Talk:Hunter Biden

"Right-wing conspiracy theories" are a strawman

The article makes it sound like the conspiracy theory that "Biden wanted the prosecutor fired to protect his son" is the brunt of the criticism against Hunter Biden. It's not — the accusation being levied first and foremost is that Hunter got the Burisma job only because he's the son of Joe Biden, as a way for Burisma to have greater influence on the US government. That has not been debunked, and the fact that Hunter has very little qualification to sit on the board seems to support this narrative.

By attacking the strawman in the description at the top, the article makes it sound like no impropriety is taking place. I propose the last paragraph to be changed to: "Biden has stirred up controversy by serving on the board of Burisma Holdings, a major Ukrainian natural gas producer, from 2014 to 2019. He has been accused of getting this job only because of his connection to Joe Biden, as a way for the company to gain more US political influence."

Mirek2 (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

If the brunt of the criticism is about potential nepotism then that is in and of itself weak sauce - "rich powerful mans son gets well paid job" is barely a criticism or a controversy (otherwise we'd be here all night dealing with Trump, Trumps kids and their partners, and Trumps donors).

As for his qualification and suitability: He is both an attorney and professional consultant employed to lead on corlorate governance best practice. Find one reliable source that says he is not qualified for that job based upon his past experience, qualification and background? You can't, because his background and qualification would lend itself to that role.

There are sources that discuss if it was appropriate, but these largely predate the conspiracy theories and are largely criticism from within the Democrat base so not some grand controversy. Koncorde (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The brunt of the criticism is an improper business relationship between Burisma and Biden Jr. It's not a simple nepotism story, it's a potential corrupting Ukranian corporate influence story. (Imagine if Donald Trump Jr. was hired by a Russian energy company, allegedly to get access to Donald's father.) And it's this foreign influence story that has NOT been debunked at all — in fact, it's being actively investigated. --Mirek2 (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

If potential corruption was enough, we wouldn't have any senators. If any senator voted for or against something that some lobbyist donating to a campaign wanted, that would be potential corruption. They all say that they are not influenced by such donations. There is plenty of evidence of Trump making decisions based on donors, why not talk about them? Gah4 (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that these things should also be talked about! Fortunately, there is a "Conflict of Interest" section on the Donald Trump page that does exactly that. As conflict of interest seems to be reason enough to warrant mention in the Donald Trump article AND as it is the primary thing being discussed about Hunter, it should also be worthy of mention on this page. --Mirek2 (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The accusation that Hunter Biden took a well paying job with Burisma so he could influence his father into stopping the investigation / prosecution of Zlochevsky doesn't pan out when it is well documented why the prosecutor was fired. Which leaves what? Koncorde (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the accusation about the prosecution of Zlochevsky. That's the strawman that I mentioned. I'm talking about the conflict of interest concerns, which would be confirmed if the recently released hard drive leaks prove to be authentic. (Hunter has not yet confirmed nor denied the legitimacy of the leaks.) Mirek2 (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

the accusation being levied first and foremost is that Hunter got the Burisma job only because he's the son of Joe Biden is incorrect. Nepotism has been ubiquitous in this world since forever, but that said, there isn’t even evidence of nepotism here, but even if there were and that’s all this is about, it wouldn’t be worth any attention. The real reason Hunter Biden has received any attention is to fabricate a transparent political smearjob against his father, and I suspect everyone will suddenly lose all interest in Hunter Biden within days now. soibangla (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

As I explain above, I'm not talking about simple nepotism. I'm talking about a conflict of interest — the "as a way for Burisma to have greater influence on the US government" part of the partly quoted sentence is important. Mirek2 (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

This isn't a Trump vs. Biden point. This is an objective point, that in no way shape or form has he been exonerated of wrongdoing, but that is how the article reads. The bias here is so obvious, and only leads to further polarization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.7.233.239 (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

He hasn't been exonerated because he hasn't been charged with anything. Instead the unsupported conspiracy theories have been debunked, repeatedly. Do you think if there was evidence of Biden (either) committing illegal acts it wouldn't have been presented already? Instead Trump was impeached and not a single witness called mentioned any legitimacy to the accusations against either Biden (nor where there any whistle blowers). Etc etc. This is not polarizing unless you want to believe that the smoke from Trump campaign is somehow evidence of a raging fire for Biden. Koncorde (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

That's an absurd argument of silence. Just because he wasn't charged with anything or there were no witnesses does NOT mean the allegations were debunked. Debunked means to literally show completely false, as in not true. An unconfirmed allegation that's also not falseified is not "debunked." That's loaded language and honestly violates wikipedia guidelines for negatively loaded language described in WP:PEACOCK. Using the word "debunked" when it clearly has not been falsified is a clear display of puffery. The allegation has carried serious noteriety and has not been falsefied, wikipedia should reflect that and not reflect your own personal disbelief of it. --WePFew (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Should we change it from debunked to fringe or simply right wing conspiracy theories? I think half the country would not agree with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allsparkwars1 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

We say "debunked" because that is what they are. Wikipedia is not censored in the interests of political correctness. XOR'easter (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Debunking means proving them wrong. That standard has not yet been met. Nonsense articles that Rudy Giuliani 'may have talked to Russian agents!' isn't proof, especially since those articles are not even provably connected to this story, which is still developing. You can claim skepticism, but the way you all are acting like they are citing meetings with Hunter Biden on the same day he was photographed on the other side of the planet... that hasn't happened.2600:8801:207:9D00:512F:704D:BC2C:4E28 (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

So what standard is their for the accusations to be proved true? Meanwhile it's not about proving them wrong, it's about identifying gaps in the logic, the shoddiness of the evidence, the changing sequence of events, the crudeness of the allegations, and of course the ability to verify the evidence and (in this particular case) NYP's own editorial standards being less than reliable.

Hunter Biden is free to meet with and work with anyone he wants to, but particularly another employee of the company he works for.

The allegation is that he enabled the colleague to make contact with Joe Biden. This is something JB has historically denied and continues to deny, and that we know the NYP did not attempt to verify the claims of the email with Biden. The other email content actually debunks some of the theories already passed around by confirming the chain of events relating to Hunter and Burisma. Koncorde (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

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

---

Mirek2 is absolutely correct. Today we learn that a hard drive containing Hunter Biden's emails was delivered to the FBI, and a copy to Rudy Giuliani's lawyer, and another copy was obtained by the NY Post. The Biden campaign does not dispute the authenticity of the contents of this hard drive, which also contains private photos and videos. Emails recovered from the hard drive make it clear that Hunter Biden was selling influence, and access to Joe Biden. So, far from being "debunked", the concerns that Hunter Biden accepting a position on the board of Burisma was improper (at a minimum, something that created a conflict of interest for his father) were justified. This article puts a straw man argument in the first paragraph in order to make it seem like any concerns about Hunter Biden's actions were debunked. The conspiracy theories are not enumerated, so the wording misleads the reader into thinking that all concerns of improper actions are conspiracy theories that are "debunked". I've proposed to change the wording to this sentence many times (to ... has been the subject of concerns...), but a brigade of reputation defenders has fought valiantly to keep any negative information out of this article. https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/ Tvaughan1 (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

So are we confirming that Ukrainian government agencies were trying to corruptly shakedown Burisma, including the creation of formal legal investigations after earlier attempts failed.

That this dated back to 2006, and the letter dated requested Hunters assistance only happened after he got the job?

And the man in charge, or at least a significant party to the corrupt charges, was subsequently fired?

And that the demand for him being fired came from multiple national agencies, of which Joe Biden led the negotiations to eventually oust the prosecutor?

But an email to Hunter Biden asking him for help is evidence of him acting inappropriately? Koncorde (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The US Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is investigating to validate the information provided by the whistleblower. The emails revealed that Hunter Biden introduced the then-vice president Joe Biden to a top executive at Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings less than a year before he pressured government officials in Ukraine to fire prosecutor Viktor Shokin, who was investigating the company. The Post report revealed that Biden, at Hunter’s request, met with Vadym Pozharskyi in April 2015 in Washington, D.C. “Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure,” the email read. An earlier email from May 2014 also showed Pozharskyi, reportedly a top Burisma executive, asking Hunter for “advice on how you could use your influence” on the company’s behalf, the Post reported. So it is clear that "debunked conspiracy theories" is not a fair, accurate or WP:NPOV summary of the situation as we know it today. Tvaughan1 (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The New York Post is not a reliable source. As mentioned below, their reporting on this specific matter has already been called into question. "Debunked conspiracy theories" continues to be a fair and NPOV description. XOR'easter (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Being called into question is not tantamout to debunking — far from it. Hunter has yet to deny the authenticity of the leaked files, and there is no evidence that was put forward that would disprove their legitimacy. Mirek2 (talk) 22:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

New york post is a reliable source. How about we rename Trump Russia Conspiracy Theories? New York Times said there was nothing going on.2600:8805:C880:3D7:24F5:23DD:1EDF:7B53 (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Might as well just change the paragraph to "debunked alt-right conspiracy theories circulated by the evil Orange Man and his racist, homophobic, transphobic cabal". It's hilarious that anyone would still act like this is an objective article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.108.234.137 (talk) 12:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

There are alot of dated citations in this article. Also, the laptop allegations may not have been authenticated yet, but they certainly have not been debunked. "Debunked" is not an accurate description of the current allegations against Hunter Biden. Jb1919 (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

No information has come to light to debunk the conspiracy theory that either Biden did anything illegal or corrupt regarding the Ukraine or Burisma. The laptop is merely an extension of the previous conspiracy theory. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

New York Post story

The New York Post recently ran a story that claimed they have obtained emails which show Hunter Biden arranged meetings between Joe Biden and a senior official from a Ukrainian energy firm. There are questions about the emails' authenticity and the reliability of the story in general. In the interest of WP:BLP and since NYPost is not considered a reliable source, let's not add information about this story to the article until there are better sources. – Anne drew 19:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I concur. XOR'easter (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Seems to be a very odd series of events, too. What are the odds that Hunter Biden, who lives in California, would take his computer that contains information where he talked to the 2nd most powerful man in the world to a small computer shop that is not even in his own state? No reliable sources have confirmed these events. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The AP writeup makes it pretty clear that the authenticity of the e-mails is very much in question. And according to the NYT,

Last month, United States intelligence analysts contacted several people with knowledge of the Burisma hack for further information after they had picked up chatter that stolen Burisma emails would be leaked in the form of an “October surprise.” Among their chief concerns, according to people familiar with the discussions, was that the Burisma material would be leaked alongside forged materials in an attempt to hurt Mr. Biden’s candidacy — as Russian hackers did when they dumped real emails alongside forgeries ahead of the 2017 French elections — a slight twist on Russia’s 2016 playbook when they siphoned leaked D.N.C. emails through fake personas on Twitter and WikiLeaks.

XOR'easter (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The NY Post story appears to be a medley of baseless claims and questionable evidence. Politicised news have no place in Wikipedia. Glucken123 (talk) 09:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• The background is also, to put it charitably, wildly implausible. Oh, sure, it's possible that a computer store would go to right wing hacks rather than the well-known and easily contacted family that would very obviously be able to pay their bill, but it's rather more likely that Rudy Giuliani, whose associates include known Russian intelligence agents, has been given data stolen by the GRU - because that is exactly what happened with WikiLeaks in 2016, and the Russians are not exactly known for changing a winning formula. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. Additionally, it is useful to look at Washington Post's investigations into the matter. NY Post has been complaining about social media censorship (which I also found a bit extreme - especially on Twitter), but on the other hand there is absolutely no doubt that most of the "evidence" presented in the article seems false, misleading and the result of hacking (again!). Therefore, I agree with you that NY Post's leaving us with no choice here. This is garbage. Glucken123 (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Similar situation to the Steele Dossier, in my opinion. Nobody wanted to publish the dossier, but after Buzzfeed did then the mainstream outlets reported that Buzzfeed reported it. The claims in the story could be dubious, but it wouldn't be appropriate to not report on the subsequent firestorm of stories from many reputable sources. The overall impact of this story on history is massive, because let's not forget that Trump was impeached because of his actions regarding the allegations. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC) Mr Ernie (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, no, not the same at all. The allegation that Hunter Biden influenced his father to get Shokin removed to protect his employer has been extensively discussed in the past, and is well known to be false. Removing Shokin was the official policy of the US, EU, IMF and World Bank. All of them were calling for Shokin's removal before Joe Biden ever got involved. The first motion to remove Shokin was introduced in July 2015 by Yehor Soboliev. Removing Shokin made it more likely that Burisma would be prosecuted, not less.

We should cover the story, but we should follow the reliable independent sources, which point this out, and also point out that the source of the purported (and unverified) emails is very likely the Kremlin. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. We can't bury any mention of this, because it actually is hugely important, but not necessarily for the reasons the NYPost is reporting. There's also the secondary effect it is having on "censorship," as Trump's campaign twitter and the House Judiciary twitter have been locked for sharing it. That is YUGE - a company limiting what official government accounts can share because of potential misinformation. The articles I linked have good details.

And yes, it is the same as the Steele Dossier, including the potential that Russian disinformation could be behind this too. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, it's not hugely important, it's actually very trivial. But it's in the news and it looks weird not to discuss it.

US involvement in Ukraine has been less than stellar (e.g. Rick Perry acting as fixer for donors to get a multi-million-dollar gas deal), but the claim that Joe Biden did anything to protect Hunter's income has been extensively investigated and is false. Unlike the idea that the Trump regime has pushed for Ukraine to open an investigation into Hunter Biden and Burisma, which they had repeatedly not done due to lack of evidence. No doubt they are disappointed that the investigation only covers events before Hunter Biden joined the board. My personal belief is that the involvement of serious people like Aleksander Kwaśniewski probably represented something of a turning point in Burisma, though he himself ias a - ahem - colourful character. Hunter Biden was actually tasked with looking at corporate governance policies in the firm. But I'm not an expert on Eastern European oil and gas oligarchies. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I’m not sure what you are responding to. I’ve never claimed Hunter Biden did anything inappropriate. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, the New York Post story has been shared over 321,000 times on Facebook and accumulated 1.2 million engagements [1], so whatever they said they were doing about "throttling its spread" was probably not a very drastic move. Twitter was following a pre-existing policy they've had for two years and which has impacted left-leaning sites too. I would be hesitant to write article text about this until the partisan sound-and-fury had been analyzed and given context by good secondary sources. XOR'easter (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it should be added if it was Don JR or Eric the admins and editors would be having meltdowns..Guitarguy2323 (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

We know about Don Jr and Eric's actual corruptions and are not "having meltdowns". Stick with discussing Hunter Biden on this talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Guitarguy2323, you think the editors of Fox would be enraged if it turned out that Trump's children were using the family name to score business deals overseas? Guy (help! - typo?) 22:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The beginning is slanted and contains opinion

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.

---

" He has been the subject of debunked right-wing conspiracy theories concerning his business dealings in Ukraine"

Considering this is once more in the news, to use language like "debunked right-wing conspiracy theories" is paper-thin, and obviously BIASED. In other words, this is DNC propaganda. Why is it "right-wing"? Why is it a conspiracy?

THIS IS PRE PACKAGED DNC TALKING POINTS

Did Hunter's lawyer write this, complete and total hackery? how dumb do you think we are?

Does the DNC edit your site nowadays?

This bias is so blatant, you have ZERO credibility any longer There is plenty behind the Hunter Biden story, you recite DNC talk points This is outrageous, do you think we are retarded?

I'm in journalism I dont vote I dont care but this is BLATANT propaganda and disinformation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seekingtruth1776 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

If you are in journalism you will understand the need to verify the things you report or else you are just boosting the noise of the biggest voice. Wikipedia does that by relying on the coverage of already well established media sources with decades, if not centuries, of history covering news factually.

Also you should vote. And you probably should care too. Koncorde (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia is very seriously compromising its credibility as an unbiased source. Using the term right wing debunked conspiracy theories is patently ridiculous in light of the New York Post stories and parts that have been independently confirmed. It is also patently ridiculous to state it is Russian disinformation given that just today the Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe has said there is no evidence the laptop is Russian disinformation in spite of what Rep Schiff has claimed. There are multiple ways to rephrase this introduction so it not presented as if Wikipedia is part of the DNC. Create a "sources have claimed" with citations or having a section termed "controversy" or any number of other neutral mechanisms for presenting the information. Let me repeat myself. Wikipedia is very seriously compromising its credibility as an unbiased source. As a Canadian and an outsider to this dispute who does not get to vote, today Wikipedia looks like part of the propaganda arm of the DNC and frankly, I find I am embarrassed to be associated with it.Bjorklund21 (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Please do not add comments to discussions that have been closed. Thank you. XOR'easter (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Lawyer

The first description of him is a Lawyer, however nothing in the article suggests he ever practiced law and so it appears undue to use that as the first description of him. I'm not suggesting describing him as a lobbyist as that could appear to have negative connotations, but perhaps "businessman" is a more accurate description of him. Pi (Talk to me!) 22:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Multiple articles state that Hunter was of counsel at the law firm Boies Schiller Flexner. I found that he is admitted to practice law in Connecticut as of 2014 - https://federalnewsnetwork.com/government-news/2014/10/bidens-son-faces-no-bar-review-after-discharge/ Some of everything (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Fox news addition

The paragraph added re Burisma bribes has two refs, Reuters and Fox. WP has found Fox not to be reliable for science or political topics. Reuters is reliable but that article says right off: "Ukraine alleges $5 million bribe over Burisma, no Biden link." I have (again) deleted this section. The first editor that deleted it was correct. Gandydancer (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

How is Fox News not a reliable source? Mother Jones and Media Matters are used here everyday — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guitarguy2323 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussions leading to community consensus about all of these sources can be found via WP:RSP. XOR'easter (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I just want to point out the obvious bias that is occurring on this supposedly "unbiased" platform. FOX is considered to be biased. The New York Post is "unreliable". However, MotherJones, The Daily Beast, Playboy, PolitiFact, and Slate, among many others, are considered to be reliable. Apparently, if a paper has a clear left-ward slant, they are reliable. If they have a right-ward slant, they are unreliable. This bias is continued in the lead of this article. Some editors on this page have said that "He has been the subject of debunked right-wing conspiracy theories" is somehow a factual and unbiased statement.

I'm unsure how this story could possibly be debunked when there is now new evidence reopening the debate about Hunter Biden's business dealings in Ukraine. To reflect the now open debate, the lead should be changed to read "He has been the subject of controversies about his claimed acceptance of money in return for providing intimate access to United States Foreign Policy." This is clearly the less-biased of the two options. Writing the statement this way doesn't assume he is guilty, doesn't mention Joe Biden, and doesn't assume the accuracy of the accusations. But unlike the original statement, it does indicate there IS clearly a controversy and that Hunter Biden is at the center of it. That is objectively true.

As multiple editors have now agreed, the New York Post story has not been verified, but it also hasn't been debunked. So the lead is clearly false until this changes one way or the other. NationalInterest16 (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

As WP:RSP makes clear, the Wikipedia community has deemed plenty of left-leaning sources unreliable for our purposes. And per our policy on Biographies of Living Persons, unfounded allegations are not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia articles. Nothing that has transpired this week has made the existing text inaccurate. XOR'easter (talk) 22:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

NationalInterest16, I was personally responsible for getting Occupy Democrats deprecated. It's not about political lean, it's about factual reliability. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

We don't have to wait for the NY Post article to be "debunked". The claims are sketchy at best, and the background on it makes it appear to be Russian disinformation given to Derkach, who then gave it to Giuliani, who then went to a Murdoch-owned rag. There are no needed changes to Hunter Biden's article to make at this time. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

"Sketchy at best"? We now have the Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee investigating the emails. Not to mention, we don't even have a denial from the Biden campaign that the meeting didn't take place. They have also not denied the veracity of the emails. Again, if there is an ongoing investigation by the US Senate and FBI, clearly the story is not "debunked". "Debunked" would assume the investigation has been completed.

The lead should at least be changed to show that an investigation is ongoing. That would be a fair and unbiased approach. I agree that we can't jump to conclusions, but that should be true in both directions. Assuming the story is correct is jumping to a conclusion. Assuming the story is false is jumping to a conclusion. Let's not do either. NationalInterest16 (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

We know for a fact is that Burisma was hacked in January. The metadata on the files allegedly from this laptop shows that they were created after the laptop was allegedly dropped off at the repair shop. The guy who turned in the laptop has contradicted himself several times already. This whole story stinks of dezinformatsiya. The allegations appear to many, including U.S. intelligence, to be fabricated. The Senate committees are led by Republicans, who are up for election in 18 days. Hardly impartial. Suggesting that there is anything legitimate to any of this would be WP:UNDUE weight and include a nasty smear, just to appear "fair and unbiased"? No, adding the suggestion that this is real would be quite biased. Links:

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/technology/521156-us-intelligence-analysts-predicted-stolen-burisma-emails-would

https://www.ibtimes.sg/hunter-biden-forensic-data-reveals-emails-were-created-months-after-laptop-was-dropped-off-repair-52517 – Muboshgu (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

NationalInterest16, The Senate Committee is run by Republicans. Only a bipartisan report from the full committee has any objective merit. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

That does not debunk or discredit anything, hence IB Times not NY Times. That date is the system date\time when the file was exported to PDF. Which could be any date or time currently set on the system. Even assuming it is accurate, it debunks nothing beyond the pdf copy was made a year ago or before the alleged Burisma hacking. Nothing involving the Post story has been debunked or discredited yet. When that does happen, it will be front page news and not on some random purposeful disinformation twitter feed being furthered on WP talk pages. PS given the censorship the Post editor cited six examples of fake news being furthered by social media w/o censorship,five were adopted by WP as gospel, i have seen at least 47refs to them in just three days. The never to be deprecated RS never issued corrections or retractions and yea if the last name was Trump, not only would this be included and expanded to ten different pages but even after they were conclusiely proven false, they would still be on the site ie Manafort met Assange et al.2601:46:C801:B1F0:EAF2:E2FF:FECD:3EEA (talk) 10:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

When dealing with WP:BLP we are careful to include, and exclude, unverified information until it is verified. The burden of proof is upon those wishing to add the content that the content is covered in reliable sources and says the thing that they want to say. At present the sources claiming that the emails are valid are both deprecated due to their inherent unreliability, and also intrinsically linked to certain people. Meanwhile reliable sources have been warning of this for months, and at present are not discussing any related idea that there is a Hunter Biden related controversy: they know Hunter worked in Ukraine, they know he had a drug problem, and they know he was trying to make money with his uncle and his family (all long documented).

Instead their focus is upon the controversial aspect of Giulani's involvement. Koncorde (talk) 12:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hunter Biden/Ukraine

Emails were published that prove Biden met with the Ukrainians. This article claims that Biden’s connections to Burisma are a merely a “debunked right wing conspiracy theory.”

For the sake of Wikipedia’s credibility, neutralize the overt left leaning bias displayed by this article. Lightuponthenations (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Nothing published to date proves anything untoward. We know that Joe Biden "met with the Ukrainians". He was implementing a US foreign policy strategy that everyone, including Republican Senators, supported. XOR'easter (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know, the article never claims that Hunter Biden did not meet with Ukrainians. The article mentions a conspiracy theory on two occasions: that Hunter Biden is the subject of right-wing conspiracy theories, and that recordings released by Andrii Derkach do not support the conspiracy theory that Joe Biden wanted the Ukrainian prosecutor fired to protect his son. Which of these mentions are you complaining about here? AlexEng^(TALK) 22:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Lightuponthenations, There's no need for us to see any Russian-hacked emails to know that Biden met with Ukrainians., The press were there. He went to Ukraine to promote official US (and European Union and International Monetary Fund and World Bank) policy of removing the corrupt Viktor Shokin from office. In doing so he made it more likely that Burisma would be investigated. The first motion to remove Shokin for corruption was in July 2015, months after he took office, and he was kicked out by an overwhelming majority vote int he Ukrainian Parliament in March 2016, after not much more than a year, during which time he did not prosecute a large number of corrupt people (or indeed some murderers). Coincidentally he accumulated very large sums of money and jewels and multiple passports during this time. I am sure the two are unrelated.

What we don't know is why a laptop containing documents purporting to be private emails of Hunter Bidens ended up in a computer shop in Delaware shortly after reports that the GRU had hacked data from Burisma and others. Giuliani seems to know a lot about it, but I am sure none of it came from his buddy Andrii Derkach, because Giuliani is way too smart to talk to Russian agents, right? Guy (help! - typo?) 22:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• Update: White House knew that Giuliani was being fed Russian disinformation. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/giuliani-biden-ukraine-russian-disinformation/2020/10/15/43158900-0ef5-11eb-b1e8-16b59b92b36d_story.html?fbclid=IwAR2fxZmSKYAElKPdwLTNStclV_oGJrTaA8f_ICnz7NhTk-WgOjWATr4Q1KY Guy (help! - typo?) 23:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
• Suspect provenance of the "Biden laptop" [2]. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Unless there is some *proof* that the data from the laptop was faked -- then this isn't a "conspiracy theory". People (including WP approved news sources) should have genuine concern about the the implications and direct evidence shown from data on the laptop. You can argue against the authenticity of the data, but unless you can show ANY TYPE of evidence that it isn't legitimate, then the reference to "conspiracy theories" should obviously be wiped from the page. This is costing WP, and the editors of this page, credibility. Jlb071 (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)jlb071

Unless there is some *proof* that the data from the laptop was faked -- then this isn't a "conspiracy theory". That isn't how conspiracy theories work. CT's are successful because they misrepresent factual data and create fanciful narratives that appeal to a particular base of individuals. The arguments are superficially convincing because of the veneer of legitimacy offered with their evidence that is typically cherry picked.

Like this.

You are asking all RS to take at face value the idea that a well connected man would take unencrypted incriminating data to a small repair shop to have it recovered at the exact same time as the President was being impeached, then fail to pick it up when all pressure was being placed upon the Democrats to have Hunter testify. And all this against the backdrop of a known hack of Burisma?

You are then asking them to believe the FBI (under the control of Trump loyal appointees) somehow hid the content of the drive and took no action because they are corrupt, while at the same time the President started pushing Iran/ China to the fore and minimising Russian involvement in such campaigns. This against the backdrop of Democrats being excluded from sexurity briefings, and the FBI and CISA both issuing a statement warning people about foreign actors.

Finally a compromised Giuliani (as warned multiple times) who we know from Trumps own defence of his actions last year in sending him to work with foreign agents, and his existing ties to people like Lev Parnas and his known links to Derkach (declared a foreign agent by the Treasury), is the one who mysteriously presents the data to the NYP, an organisation with a well established failing editorial standard.

Now, that is a conspiracy theory that hasn't been debunked. Koncorde (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Jlb071, there is an old saying: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The evidence here is extraordinary only in its use of Rudy Giuliani, a figure whose involvement would cast doubt on a claim that the sky is blue. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The evidence so far in support of the emails, a receipt showing Hunter Biden dropped off the laptop, a direct source supporting the veracity of the emails, the FBI stating the emails are not Russian disinformation, the DOJ stating the emails are not Russian disinformation, the owner of the shop testifying under penalty of felony perjury that the laptop is Hunter Biden's, actual photos of Hunter Biden from the laptop, and no denial from the Biden campaign about the veracity of the emails. What will it take for these emails to be considered "real"? Would Hunter Biden stating under oath that they are real be enough? NationalInterest16 (talk) 04:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLP requires that any dubious claims be sourced, even on talk pages. Multiple RS have expressed skepticism of the New York Post's article. The WP:BURDEN is on editors wishing to add content to show that it's appropriate and gain consensus. Everyone, NationalInterest16 included: please stick to RS and avoid rhetorical what-ifs. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Chinese Communist Party

Has Hunter Biden had dealings, directly or indirectly, with the Communist Party of China? Also, it seems notable to mention the October 15, 2020 New York Post article (which mentions ties between Ye Jianming, the Chinese businessmen Biden dealt with in big-money deals, and the Chinese military and government) as well as Facebook and Twitter's banning of users from even posting about this story. Link 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

As already pointed out on this page, the story itself was shared hundreds of thousands of times on Facebook, and it has widely been discussed on Twitter (multiple hashtags on the topic trended for hours today). The New York Post is a tabloid, not a reliable source. XOR'easter (talk) 02:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@XOR'easter:Yes, but there is a federal investigation going into it. That should be considered encyclopedia-worthy, don't you think? www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/feds-examining-if-alleged-hunter-biden-emails-are-linked-foreign-n1243620 Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 20:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

EDG 543, I think you're misunderstanding that NBC News article, which makes no mention of China or communists. The FBI is investigating the origin of this "information", not any of Hunter Biden's ties. As the article concludes, In January, it was reported that Burisma’s networks had been breached by Russian hackers. That is what is being investigated. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

You are correct about China, sorry about that. However, I still don't see how this isn't notable. The title of the article tells what the investigation is: "Feds examining whether alleged Hunter Biden emails are linked to a foreign intel operation." Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 20:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you meant to ping me, not XOR? The feds are investigating the connection of these laptops to foreign agents through disinformation campaigns. At this point it is not clear that Hunter Biden owned or ever used any laptops that were brought to that repair shop, so this would be premature at this point. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

"Alleged Hunter Biden emails" soibangla (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, yes, my apologies. Sorry if it seems like I'm just trying to stir up trouble, I'm not. I just thought that with a federal investigation going on and there being absolutely no mention of it seems a bit fishy. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 23:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

EDG 543, no worries, I didn't think you're stirring up trouble. It's just that there's no clear information about how this investigation connects to Hunter Biden. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, it is allegedly his laptop, which is the connection. But you are right, I have done some more research and the investigation is still underway and hasn't proven Hunter's connection or if the laptop/emails are even legitimate. Once the investigation concludes, we will know the answer. Until then, we wait. Thank you for being civil, I really appreciate people like you. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 01:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Personal Life/ Drug Addiction

Can we talk about the recently released picture of him smoking crack in bed here to provide some context for his drug problems? It might also help explain some of the stranger accusations being levied against him, like dropping off a waterlogged computer for repair at a blind man's shop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:702:4950:E0C3:3181:ADAB:F724 (talk) 11:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like speculation. Koncorde (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The first sentence is a question and in no way speculation. Wanted to know if adding information about him smoking crack under his "drug addiction" section was appropriate. I don't think it's speculation that there's a picture of him smoking crack in bed that was recently released and reported about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:702:4950:5C7A:7E6F:65A:BFAB (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The "speculation" is about his drug problems having to do with him dropping off the laptops, when we even know that he went to that store. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The article talks about his drug problem extensively. I'm not sure what exactly you want added? Theorizing about how his addiction might tie into the New York Post's suspected disinformation campaign would be original research. – Anne drew 14:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I would want the topic of a picture of him smoking crack in bed being released to be added, as I think you and I have subjective definitions of "extensive." The second sentence was to suggest that the pictures might in some way prove some of the veracity of the New York Post story, and was more a snide comment directed at what I perceive to be the admins' bias rather than a fact meant to be placed in the article. The line between subjectivity and objectivity can be tough, so I should have made myself more clear before the wiki admins. I apologize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:702:4950:5C7A:7E6F:65A:BFAB (talk) 22:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if the photos are genuine, but if they are then presumably Hunter Biden owns the copyright and we would need his permission to use them. Regardless, I think you know an image like that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. You wouldn't open the Britannica article of a public figure and expect to see a photo of them using narcotics, because that would paint the subject in a needlessly disparaging light. See WP:MUG for our policy on this. – Anne drew 23:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I kinda misread you. My bad – Anne drew 01:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Anne drew Andrew and Drew, I agree we can't use the photo without getting a release from the copyright holder, but I'm unclear why you would presume that the copyright belongs to Hunter Biden. I haven't seen them, so perhaps it's possible that they are selfies but if not, it's not clear who the copyright holder is. S Philbrick(Talk) 01:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The photo New York Post published looks like a selfie to me, but it's hard to be sure – Anne drew 01:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Hmm you can talk about it on Facebook, I suppose. Sorry, but your second sentence sounds like it came right out of a Tom Waits song from the 1980s. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I think if we are claiming that the emails are clearly just a right-wing conspiracy based on Russian disinformation, that it would make sense for us to also claim that the pictures of him smoking crack - you know, the ones that came from the computer planted by the Russians - were really just photoshopped by the Trump campaign. After all, why would we want to believe our lying eyes? NationalInterest16 (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I have seen no such images because none have been released. So, we're still talking about an unverified allegation, and that's a big no-no for WP:BLPs. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Is an ongoing federal investigation a big no-no for BLP's as well? Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 23:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

EDG 543, reliable source for the existence of one? Guy (help! - typo?) 00:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

No, Giuliani Is Said to Be Under Investigation for Ukraine Work is in Rudy's BLP. soibangla (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/feds-examining-if-alleged-hunter-biden-emails-are-linked-foreign-n1243620, www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-biden-emails-senate-homeland-security-committee-investigating-hard-drive-laptop, and wjla.com/news/nation-world/sen-johnson-to-investigate-claims-in-new-york-post-story-others-question-accuracy for starters. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 00:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

EDG 543, Hunter Biden isn't under investigation. The FBI is investigating how these laptops came to be, and it may have nothing to do with Hunter at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

JzGYou are correct, it may have nothing to do with him, but it is, allegedly, his computer. Also, thank you for having a civil conversation about this instead of an argument, it is much appreciated. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 00:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

EDG 543, Sure, the Feds are investigating whether this extremely dubious laptop drop is connected with the warnings they gave the White House about Russian intelligence operations around hacked emails. No doubt they will be informed by the attempts to do exactly the same thing to Emmanuel Macron, dropping a mix of stolen material and outright forgeries in an unsuccessful attempt to defeat a candidate in a national election.

Some of us are old enough to remember when a US administration's response to foreign intelligence operations would not depend on whether they benefit one individual (or rather, Individual 1). Guy (help! - typo?) 16:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

BLP

Clearly, the authenticity of the Giuliani Bonus is in doubt. Under the circumstances we should not be adding anything about that to the lead until the circumstances are more widely agreed. I hope somebody removes it. SPECIFICO talk 02:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Here's the text in it's current form:

In 2020, an article from the New York Post drew increased attention to the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. The article is unsubstantiated and some have raised concerns it could be part of a disinformation campaign.

I think it's important to have some reference to the story since that's why many readers are coming here, but I agree maybe it doesn't belong in the lead. – Anne drew 02:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I got real problems with it because in the highly likely case this is disinformation then we are taking the bait as designed, giving the disinformation oxygen, keeping it alive, helping it to go viral. soibangla (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree. If people want to learn about it they can can look at the online news sources. We're an encyclopedia and we always insist on extra care in our BLPs. At present this is hardly more than gossip. Gandydancer (talk) 02:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

You all are probably right. The New York Post allegations are adequately summarized in Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, so a link there should suffice. When this story develops further and reliable sources state that the allegations are correct or (more likely) that Biden was a victim of a disinformation campaign, we can add those details to the article. There's no rush and we should take our time to get this right. – Anne drew 03:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it is well written but the lead is so short that it is taking up almost a third of the copy. I removed it from the lead. Gandydancer (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Anne drew Andrew and Drew, change "some have raised concerns" to "the FBI are investigating concerns", otherwise it's fine. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

A general thought: the text in question does seem a bit long for the lede, but the lede also seems a bit short for a article of this length. XOR'easter (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Gandydancer (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

PS, when I first noted how short it was I thought I'd expand it a tad but quickly realized Jeez Louise (or something similar ) this will be quite alotta work! I trust that a younger more bushy-tailed editor will attempt it? Gandydancer (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 October 2020

The New York Times has confirmed his dealing with Ukraine. It compromises Wikipedia’s non biased standing to still have it labeled as a debunked conspiracy. 172.6.253.209 (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. There's no dispute that Biden had business dealings in Ukraine. If one of the conspiracy theories about his work there has been verified by the New York Times, please provide the article. – Anne drew 15:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 October 2020 (2)

"He and his father have been the subjects of debunked right-wing conspiracy theories pushed by Donald Trump and his allies concerning Biden business dealings and anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine.[1]" This has NOT been "debunked" and this is election interference!!!! 64.67.132.20 (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form 'please change X to Y'." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 October 2020

In paragraph 2: Replace: "debunked right-wing conspiracy theories pushed by Donald Trump and his allies" With: "allegations" 71.168.227.185 (talk) 01:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: because it is still debunked. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Change debunked to disputed in header

Debunked is obviously false, there's non trivial evidence from reliable media outlets, and keeping it as such is openly partisan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.5.219 (talk) 02:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Completely agree. The matter has not been debunked, an in light of recent information coming to light it is certainly inaccurate and arguably partisan to state this is debunked in the article. BR549.2 (talk) 03:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you please point to the reliable media outlets and their articles, thank you. Koncorde (talk) 03:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 03:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

What Koncorde said. XOR'easter (talk) 05:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 October 2020 (2)

Change "He and his father have been the subjects of debunked right-wing conspiracy theories pushed by Donald Trump and his allies concerning Biden business dealings and anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine" to "Allegations of corruption were made with respect to Hunter Biden's use of his position at Burisma Holdings in Ukraine"

Sources :

• https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/10/16/twitter_facebook__hunter_biden_big_tech_as_big_brother_144467.html
• https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/about-that-hunter-biden-story/

I would add the New York Post's article, but since this source is not WP:RSP, I omitted it to avoid criticism. MonsieurD (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Asartea ^{Trick | Treat} 15:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

1. Those are not RSes.

2. Per the rules, edit requests can only be made for uncontroversial content changes, so get consensus first, right here on the talk page.

3. This article also applies to Joe Biden, not just Hunter Biden.

4. The identities of "who" is pushing these conspiracy theories is important to mention. -- Valjean (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Modifying the lead section

Hi folks,

I think the lead section is WP:POV. The allegations of corruption are not conspiracy theories. They have been documented in maintream media, especially with the NY Post dossier. I know the the NY Post is not WP:RS in general, but I would plead WP:5P5 on this. I don't think the term "conspiracy theories" is warranted anymore. "Allegations" would be way more neutral than "conspiracy theories".

The main source:

• https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/

Other sources about this :

• https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/10/16/twitter_facebook__hunter_biden_big_tech_as_big_brother_144467.html
• https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/about-that-hunter-biden-story/
• https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-biden-emails-chinese-energy-firm-burisma-executive

Note that the last one is WP:RS MonsieurD (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Nothing you have said or cited supports your complaint. SPECIFICO talk 16:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The fact that mainstream media considered reliable sources on Wikipedia (i.e. Fox News) considers the allegations credible enough to cover and does not qualify them to be conspiracy theories supports my complaint. MonsieurD (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

False premise, false conclusion. Fox and NY Post are corporate siblings. Not RS. SPECIFICO talk 16:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

MonsieurD, WP:RSP says There is consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science.' Fox News and the NY Post are both owned by the Murdoch's, who skew to the Republicans. Besides, what is the allegation? I clicked on that Fox News link. They're throwing things around to make it look nefarious, but there's no apparent wrongdoing here. Given this is a WP:BLP, why would we use it to insinuate negative things about the subject that are dubious at best? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok then. New source from The Hill which is WP:RS. https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/521336-feds-investigating-if-alleged-hunter-biden-emails-connected-to MonsieurD (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

You may not use this talk page to promote WP:UNDUE or false BLP content. SPECIFICO talk 17:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

What is false and according to what source? The New York Post dossier is discussed in reliable sources without being flagged as conspiracy theories by them. We should go with what the RS say and I have provided evidence that the RS support my point. MonsieurD (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

More WP:RS here (Snopes). It's not described as a conspiracy theory here either. I just want to remind everyone that I do not ask for the allegations of corruption to be presented as facts, but to swipe off the mention of them as conspiracy theories. It is a moderate point for the sake of neutrality. There is evidence. It's covered in RS. Wikipedia shouldn't brush it off as a conspiracy. MonsieurD (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

NBC News: President Donald Trump on Wednesday seized on an unverified report about Joe Biden's son Hunter, using it to repeat his often-told conspiracy theory about the Ukrainian energy company Burisma. Plenty of sources call it a conspiracy theory. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

MonsieurD, er, do you understand that source? The Feds are looking into whether the release is part of a foreign influence operation, because they already know that Fancy Bear has been working on hacking Burisma and Hunter Biden, and they already told the White House last year that Giulinai is being used as a conduit for Kremlin disinformation. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes I do. But even if Russia was instrumental in providing the information, if the emails are real, then it's not a conspiracy theory. Asking where an information comes from is not the same thing as asking whether it's true.MonsieurD (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory is that the Bidens did anything inappropriate with Burisma and the Ukraine. The emails, which may be legit if they were indeed hacked by Russia from Bursima, appear to include nothing to suggest improper behavior by either Biden. So, it's still a debunked.conspiracy theory. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Not to mention that Hunter doing something inappropriate doesn't mean that Joe did. Well, we already knew that Hunter had a drug problem. A photo of Joe with a crack pipe might be news, if reliably sourced. It is way too easy to fake photographs, not to mention e-mails. Gah4 (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

MonsieurD, absolutely nothing has changed with the terming of Joe or Hunter Biden doing anything wrong in regards to Burisma or the Ukraine. Some emails and text messages were released that, if authentic, prove that Joe Biden loves his son and supported him through his addiction. The metadata on many of the other documents makes them appear to be forged. Reliable source discuss this as possible Russian disinformation. Here's one: [3] – Muboshgu (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

This is blatant WP:Bias, and this article needs some major changes to bring it in line with the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oea the King (talk • contribs) 01:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC) — Oea the King (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Talks of this being debunked are obviously false and should not be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.5.219 (talk) 22:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

MonsieurD, we deal with this much more and better at Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. I suggest you check there before you dig yourself deeper here. -- Valjean (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree...though I am surprised to see that there is no disagreement to have this included at the Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign article. Gandydancer (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Just another example of the biased editors on Wikipedia (who are probably bankrolled by the democrats) enforcing a biased viewpoint using their biased RS as an excuse. No one takes Wikipedia seriously anymore when it comes to political topics! 2401:E180:8813:10F4:2869:EC01:C322:6545 (talk) 08:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Where were you during Troopergate? Were those stories true or false? How about that there impeachment last year? I take it the dozens of witnesses could be trusted right? No? But Rudy Giuliani with a hard drive of unknown provenance, suspected forged emails, and the New York Post and suddenly it's not fake news anymore. Koncorde (talk) 09:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

This sentence in the lead has been a clear subject of controversy. How can we claim it is "debunked" when there are ongoing investigations with new evidence still emerging. As myself and many others have now pointed out, we don't need to say the evidence is factual, but it is certainly demonstrating bias to claim they are not factual. For those claiming that there is no wrong-doing and that Joe Biden simply loves his son, the entire discussion is centered around whether Joe Biden threatened to cut aid for the Ukrainians unless they fired Viktor Shogun. If true - that's a crime. We know because there was an entire impeachment hearing about Donald Trump pressuring the Ukrainians. These emails are evidence that Joe Biden lied about knowing of his son's business dealings. They are also evidence that Joe Biden may have pressured the Ukrainians to help his son increase his wealth.

Regarding the veracity of the emails, we now have the Director of National Intelligence stating that there is no evidence the emails were planted by the Russians as reported by Newsweek today. We also have FOX reporting that they have a source who was part of one of the email chains claiming the emails are accurate. The Biden campaign has refused to state whether the emails are actually false - instead they keep saying it's a "smear" without actually denying the information in the emails.

Under penalty of a federal perjury charge, the owner told a US Senate panel that the laptop is indeed Hunter Biden's as reported by The Washington Times. Furthermore, this is now an official investigation. Therefore, the lead should at least be changed to say "He and his father are the subjects of ongoing investigations about allegations of corruption stemming from Hunter Biden's business dealings with Burisma". That does not indicate guilt or innocence. We could also say "ongoing Republican-led investigations" if you want to make it clear that Democrats are not participating. NationalInterest16 (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

We've gone over this. Allegations of bad behavior by either Biden are thoroughly debunked. That includes the Viktor Shokin allegations, which were debunked before impeachment started. It is important to be clear that these allegations are "false" or "debunked" or whatever synonym you prefer. The only investigations being discussed are the FBI investigating who planted the laptop in Delaware, and potential sham investigations the Senate Republicans want to hold against social media for throttling the story. The emails may be legit, as Burisma was reportedly hacked by Russia in January, but there's nothing in them that proves bad behavior by either Biden. The laptop is highly suspect. This is a BLP and we won't be insinuating what Giuliani wants insinuated here, not without proof that at this point does not appear to exist. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 October 2020

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

---

Please remove the "debunked" conspiracy text. It has not been debunked nor 100% confirmed. The statement should read that his past business dealings in Ukraine and China are currently under investigation for possible corruption. That is the only undisputed fact right now (Investigation is being conducted by Senate Homeland Security Committee and the FBI). 69.127.240.166 (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The allegations have been known, and known to be false, for at least a year. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

That reply is pretty weak given the New York Post story was published last week. New evidence should lead to reassessments. MonsieurD (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Except the NYP is deprecated because it is unreliable, and all other reliable sources are treating this story as either an extension of prior smear attempts, or directly questioning the evidence and its source. Koncorde (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Leaving aside the allegations themselves, there does appear to be significant debate and conversation on the talk page regarding the specific use of the word 'debunked'. Would it be appropriate at this point to hold a vote to see where consensus lays? RandomGnome (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

RandomGnome, I believe there is such a debate going on as we speak on the Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory page. Could be good to have here as well, unless we just want to consider that consensus to cover all Biden/Burisma related articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

MonsieurD, the "evidence" is dubious and we won't run something like that, giving it false equivalence, in a BLP. We err on the side of not including something like this. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not claim that the evidence is enough to say there is corruption, but I do claim that the evidence is enough to stop disqualifying all allegations of corruption as a conspiracy theory. That's the neutral thing to do. As it stands, the lead is not neutral because it discounts ideas that have not been debunked, but only put in question. MonsieurD (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I concur Gem fr (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

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

any evidence of a conspiracy by rightwingers? Then why push this, then?

I won't enter the matter whether the claim of corruption are true, false, or "debunked". Nor the matter that they are pushed bu Trump and right wingers (the obviously are). However, to claim this is a "right wing conspiracy theory" IS a conspiracy theory. So you need more than left wingers claim to push this conspiracy theory into Wikipedia, as it is right now. A more neutral writing, such like

He and his father have been accused of corruption concerning Biden business dealings in Ukraine[1], charge they dismiss by claiming they were actually fighting corruption. These accusations are being pushed hard by Donald Trump and his allies in the final weeks of 2020 Presidential election.

would be factual, saying no less, without the "we know the truth" (we don't!) implication of "conspiracy theory" and "debunked", that actually hurt Wikipedia. Have a nice day. Gem fr (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources already cited in the article describe it as a conspiracy theory whose political slant is obvious. XOR'easter (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

This is just NOT true. All the given source about a "conspiracy" date back to 2019, before the laptop emerged, so they are just as outdated as an Aristotelian Cosmogony. The most recent (factcheck.org) is far more cautious, on the "this is unproven and no investigation so far as been launched" line; the word "conspiracy" do not even appear in their piece. Then again, the idea that this is a right wing conspiracy to push debunkend conspiracy theory is unsupported and cannot appear in the headlines as it does.Gem fr (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The reliable sources are dubious about the provenance of the laptop. So why would we give more credence to the laptop than reliable sources do? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

This is not the point. YOU have to prove this is a conspiracy, as you claim (ie, not just "dubious", but fake and planted). And you have no source for that.

The most recent Gardian piece on the matter do not use the word "conspiracy" either. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/20/trump-barr-special-prosecutor-joe-biden-hunter-biden

So, then again, where are your reliable sources to delete the POV flag? Gem fr (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

At present the laptop is an extension of the original conspiracy. It even has the same people involved. It is still framing the same argument, just now it's trying to point at certain emails and saying "look, this proves corruption!", but Ukraines own investigation into Burisma says otherwise, and there is nothing fundamentally wrong with dealing with China (ask Trump). Koncorde (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Just support your claim at that 1) the laptop DO NOT change anything. 2) this is a Trump / right wing conspiracy. The currently used sources just do not support that claim. I found none other (but, there are so many, I might have missed).Gem fr (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Koncorde is 100% correct here. Giuliani and Derkach saved this last bit of their Burisma smear for mid-October. It doesn't change anything. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

So you just inadvertently admitted you believe in a conspiracy theory, according to which "Giuliani and Derkach saved this last bit of their Burisma smear for mid-October", without any piece of evidence and no source. Of course, this makes sense and MIGHT be right (politics is the realm of conspiracies if any)... but you cannot push this here without source, as you do. We don't want some conspiracy theory believer pushing their claim here, you know... I am sure you can contribute in many other field where your political beliefs won't interfere: please step down, if you care more about Wikipedia that about Biden (and to it also if you care more Biden than Wikipedia :-) ). Take care. Gem fr (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not a conspiracy theory to point out what was already pointed out in the impeachment process. Andrii Derkach passed along anti-Biden materials to Giuliani. This is proven. It takes time to verify or discredit the laptop, and we won't get the official FBI answer on it until after the election. We don't call the laptop "disinformation" in our articles because it hasn't been proven to be yet. Given that it fits in with the already debunked conspiracy theory pushed by Giuliani, it would be a disservice to our readers and violate NPOV to give it any credence. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Not the point. Now do "Giuliani and Derkach saved this last bit of their Burisma smear for mid-October.", which was your claim, and IS a conspiracy theory. Gem fr (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] etc. etc. etc. Koncorde (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Very much the point. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I just check your first link, and it is just unrelated to your claim. I warn you this is spam and could get you banned. Please just provide a source for your claims or quit, thanks.Gem fr (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Did you read it? It talks about Giuliani, Derkach, and Hunter Biden. It could be more relevant. The sources, taken as a whole, detail much of what has happened. The GRU hacked Burisma, fed the documents to Derkach, who got them to Giuliani. Now, I have to warn you that throwing around baseless claims like this is spam and could get you banned are more likely than not to WP:BOOMERANG. Koncorde hasn't committed any blockable offense, that I'm aware of. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I did read, NOWHERE stand anything meaning "Giuliani and Derkach saved this last bit of their Burisma smear for mid-October."; and then, I noticed it date back to 2019, meaning it could just NOT make a reliable claim about "Giuliani and Derkach sav[ing] this last bit of their Burisma smear for mid-October." (hell, why oh why "save" it then, instead of using it already when most useful?).

If you had a source, a single one would suffice. Providing time-losing unrelated content is both spam and proof you have none (still). But then again, I assume good faith and let you provide a source, or just admit you were wrong ("nobody's perfect")Gem fr (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Just gave you a wealth of articles demonstrating Giuliani and Derkach have been working towards something for months now, and you think they somehow only just started this new thing today? And I guess Derkach got the second laptop only yesterday too? Koncorde (talk) 23:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

So you, too, are in full "conspiracy theory" mode, thanks for acknowledging. But that is not supporting your claims in anyway.Gem fr (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

What would a source need to say to support that POV in your opinion? What "smoking gun" outside of 16 months of Giuliani openly soliciting foreign aid (and 5 years for Trump) would verify the reliable sources perspective of the sequence of events? Koncorde (talk) 01:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Gem fr, you are making demands for sources, Koncorde provides eleven, you look at one and are unsatisfied and so now you are making more demands? You can't reject evidence provided to you if you don't examine it. Don't make more demands without looking at what has been provided. This might take more than 10 seconds of your time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I did examined the provided source, and just debunked above that it supports Muboshgu's claim that "Giuliani and Derkach saved this last bit of their Burisma smear for mid-October." This is just not true, full period. And I lost quite some time, not 10 sec, on this spam, provided by a conspiracy theorist (see above). And checking that I debunked it would NOT require more that 10 sec from you OTOH: a 2019 piece just cannot seriously support a claim regarding something that happened a few days ago. Gem fr (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I recommend reading Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory#Background really carefully. soibangla (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

If this article has a source supporting the claim, please provide it already. I just don't care the issue to dig into this shit (AFAIK, politicians of any color CAN be trusted to be smear each other with true and untrue corruption claim; just bc X would be conspiring to pull dirt on Y does not mean that Y is clean and the dirt not real). I do care about WP used to push political propaganda by conspiracy theorists stonewalling their unsupported claims and damaging WP in the process.Gem fr (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

So let's sum up

• the article use 8 sources (which is WAY too much!) to support the disputed claim "He and his father have been the subjects of debunked right-wing conspiracy theories pushed by Donald Trump and his allies concerning Biden business dealings and anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine."
• the first source, from factchecks.org, just does not support the claim: it does not use the word "conspiracy", and does not even claim this is for sure false. It just states "here is what we currently know, pending investigation underway" (good material If I may comment)
• ALL the others date back to 2019, and could be acceptable a month ago, but just cannot anymore with the recent "laptop" event. I did not check them all, but for some reason I did check the gardian and it happens that it seriously changed its coverage, not using the "conspiracy" language anymore in its latest piece (link above). Which is very telling, considering its strong anti-Trump stance.

So we have a claim *without ANY source*

In any case a "citation needed" tag would be required

BUT

Not only this is unsourced, but it directly violates the policy

"Contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

Bc this is contentious material regarding Trump and friends (living persons last time I check)

it should be removed immediately.

I don't do that bc I know the article is very sensible and people, not all out of good faith, would just be enraged, but I will

Unless, of course, some recent source actually supporting the claim is QUICKLY provided

Please note that using a less offensive language will help sourcing (I made a proposition in the introducing sentences, That I read in a reliable source), but feel to change what you thing is needed -- as long as it is sourced)

Thanks a lot for the attention, take care.

Gem fr (talk) 04:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

There are multiple sources because people, like yourself, rock up every few weeks and start stuff like this. So:

• I am not aware of a policy that says we can have too many reliable sources (just like nobody has a clue what you mean when you say someone can be banned for giving you too much to read which you then ignore).
• You have repeatedly admitted to only reading one of the sources. It doesn't say what you want it to say and soooo we have a claim without any source.
• We have no idea what you actually expect the sources to say about more unverified claims, other than you want to change the focus of the lede to the laptop contents (which you have not provided a reliable source for) and that you think that the laptop un-debunks the debunked conspiracy theory (which remains debunked, because the existing sources cover the actual course of events, and Trump was impeached for his efforts).
• There is absolutely nothing contentious about the claim Trump is pushing conspiracy theories (there are yet more sources in the body of the article for further claims).
• We are not tackling the current "laptop" claims until there is actual reliable sources covering recent events. You seem to want us to use unverified claims from Giuliani and Trump to overturn months of efforts to spread a conspiracy.
• The NYP article "alleges" and "claims" and "infers" and "purports" a lot but is an unreliable source by wikipedia standards to use to change the article, it also doesn't make the allegations that Trump and Giuliani are making. Fox News coverage is using the exact same quantified language because it cannot verify the claims (although it verifies an email, though not the meaning of the content)[16] but isn't stopping Trump from repeating the same conspiracies.[17]
• Currently there are a wealth of sources discussing the apparent unreliability of the claims[18][19][20]
• The conspiratorial nature of the theories[21][22][23][24][25](and more opiniony pieces[26][27])
• The long term plan to release the information close to the election.[28]Giuliani apparently held the information for months and released it less than three weeks before the election. Giuliani has long been involved in efforts by the president and his allies to highlight Hunter Biden's work overseas to damage Joe Biden and boost Mr. Trump's reelection campaign, and in 2019 met with a Ukrainian lawmaker who has been deemed an "active Russian agent" by the U.S. government.
• And of course the depth of the conspiracy:[29] He added that the FBI didn't send the information it had to Congress because "there's a small group at the top of the FBI that hates Trump. And they haven't been rooted out. They haven't been taken out. They're still there. And they hate this country."

And much more will be revealed over the next few weeks, in whichever direction the veracity of the laptop content goes, but that would still not change the fact the conspiracy theory is about Joe Biden interfering in Ukrainian prosecution to protect his sons business dealings - which is demonstrably false. Koncorde (talk) 08:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

You make it hard to "presume good faith", and you obvious don't do that. I'll try to make it short (and please do it next time). You are right, this is not an official policy, but, still: spamming lots of irrelevant pieces, even from reliable sources is not providing "too many reliable source", it is an old rhetorical device to provide for the lack of actual proof (Cf. Schopenhauer), which is why one or two actual evidences are better (IMHO the piece of factcheck.org is good, unfortunately it just do not support the claim). Here's your clue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam#Citation_spam. And please quit stating "Trump was impeached for his effort"; being impeached only means being accused, he was then trialed by the senate, and found not guilty; meaning your claim is (officially) DEBUNKED (well, that is the official story for sure, may be not the truth, but here we are): so stop pushing this conspiracy theory. Likewise,I am not aware of any investigation against Giuliani, so pushing the story that is is some Russian asset is just a conspiracy theory too. It start to make quite a number of conspiracy theory you are pushing, isn't it?

How can it be so hard to provide a source from 2020 October that actually support the sentence, if the claim is right? It is all over the news, FGS

Just do that, and everyone well be happy (well, not everyone I guess, but, whatever).

Have a nice day, sirGem fr (talk) 10:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:REFSPAM properly at some time, HINT: it has has nothing to do with using lots of legitimate reliable sources. It is clear you neither want to provide any sources to support your claims, or read any that do support our interpretation of the reliable sources. Then you want to type 333 words, but complain when someone types 500 to refute your claims and provide you with the very thing you insist does not exist - including an actual quotation, from a source, saying the very thing you wanted to see a reliable source say.

As for Giuliani, he literally went on live TV crying about being investigated (both in association with Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman) and for other myriad things. Derkach isn't one of those reasons at present.[30][31][32][33][34][35][36] Koncorde (talk) 10:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

What "claim" am I supposed to provide source for? I did not edit the article, just put a tag it obviously lacks. Your hating Giuliani is just irrelevant, I wont discuss it, and it is concerning you want to have this irrelevant discussion.

Just provide a source (ie, quote it. If you need a fucking interpretation original work to conclude from it what it does not actually say, sorry, no) supporting the discussed sentence (and, then again, no, a 2019 piece just don't cut the deal for the recent story, especially when the provider changed it recently!).

Or change the sentence in a decent, not offensive, way (can you seriously claim that my proposition far above is so bad?)

Gem fr (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

There are multiple sources above. You are choosing not to read them, or read the quoted bit.

You are claiming that the conspiracy is not debunked. Please provide a source that says "actually it is true that Joe Biden fired the prosecutor in order to protect his son".

I never claimed that and still don't. Your claiming otherwise says it all. You are blinded by your bias and prejudice, reading stuff that were just not written nor implied, and you for sure do that in the sources just like you read it in what I wrote. Gem fr (talk) 11:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

And you asked for information about Giuliani, and I provided it. Saying you now aren't interested makes me think I am wasting my time trying to help you.

And yes, your suggested sentence is editorialising and gives credence to unfounded claims by the Trump Campaign not supported by the reliable sources - which is definitely a BLP violation. Koncorde (talk) 11:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I never asked about Giuliani either. In what fantasy world do you live?Gem fr (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

You said Likewise,I am not aware of any investigation against Giuliani, so pushing the story that is is some Russian asset is just a conspiracy theory too. I took that as you need furnishing with that evidence, so I gave the sources to help you. Koncorde (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Ye. whatever. You obviously have a tendency to read what is not written nor implied. It makes you unreliable when you claim something is in a source, so please, just properly quote it (and, again, NOT outdated 2019 material: the matter is currently hot and you should have no trouble if it were true. So far, you could not provide. (no need to "prove" some conspiracy theorist or the tRump campaign push it, this point is obvious and, and is not part of the issue; should not need to point this out, but...). Gem fr (talk) 12:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The implication was clear, somehow we were being untruthful about Giuliani being under investigation. Sources provided. End of that line of attack.

Still demanding a single source, sources provided, refuses to read them.

Makes unsubstantiated claims and personal attacks.

Way more sources provided showing the thing he wanted, inclduing a direct quote regarding Giuliani holding back the evidence.

Cries again about having to read sources. Demands JUST ONE source that says something. We have no idea what the editor wants the source to say as all the sources support the premise in question.

Anyone else interested in what this guy says at this point?

Gem fr, welcome back after your ten month break. You have no real experience in political articles, and sourcing requirements for articles are different from the Reference Desk, where you mainly edit. You might want to familiarise yourself with the list of perennially discussed sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but you are wrong. I just usually avoid *news* article. Since I am not making any claim here, I don't need source. But thanks again anyway (you are still wrong about your claim) Gem fr (talk) 11:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Your claim is that the reliable sources we have are wrong and do not say what you think they should say, and that some new evidence has changed the situation. Sounds like something you need a source for to support your assertion. Koncorde (talk) 11:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

My claim is just the sources you provide just don't say what you claim they say. I proved it for the first. I proved that a second source I checked, actually changed story. This is proof enough. I won't keep debunking an endless stream of irrelevant stuff you can surely provide. You are the one making the claim, you are the one to rove it, not the other way round. Provide, with proper quotes (throwing 12 links just don't do, and is actually hint you have nothing to support your claim), a proper source actually supporting the sentence if you want to keep it. Gem fr (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Can you prove Biden pressured for the sacking of Poroshenko because Hunter asked him? The answer is No.

Do we provide an entire section and sourcing about the case, and a separate wiki article all about it? Yes.

Have their been independent investigations by both Ukraine and various US entities which confirm no untoward actions and Joe Biden was conducting US Foreign policy at the time? Yes.

Is the conspiracy theory debunked? Yes.

Is the laptop covered in any reliable sources which indicate that it un-debunks the conspiracy theory? No.

Does the NYP even suggest it? No.

End result: no change. Come back with sufficient sources. Koncorde (talk) 12:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories

Every article cited here debunking the so-called conspiracy theories don't factor the current revelations that stem from Hunter Biden's own personal device. Making a broad statement that this is all debunked or somehow a product of a conspiracy is completely editorialized and against the precepts of neutrality. Alaman2 (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

As has been stated up and down this talk page, the story about the laptop changes nothing about the fallacious allegations made against the Biden's. Which btw got Trump impeached. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Trump has been cleared by the senate, so your claim is (officially, for what this is worth, but, still, here we are) a debunked conspiracy theory. It is very concerning that such conspiracy theorist claim to be the truth holder and stonewall his debunked point. Why don't you admit you are to biased to edit the article, and trust follow wikipedians to do a proper job? Gem fr (talk) 10:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Clearly, the news organizations who are releasing new information about Hunter Biden, in particular the New York Post, are "slow rolling" the story. To claim that all of the information is debunked when we have no idea how much information has yet to be released creates an appearance of bias on the part of the Wikipedia editors controlling the content of this article. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Michael-Ridgway, no, that would apply if at any point they released anything that wasn't either long-refuted or irrelevant, but that hasn't happened yet. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG You just CANNOT refute that a son in contact with his father talked about his business dealing and asked him to help. All you can do is to fail to prove it happened, and this is enough to be cleared in a trial, but "we failed to prove it" is not the same as "we proved it false" as "long-refuted or irrelevant" implies. Your claim is false. "it was not proved last year" do not preemptively dismiss new material, you need new counter-material to dismiss it Gem fr (talk) 10:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you asking us to prove something doesn't exist while claiming something that does exist isn't proof? Koncorde (talk) 11:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

You already abundantly proved you cannot properly read and have no understanding of logics, it was no need to add to the pile of proof on the matter. But since you deserve a answer anyway: I am asking you step down from the "this was proven false" stance, when it wasn't and just cannot be so. "It wasn't proven true" is enough and correct; of course, this forbid you to support the current words of the article, but, you cannot win everytime, can you?Gem fr (talk) 12:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Gem fr, even if it happened, it would be irrelevant. There was bipartisan support for the US push to oust Viktor Shokin, who was generally regarded as corrupt and was slow-walking numerous investigations including that on Burisma's owners. This was also backed by the EU, IMF and World Bank. Shokin was not fired by Poroshenko but was removed after an overwhelming vote in the Ukraininan Parliament, and it was widely thought that his removal would result in prosecutions moving ahead - getting rid of Shokin increased the risk on Burisma. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, you first request JzG to prove a negative You just CANNOT refute that a son in contact with his father talked about his business dealing and asked him to help and then go on to ignore the wealth of evidence that exists proving that Bidens involvement in the firing of the Prosecutor had nothing to do with Hunter while declaring unanimous overlord status of objective truth.

You can keep up the personal attacks all you like. They don't bother me, but they do highlight that you have never approached this subject in good faith. Koncorde (talk) 12:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

This shouldn't say the email scandal is debunked. The FBI literally just got the laptop today. The Biden campaign page says that the FBI is investigating it, and this source is provided: Why don't you people do your homework before reverting my edits and trying to slant the whole page with your opinions? This should be unbiased fact-based site.Captainjackster (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Captainjackster, the FBI is not investigating Hunter Biden. The FBI is investigating if the laptop originated from Russia as part of their ongoing election interference. As has been said elsewhere on this talk page, the laptop is a new angle in the existing story, which has already been debunked, and resulted in the impeachment of the president. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

But why is FBI investigating? US authorities investigating if recently published emails are tied to Russian disinformation effort targeting Biden. Nothing has been reported to indicate Joe/Hunter Biden are being investigated, or any reason they should be, whereas there have been countless investigations into Russian interference. And More than 50 former senior intelligence officials have signed on to a letter outlining their belief that the recent disclosure of emails allegedly belonging to Joe Biden’s son “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” soibangla (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

He is still a part of the investigation, and to call it a debunked right-wing conspiracy theory is biased and childish, since we don't have all the facts. I love that you can throw a little fit and get your way but when I try to insert my opinion it's wrong. The laptop being under investigation means it isn't debunked. Having the part about the conspiracy theories being pushed by Trump and his allies doesn't pertain to Hunter any more than the investigation part, by your logic. Also, Trump was acquitted. If he got impeached, how is he still in office? Captainjackster (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The whole purpose of a conspiracy theory is that you don't have all the facts, but are supposed to believe that something happened anyway. As for impeachment, the same way Bill Clinton got impeached and stayed in office. Gah4 (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The laptop being under investigation means it isn't debunked is exactly how the dirty tricks is are designed to make us believe that. soibangla (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

You understand that what you just stated is an unproven conspiracy theory, right? Then again, politics IS the realm of conspiracies, if any, so your belief is not stupid... but belief it is nonetheless. And belief just do not belongs on WP, expect in rare case AND clearly marked as belief from X. That you believe this AND push it without any source in the core article as incontrovertible truth is a real problem.Gem fr (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Gem fr, no, it's not an "unproven conspiracy theory". Consider the facts:

1. Ukrainians had been wanting to get rid of Shokin since shortly after his appointment, the first vote in the Ukrainian Parliament was in June 2015
2. International pressure on Ukraine to clean up corruption ion the prosecutor's office dates back to at least 2013 and pressure to remove Shokin, specifically, started in 2015, as noted in business papers like the Financial Times.
3. Shokin was not investigating Burisma. The investigation was on hold, like many others, and this was widely perceived as a problem.
4. US pressure to remove Shokin was bipartisan (e.g. including Ron Johnson). It was also backed by the EU, the World Bank and the IMF.
5. Poroshenko did not sack Shokin. Shokin was removed by the Ukrainian Parliament after an overwhelming vote in March 2016.
6. Before that vote investigation into an extortion attempt against a Russian sand and gravel firm found Shokin associates in possession of large amounts of money, jewels and other valuables, and documents and passports belonging to Shokin. There's decent evidence that he used the threat of investigations as an extortion tool.
7. At the time of Shokin's sackings, most sources did not even mention Joe Biden's involvement, it was not considered individually significant in the context of EU, IMF, World Bank and bipartisan US pressure.
8. All this was explored in great detail during the impeachment hearings, with multiple witnesses backing the course of events outlined above.
9. The FBI has warned since at least last year that Russian intelligence are using Rudy Giuliani as a conduit for disinformation.
10. The GRU was reported to have hacked Burisma in January.
11. The GRU has previously run fake email dumps to try to discredit political candiudates during elections, e.g. the "Fancy Bear" operation against Emanuel Macron in 2017.
12. Rudy Giuliani and Steve Bannon were trailing this story far enough in advance that the timing of release is without question a political calculation.
13. Fox News passed on it because it stinks.
14. The New York Post reporter who wrote it, refused to put his name on it, because it stinks.
15. The story of the laptop stinks. Hunter Biden lives in California. The one-man computer shop at which the purported laptop was left is not on any obvious route from the airport to Joe Biden's residence in Wilmington. Apple Stores are a thing. IT advisers are a thing, especially for people under well-known high profile scrutiny. Encryption is a thing. Why did the store not take contact details? Why did the store not follow SOP for an uncollected device and wipe and sell it? Why was the surveillance video wiped? Why was the store owner unable to keep his story straight? Why would any concerned citizen go to Giuliani first and not direct to the FBI or Police? None of it stacks up
16. In any case, see all the numbered points above. Even if the laptop were genuine, which every reputable source currently concurs it is not, the claim that Joe Biden had Shokin fired to protect Hunter is still false however you look at it.

No doubt this is why, feverish commentary in the conservative media bubble aside, nobody takes any part of it at face value. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Where do you think you are? A talk page is not a forum nor a court where we assess what is true or not. You can pile up 10, 20 or 1000 bullet point, it won't change this simple LOGICAL FACT: You. cannot. prove. Biden. didn't. do. it. Full stop. Gem fr (talk) 12:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, looks like cooking is underway. Opinion piece, so, not enough, but still...https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-laptop-window-on-the-oligarchy-11603235685?mod=opinion_lead_pos8 Gem fr (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

1. Prove Biden didn't do what?
2. You are again asking us to prove a negative. Koncorde (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

(you are right on the "nobody take it at face value" though; well, "nobody" may be not true, of course, but you are right anyway; I'll require more cooking to eat it, for myself)Gem fr (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

well, changing "how the dirty trick is" into "dirty tricks are" after my comment

• is not the way a good faith discussion can happen
• actually turns your sentence into something just plainly wrong: there are many dirty tricks, not all rely on having people believe unproven things
• change your previous plain statement into a... dirty trick of the kind just mentionned !
• do not change what you obviously think nor providing more support to it

Please don't do that again. Instead just admit you believe in a conspiracy theory (that may be true or not, but is not supported by any evidence right now) and that you are biased, and as such, step down and leave the matter to less committed people, who don't support Biden nor Trump. Please. Gem fr (talk) 03:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

References