News launders rumors and then debunks itself:

• Fox Hosts Tease FBI Document Shows Biden Was ‘Paid $5 Million’ Bribe — Then Report Fox Source Says It ‘Doesn’t Say That’
• Fox News Reporter Pours Cold Water on Biden Corruption Allegations: Regardless GOP Still ‘Going For the Jugular’

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

there's a very good reason this was a Fox News exclusive.[6] yet it's the top google result for "biden bribe." smh soibangla (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Thankfully we just went to the trouble of downgrading Fox to WP:GUNREL post-2020 per WP:RSP. Andre🚐 18:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Excellent article

While we wait for better confirmation of what's really going on, this RS provides a pretty good look at all the issues:

"Earlier this month, House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer, R-Ky., announced that a document in possession of the FBI that relates to Hunter and Joe Biden “has not been disproven and is currently being used in an ongoing investigation.” In the hands of conservative media and some leading Republicans, that double negative quickly transformed into affirmative proof of a criminal bribery scheme involving the Ukrainian natural gas company that had hired Hunter while his father was vice president."

References

Maybe some of it can be used. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2023

Remove conspiracy and all wording stating claims are false. Appregan (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

No. Zaathras (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2023

Please remove the "Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory" link in light of recent information reflecting it is not just a "theory."

Alternatively, please remove the terms "false," "falsehood," and "falsehoods" from the Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory link. 173.216.47.62 (talk) 06:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

[7] soibangla (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2023 (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. There isn't any wikilink that is linked and/or named as "Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory", you need to be more precise in your request. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)