→Work of a fake "intelligence firm": tweet...Carlson gives up Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
|||
Line 807: | Line 807: | ||
::: My addition was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hunter_Biden&curid=19026387&diff=986125197&oldid=986123836 reverted]; see [[Talk:Hunter_Biden#Martin_Aspen]] for discussion. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 23:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC) |
::: My addition was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hunter_Biden&curid=19026387&diff=986125197&oldid=986123836 reverted]; see [[Talk:Hunter_Biden#Martin_Aspen]] for discussion. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 23:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
::::{{u|XOR'easter}}, it might belong here, it's part of this narrative. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]] - [[User:JzG/Typos|typo?]])</small> 23:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC) |
::::{{u|XOR'easter}}, it might belong here, it's part of this narrative. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]] - [[User:JzG/Typos|typo?]])</small> 23:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
[https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/1321973721461071872 Tucker Carlson, who has spent the past two weeks obsessing on the Hunter Biden emails, now says it's time to leave Hunter alone: "The point is pounding on a man, jumping on, and piling on when he’s already down is not something we want to be involved in."] -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) 02:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
==date on John Paul Mac Isaac faded form== |
==date on John Paul Mac Isaac faded form== |
Revision as of 02:28, 30 October 2020
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Discussing the term "False" in opening statement.
{Logic statement, ignoring WIKI policy and sorry for any people pinged}
- Background
So let me drop a quick logic statement. Wikipedia is supposed to remain unbiased in articles. So in the opening statement, the article has "The Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of false allegations". I undid the word false as the FBI still has the computer. Valjean undid my revision with the comment "Follow the RS in the body (IOW, pretty much NEVER revert content with such an editorial note without extensive discussion first). This article isn't just about the last New York Post matter." So I read the body section.
Now let me give some logic. About 90% (maybe 100%) of the sources in the Background section are liberal sources (In general, Go Biden, Boo Trump...Those sources). Logically, they would all say "FALSE!" to any comments about a democrat/liberal, because those are the people they support. For example, CNN just after the allegations (NY post talk) came out, immediately started saying they were false and then never reported it. Fox News (Using Logic, ignoring WIKI RS policies) is running with the story. HOWEVER, Fox News and the majority of non-liberal sources, are leaving the fact in that they might be true. Knowing how Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased, should the body have some conservative sources? {LOGIC Statement: If you want to know why Wikipedia is saying 'False' to the allegations, it is because the article only has liberal sources, which say 'false'.} (Current Event WikiProject Coordinator) Elijahandskip (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Feedback
To keep this from turning into a major edit war, I am proposing a vote to see if the term false should be removed. [Vote up for 30 days (per WP:RFC), or until a clear consensus is reach].
- Remove as the all (All being a keyword) as the allegations haven't been proven false, this constitutes an opinion and / or assumption rather than verified fact as does the references source. Jonas230 (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC) — Jonas230 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Remove as the all (All being a keyword) the allegations listed in the article have not been proven false. (Current Event WikiProject Coordinator) Elijahandskip (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Remove – because editors are not making the distinction between old, debunked information and new, possibly-true information, automatically assuming the new information is "debunked". Aviartm (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Remove as the "false" phraseology is in direct violation of WP:VOICE. In the event some allegations have been found completely false on their face by reliable sources, perhaps the top text should be revised to state that Hunter has faced a multitude of allegations, some of which have been debunked or are false. wanderson9 (talk) 11:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep as we use RS, regardless of any partisan bias. If they are reliable, we can use them They have fact-checked the claims and determined they are false. Fox News just backs Trump, no matter what BS or conspiracy theory he pushes, or, as is often the case, has gotten from Fox, Hannity, Limbaugh, or QAnon. Those are not RS. -- Valjean (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Remove Wikipedia is generally based on reliable sources and so will follow their opinion, which leads to natural bias. However in this case the entire conspiracy theory/allegation is an ongoing investigation and so it is unsuitable to use false before we know the full detail of events. The reliable sources here described the theory as false the moment it came out (if that is correct English), but more information may yet come. Basileus Manuel Komnenos (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep We go where the reliable sources lead; and in this case, even if the allegations in the New York Post's first volley were true, they would not substantiate the conspiracy theory. We should stick with "false" unless and until a pendulum swing of historic proportions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Also, Wikipedia operates by consensus, not "votes". XOR'easter (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep until the sources say otherwise--and then maybe we can have a new, and properly written-up RfC. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep: this “liberal” source just added to article: “Trump cited an unsubstantiated news report to revive a widely debunked false narrative about Joe Biden’s work in Ukraine on behalf of the Obama administration.” And then there’s “Trump Was Repeatedly Warned That Ukraine Conspiracy Was Completely Debunked” and “We talked with two dozen leaders and investigators in Ukraine. They all agree the claims against Joe and Hunter Biden are baseless. Yet they persist.” Somebody stop me before I OVERCITE. soibangla (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep as all of these Biden/Ukraine theories are nonsense, according to all available evidence, and the NY Post allegation is not holding up after a mere 48 hours of scrutiny. No false equivalency for dezinformatsiya. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Change to "dubious" or "widely debunked" or something similar. Calling it "false" in the lede makes it look like Wikipedia is biased on a major issue of the election. Mcrsftdog (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- That Trump chooses to manufacture and use conspiracy theories as part of his election strategy (and modus operandi in life) does not affect how we document RS-coverage of those theories. When fact-checkers describe them as false, then we do too. If they weren't false, we'd change the title of this article, because we only use such titles for false conspiracy theories. -- Valjean (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- There is sourcing, such as what was presented by soibangla, that uses the word "debunked", which has the dictionary meaning of
expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief).
So, that'd be okay I think, if consensus were to develop for "debunked" over "false". The term "dubious" is also being used in sourcing, but is much more equivocal than "debunked" and therefore not as good. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- There is sourcing, such as what was presented by soibangla, that uses the word "debunked", which has the dictionary meaning of
- Keep at some level (false, debunked, whatever). Because it’s false and debunked. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep something. Prefer "debunked"; as for new "evidence," not until somebody can explain how the only meta-data for an email supposedly written half a decade ago shows it to have really been done in the past year. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep something I also prefer debunked, but it's completely correct to have something here to indicate that WP knows RS are saying that. FWIW this is a !vote, which here on WP we call a not-vote. This is not about numbers. —valereee (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep WP:RS characterize it as false.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:RS. Fox News is generally unreliable for me, so i replace that sources with The Daily Telegraph and Canadian Broadcasting Corporation instead because i not found more RS to back Fox News claim, particularly non-US (mainly British) sources. 180.244.144.193 (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Strong keep I've been following this article closely for the last few days and my view on this has strengthened. I'm now much more confident that there's unanimity among reliable sources that the underlying narrative is false and an attempt to smear Joe Biden. The confusion comes from a series of other claims 'tacked on' to the main gist of the conspiracy (that Biden murkily acted to protect a corrupt Ukrainian company and his corrupt son in order to enrich himself). Many sources have noted that this fits a pattern of disinformation increasingly seen in US politics, where a large pile of accusations and libellous disinformation is produced with the aim of eventually causing distrust/suspicion of the target and making people lose sight of the crux of the conspiracy, making it seem harder to prove as false. The NYT sums up the latest New York Post laptop affair as: claims of corruption aimed at the former vice president’s son in an effort to damage the Biden campaign. For this reason, I think that it's right to retain the current wording, which is already backed up by plenty of reliable sources in the article. Alternatives such as "debunked" or "purposefully misleading narratives" would be acceptable too, but in my view there is no issue with "false" and watering this down could create a WP:FALSEBALANCE. I don't envy any closer of this RfC, but I urge them (and I'm going to speak bluntly here) to consider the possibility that some of those arguing to remove "false" may be underestimating or under-informed about how a sophisticated disinformation campaign such as this works (and it is disinformation, even if its origin – Russia, right-wing trolls, Giuliani etc. – hasn't yet been conclusively determined). Jr8825 • Talk 07:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC) (original comments:
per XOR'easter and JzG/Guy (below). Also, there's no consensus among editors that Fox News is reliable for political coverage (see WP:FOXNEWS), which is why it's isn't and shouldn't be given weight here. I'm not opposed to adjustments such as "debunked" or "widely debunked" that retain the same meaning. Jr8825 • Talk 23:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)) - Keep, at this point there's a better-than-even chance that we find out the guy who dropped the supposed "hunter biden laptop" at the "repair shop" was actually Jacob Wohl in a trench coat and fake mustache. Every other thing about this supposed "scandal" has been shown false, including just a couple weeks ago. https://www.thedailybeast.com/chinese-billionaires-network-hyped-hunter-biden-dirt-weeks-before-rudy
- And of course, "An Eastern European expert in digital forensics who has examined some of the Ukrainian documents leaked to the New York Post told me he found anomalies — such as American-style capitalization of the names of ministries — that suggest fakery." https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-truth-behind-the-hunter-biden-non-scandal/2020/10/16/798210bc-0fd1-11eb-8074-0e943a91bf08_story.html
- Remember that per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, "There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable. A tabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication." 2601:2C0:C300:B7:FC53:F984:3F15:4B4C (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Why was an RfC opened for this topic as this vote is underway? Because the vote here was not going someone's desired way for an article that did not have consensus to be created in the first place? soibangla (talk) 22:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Overwhelming weight of RS and repeatedly confirmed WP consensus text. SPECIFICO talk 02:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Per earlier statements about RS. Asartea Talk | Contribs 11:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Remove. It is critical that this remains neutral. As of now we have no proof that this is false. The term "unclear" or something along those lines would be appropriate. The tone of this article is critical for anyone coming. The term "false" is absurd to apply to the article at this time. Outspoken users like :Valjean, whose page prominently contain the text "Donald Trump is a lunatic" are hardly users that we should be seeking input from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:48f8:4028:78d:e947:e7af:a6b:19e7 (talk • contribs)
- Cannot really vote on this as there is an assumption that there is a laptop and that FBI "still has it." Rather than have this entire thing in the article, I would remove most of the content and references, and only leave the alleged email that NY Post showed, and discussion of it and its dates and the actual dates of the PDF. Voting on allegations or false allegations is irrelevant if there is no computer. Tero111 (talk) 13:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Tero111, no, that would be a spectacularly bad idea, because the email is probably fake; instead we should wait for analytical reporting of the thing in its entirety, including the route by which the laptop arrived at a strip mall computer shop, whether any of the "emails" are verified (the Biden campaign has explicitly refuted at least one claim with backup from official records) and the like.
- WP:NOTNEWS. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Remove This is a clear example What Wikipedia is not. Using a page of Wikipedia for bias political fighting and turning "allegations" into "conspiracy theory" without being supported by the overwhelming majority of reliable secondary sources would downgrade Wiki reliability and neutrality and therefore should be avoided. This is also not a place to "vote" but to gain consensus. Tritomex (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Tritomex, do you have reliable sources that are calling it an allegation rather than a conspiracy theory? Because other editors have said the opposite. —valereee (talk) 20:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Tritomex, when we cover allegations as allegations, it's because they are alleged by credible sources such as investigators. What credible sources exits that allege any part of this conspiracy theory to be fact? Guy (help! - typo?) 21:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Its not upon editors to prove that something dosent exist, but upon you to prove that RS are calling this allegations a conspiracy theory. I nowhere saw such attribution. This allegations are not named as such by BBC, DW, RT, Reuters, The Jerusalem Post, France international and all other major media outlets. No mention of conspiracy theories anywhere. The title and the artickle itself is against the fiive pillars of Wikipedia and on the level of WP:NEGATIVESPIN Tritomex (talk) 04:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Remove this post screams of bias. The Steele Dossier has been debunked but its still treated as fact by wikipedia.Guitarguy2323 (talk) 01:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- If you would like to discuss the Steele dossier, Talk:Steele dossier is thataway. I'm not sure how it's relevant here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
treated as fact by wikipedia
is false, as paragraph 4 of Steele dossier lead makes clear. Just sayin'. soibangla (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Rewrite to "debunked", per the long list of reliable sources that verify. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- I did a quick browse of Category:Conspiracy theories in the United States and it seems that most of them use wording like "have rejected these theories" (9/11 conspiracy theories), "debunked" (Clinton Body Count, Pizzagate), "No evidence supports the conspiracy theories" (Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories) and so would prefer wording along those lines. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per the sources. Bias means adding content that disagrees with mainstream sources often based on an editor's opinion. Bias does not mean that those sources take or explain a position. Sources often take a position. If the sources are reliable, per weight, we can and should add the content they reference. Littleolive oil (talk) 08:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. The 'bias' argument is irrelevant when all the genuinely reliable sources overwhelmingly agree that the substantive allegations against Biden have been comprehensively debunked and disproven; even the heavily biased Republican Senate report came to the same conclusion. The WP:RS similarly agree that NY Post story is based on a deliberate fabrication. Unless that changes, the descriptor ``false" is the correct one to use here. Saying that ``not all" allegations" have been disproven and that's why the word ``false" should be removed, is a red herring argument. The main allegations have been disproven, comprehensively so, and the Republican Senate report said as much, failed to substantiate anything significant, and produced nothing more than painful handwringing. Even if the infamous hard drive contains some occasional true statements such as "Joe Biden's last name is Biden", that would not justify un-labeling the story as "false". Nsk92 (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep. The 'false' description appears to be well-supported by the sources. To remove that adjective would be to present a false balance. I would be okay with adding a short sentence to the lead about how the New York Post story has drawn increased attention to the theory since that's why many readers are coming here.– Anne drew 16:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)- Not in Wikipedia's voice. Allegations prior to the New York Post story are false according to numerous reliable sources. I understand Sphilbrick's point that the specific allegations made in the Post story haven't been disproven. So we need to walk this fine line of:
- The underlying allegations have been called false by numerous WP:RS
- The specific allegations in the New York Post article are yet to be disproven
- I don't think the solution is to remove the 'false' or 'debunked' description entirely, but instead we should follow the guidance in WP:VOICE:
Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts... Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views...
- Given this guidance, we should change the first sentence to say something this (or similar):
The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of allegations that are widely considered false...
- And make sure we explain that WP:RS call the New York Post article unreliable and possibly part of a disinformation campaign.
- – Anne drew 14:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Weak support for this adjustment(changed my mind following Soibangla's point below)in tone, to better adhere to WP:WIKIVOICE, as an improvement. Although I don't agree with your entire rationale, I agree it's better to follow use a neutral voice. I don't think the NYP emails change the falsity of the conspiracy theory (per JzG), as I explain below, so I'm cautious about watering this down.Jr8825 • Talk 15:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)- Jr8825, I would go with wording that makes it clear that the allegations about Biden and Burisma are (debunked|false|refuted|generally considered bogus|whatever), but the specifics of the NYP (the emails) could justly be framed as merely implausible - there's not been time for anything definitive on these, and probably won't be before the election because the FBI have learned the lesson from Comey and probably won't say anything either way. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)#
- (superseded by discussion on the opening para below)
How about: The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of allegations centred on the widely debunked assertion that 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden engaged in corrupt activities while...
Jr8825 • Talk 16:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- (superseded by discussion on the opening para below)
- Jr8825, I would go with wording that makes it clear that the allegations about Biden and Burisma are (debunked|false|refuted|generally considered bogus|whatever), but the specifics of the NYP (the emails) could justly be framed as merely implausible - there's not been time for anything definitive on these, and probably won't be before the election because the FBI have learned the lesson from Comey and probably won't say anything either way. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)#
- Not in Wikipedia's voice. Allegations prior to the New York Post story are false according to numerous reliable sources. I understand Sphilbrick's point that the specific allegations made in the Post story haven't been disproven. So we need to walk this fine line of:
- Rewrite I think it's fairly well accepted that Wikipedia is not in the business of documenting truth. While Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth is an essay, Wikipedia:Verifiability is policy, and links to the essay. For this reason, it's well established that we should avoid statements such as "X is true". The counterpart should be equally obvious. We ought to avoid (in Wikipedia's voice) statements that "Y is False". In many cases, we might mean that the statement isn't verified, we might mean that the logical opposite does have a citation to a published reliable source. This is so basic, I'm surprised to see many editors including some I highly respect, arguing that this article should retain the word "false". That's not only a high bar that hasn't remotely been reached, but it's inconsistent with the very way that Wikipedia works.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Could you provide the policy that says
we should avoid statements such as "X is true"... [or] "X is false"
? WP:V and the essay you linked do not say that. They say we should follow reliable sources instead of just writing whatever we think is true. In this case, our sources say the theory is false. What is the bar for calling something false in Wikipedia? – Anne drew 23:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC) - @Sphilbrick: if the published, reliable sources are unanimous in describing the issue as false disinformation (which editors following the topic closely seem pretty clear about), then there's no issue with Wikipedia saying as much – the relevant policy is WP:DUE (giving due weight to reliable sources) not WP:V. Jr8825 • Talk 04:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sphilbrick, why would we avoid saying something is false when all the reliable sources say that, well, it's false? Guy (help! - typo?) 08:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Could you provide the policy that says
- JzG, Do you really mean "all" or "most"? If you literally mean "all", then you understand that one counterexample disproves the assertion. Let's look at the NBC article. there are a lot of useful quotes, "the serious accusations… are unsupported", "there is no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of either Biden", "Trump… yet to offer evidence of the claims", "building on the baseless claims", and more, each of which support an assertion that the claims are unverified, but not a single instance of the word "false".
- JzG Show me which source proves that the allegations are 100% false. (Aka no sign of doubt in the entire RS). I know you will use a extremely liberal source...but I want to see if you can even pull a source that shows 0 doubt that it is false. (Also a RS with facts). Elijahandskip (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Elijahandskip, elsewhere I have cited the "extremely liberal" Financial Times: [1]. Here's a very thorough rundown written earlier this year: [2]. The Washington Post explainer also covers the objective merits (or rather, the lack thereof) of the claims. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- JzG, How about the Vox article? "he[Trump] insists — despite no apparent evidence to support this", "Trump, repeating a conspiracy theory", "He[Trump] has repeatedly misrepresented facts", "Trump and his allies and asserted — without any evidence". Again, lots of support for an assertion that the claims are unverified, but not a single instance of the word "false". S Philbrick(Talk) 12:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sphilbrick, the "false" part is the claim that Joe Biden intervened to sack Shokin to protect Burisma. I think that no reasonable person could conclude by now that this is anything other than bollocks. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- JzG, Now you are trying to move the goalposts. You started by supporting a statement in Wikipedia's voice that all allegations are false on the basis that all the sources claim they are all false. Finding one aspect of one claim which might (I'm not yet convinced) be false according to one source is not remotely supporting your argument that all sources say all the allegations are false. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Sphilbrick: - it's not moving the goalposts, the crux of the conspiracy theory is that Biden acted corruptly by withholding loans to push out Shokin, because Shokin was investigating his son – which has been shown time and time again to be nonsense.
In its opening sentence, the New York Post story falsely asserted "the elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating" Burisma"
: this illustrates quite well how all the assertions surrounding the Bidens and Ukraine ultimately feed into this one, disproved lie (the significance of the leaked emails is that we're supposed to infer from them Biden was meeting Burisma to protect the corrupt company from Skohin). I haven't seen any reputable media suggest that the Bidens may have acted corruptly in one way but legitimately in another, the whole allegation of corruption boils down to one widely debunked (by serious media and government investigations) claim. This is the point JzG has made several times in the discussion, the new, highly questionable emails don't change the fact that the conspiracy as a whole is universally considered false. Jr8825 • Talk 14:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Sphilbrick: - it's not moving the goalposts, the crux of the conspiracy theory is that Biden acted corruptly by withholding loans to push out Shokin, because Shokin was investigating his son – which has been shown time and time again to be nonsense.
- JzG, Now you are trying to move the goalposts. You started by supporting a statement in Wikipedia's voice that all allegations are false on the basis that all the sources claim they are all false. Finding one aspect of one claim which might (I'm not yet convinced) be false according to one source is not remotely supporting your argument that all sources say all the allegations are false. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sphilbrick, or "a quick guide to Trump's false claims about Ukraine and the Bidens", and of course "Ex-White House Adviser Rejects False Ukraine Narrative". As I think I've made clear before, I would be happy with "discredited" or "debunked" instead, but there is no need to find the exact word in order to reflect the consensus of reliable sources that was established at least a year ago: the idea that Joe Biden pursued Shokin in order to protect Burisma is absurd on many levels. It would require that the EU, the IMF, the World Bank and the Ukrainian opposition were all in on it, as were the prosecutors who found the extortion of the Russian sand and gravel firm that led to the "diamond prosecutors" and the vote in the Ukrainian Parliament.
- Feel free to propose alternative wording that in your view more accurately reflects the status of the underlying claims. Unproven doesn't cut it. Allegations that Giuliani is compromised by Russian intelligence via Derkach are unproven. These allegations are contradicted by every single known relevant fact. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- JzG, Why are you linking examples of sources that use the term "false"? Nobody disputes that there are some such example. the question is whether we can say it Wikipedia is voice that all the allegations are false, and you supported the inclusion on the basis that, as you said, " all the reliable sources say that, well, it's false". it only takes one counterexample to disprove that assertion and I provided several. You can provide 100 examples including the word but it doesn't change the conclusion, that it's incorrect to say all the reliable sources say it's false. my proposed alternative is simple – simply remove the word "false". Let the lead say that there are allegations, and let the body of the text discussed the various allegations and the extent to which they been confirmed, discredited, proven false, or simply unverified. That would be the fair thing to do. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is insufficient, "debunked" or "false" belongs there because that's what the reliable sources say about suggestions that Biden acted in a corrupt way by getting Shokin fired. This is the frontline of disinformation and it's important Wikipedia gets the due weight of sources correct here. Jr8825 • Talk 14:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sphilbrick, the main problem is that this article exists at all: it shouldn't. The idea that Joe Biden got Shokin fired to protect Burisma is ridiculous, and has been known to be ridiculous for over a year. But this being Wikipedia I have absolutely no doubt that attempts to delete it because it's obviously bloody silly will be defeated because lots of people want to talk about it.
- So: there is no problem with casting the core claim about Joe Biden and Shokin as false, debunked, refuted or whatever other synonym we decide to use. That's how it's been reflected on Wikipedia for a year or more, and that has not changed as a result of what appears to be a Russian disinformation operation. When the Financial Times opens with "Donald Trump’s lawyer has new fixers in Kyiv to help revive claims discredited as conspiracy theory", and says "Prominent Republican senators, including Rob Portman of Ohio and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, were on a similar push at the time, calling for “urgent reforms to the prosecutor-general’s office and judiciary” in an early 2016 letter to Mr Poroshenko", there's not much room for doubt. The conspiracy theory is debunked.
- Any residual uncertainty is about the disinformation operation itself, where I agree we can't make any confident statement beyond the fact that no reputable source currently takes any part of it at face value and most frame it as a probable Russian disinformation operation. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- JzG,
You rip your credibility to shreds with comments like that. yes, I am aware that some fringe actors are floating this nonsense, but I've yet to seen any credible support. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)appears to be a Russian disinformation operation
- Fringe actors like the FBI? [3] GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- GorillaWarfare, I urge you to reread the article. Yes, an anonymous source asserts that the FBI is conducting an investigation. I hope it's true and I hope that investigation includes determining whether or not it is Russian disinformation. However, an alleged investigation is not remotely a statement from the FBI that it is Russian disinformation.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- I know what the article says -- I'm mostly questioning your quite harsh comment to JzG ("You rip your credibility to shreds with comments like that") when prominent publications are reporting that the FBI is investigating. It's of course possible they are all being misled and have done a poor job of verifying their sources, but it's a stretch to call it a fringe theory when major publications are reporting it and the FBI appears to be investigating the possibility. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- GorillaWarfare, I did not challenge the possibility that the FBI was investigating it, I was challenging the assertion that it "appears to be a Russian disinformation operation". Had Guy simply said that the FBI was investigating the possibility, I wouldn't have reacted. I trust you have seen that the FBI came out today and said that it is not, so I hope we can drop this fringe conspiracy theory. I stand by my comment that citing claims that aren't backed up by evidence is not good for one's credibility. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Sphilbrick: Do you have a link for the claim that "the FBI came out today and said it is not"? Because large numbers of credible analysts have said otherwise so far, and the actual FBI (as opposed to Trump stooge Ratcliffe, who is not "the FBI") have remained silent and I can source that to both USA Today and Politico: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/10/17/fbi-probes-possible-russia-link-hunter-biden-data-trump-ally-giuliani/3661895001/ https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/christopher-wray-fbi-trump-430243 76.31.177.30 (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Sphilbrick: Understood. I actually haven't had a minute to check the news today so I don't think I've seen what you have, but you may wish to start a new section on this page to discuss it. The article still says the FBI is investigating, according to the AP. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- GorillaWarfare, I am sure they are still investigating, but they are no longer investigating Russian disinformation. There are reports they are investigating money laundering. This story is changing every day, which is hardly surprising, but that's what makes it astounding that some support a blanket claim that all the allegations are false. That's not supported.
- What money laundering investigation? Money laundering, conspiracy to defraud U.S. reportedly among charges under consideration in investigation related to Rudy Giuliani soibangla (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- GorillaWarfare, I am sure they are still investigating, but they are no longer investigating Russian disinformation. There are reports they are investigating money laundering. This story is changing every day, which is hardly surprising, but that's what makes it astounding that some support a blanket claim that all the allegations are false. That's not supported.
- GorillaWarfare, I did not challenge the possibility that the FBI was investigating it, I was challenging the assertion that it "appears to be a Russian disinformation operation". Had Guy simply said that the FBI was investigating the possibility, I wouldn't have reacted. I trust you have seen that the FBI came out today and said that it is not, so I hope we can drop this fringe conspiracy theory. I stand by my comment that citing claims that aren't backed up by evidence is not good for one's credibility. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I know what the article says -- I'm mostly questioning your quite harsh comment to JzG ("You rip your credibility to shreds with comments like that") when prominent publications are reporting that the FBI is investigating. It's of course possible they are all being misled and have done a poor job of verifying their sources, but it's a stretch to call it a fringe theory when major publications are reporting it and the FBI appears to be investigating the possibility. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- GorillaWarfare, I urge you to reread the article. Yes, an anonymous source asserts that the FBI is conducting an investigation. I hope it's true and I hope that investigation includes determining whether or not it is Russian disinformation. However, an alleged investigation is not remotely a statement from the FBI that it is Russian disinformation.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sphilbrick, um, really? The FBI warned the White House last year that the Russians are using Giuliani as a conduit for disinformation. Most sources report that the FBI is investigating this as a Russian disinformation operation. It's fully consistent with prior GRU operations including the DNC hack that poisoned the 2016 election.
- That's not "fringe" at all, I'd say. It might turn out to be wrong, but so far only Trump hack John Ratcliffe has denied it, the FBI deliberately has not. Regardless, the provenance of the laptop is agreed in all reliable sources to be as fishy as you get. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Fringe actors like the FBI? [3] GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- JzG,
- JzG, Why are you linking examples of sources that use the term "false"? Nobody disputes that there are some such example. the question is whether we can say it Wikipedia is voice that all the allegations are false, and you supported the inclusion on the basis that, as you said, " all the reliable sources say that, well, it's false". it only takes one counterexample to disprove that assertion and I provided several. You can provide 100 examples including the word but it doesn't change the conclusion, that it's incorrect to say all the reliable sources say it's false. my proposed alternative is simple – simply remove the word "false". Let the lead say that there are allegations, and let the body of the text discussed the various allegations and the extent to which they been confirmed, discredited, proven false, or simply unverified. That would be the fair thing to do. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sphilbrick, the "false" part is the claim that Joe Biden intervened to sack Shokin to protect Burisma. I think that no reasonable person could conclude by now that this is anything other than bollocks. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- JzG, How about the Vice article? "a second attempt to tar Biden with allegations of corruption" but not a single instance of the word "false".
- I am sure you can find some sources which use the word "false" or a synonym, but I'm not arguing there are no such articles. I'm arguing that the general tenor of the articles is that the claims are unverified. That's what Wikipedia should say. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Remove. Plenty of credible sources have shown evidence for it, and this article reeks of WP:BIAS. Major changes need to happen to clean this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.5.219 (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Can you please specify which credible sources you are referring to? GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. It's both extraordinary and notable when journalistic entities from across the spectrum come together to dismiss a breaking story as nonsense. Separately, I learned today that when you use all caps for "LOGIC", apparently that turns the definition of the word into "opinion". Grandpallama (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Remove. Contested info <> false. --BBird (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep until reliable sources say otherwise. This article is specifically about the conspiracy theory that Joe protected his son which is false because we know the sequence of events do not match that claim, and the reliable sources demonstrate the inherent falsehood by talking about the prosecutor firing at the time it took place prior to the conspiracy being cooked up. The New York Post themselves screenshot one email in particular that confirms the sequence of events (i.e. that Burisma was under investigation prior to his arrival) and in particular emphasises the idea that these investigations were improper, and a follow up to attempts to extort the company and owner which failed. While the NYP and co have focused on the element where Biden is asked to do something with his influence, it does not say who to or with or how and it doesn't gel with any other reliable source (particularly the exceptionally strong ones used). It is therefore a fringe view at best. Koncorde (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Strong Remove - Using the term 'unsubstantiated' rather than 'false' conveys the same information, is slightly more precise, and will go along way towards dispelling allegations of bias --DrCruse (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- @DrCruse: Prefer "debunked." How about that? Hyperbolick (talk) 04:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Strong Remove This is highly contested information and has not yet got substantial evidence proving it wrong or right, Dubious is the best description In my opinion, outright describing it as false is uncharacteristic of Wikipedia's mission 150.107.172.172 (talk) 04:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)- Checkuser note: vote struck. You don't get to vote twice by logging out. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Remove per Aviartm. RandomGnome (talk) 04:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Hard to believe this is even a question. On the one side we have these sources that have been indulging baseless conspiracies for many years, on the other side we have journalism. If Wikipedia can't discriminate between them, it deserves to crash. This is Freshman Comp level source distinction stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C6:4300:6EE0:10A3:59CB:3FE4:D1BE (talk) 05:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Remove as long as any of the allegations are still contested calling the whole thing false is overreach.OrdinaryDecent (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Remove this is still a developing and intensely disputed issue, we should wait until all aspects of the theory have been COMPLETELY discredited referring to them as unverified allegations would be far better imo LandLoveLiberty (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC) — LandLoveLiberty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Remove The FBI has reported that the laptop is part of an investigation into money laundering, which will presumably continue. Until we get the results, we won't know if these allegations are false or not. The word "allegations" sums this up well enough. Pkeets (talk) 18:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- What money laundering investigation? Money laundering, conspiracy to defraud U.S. reportedly among charges under consideration in investigation related to Rudy Giuliani soibangla (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- More specifically related, this brand new source says
Documents obtained by Fox News show the subpoena was linked to a money laundering investigation in late 2019, though it is unknown whether the investigation is still open or if it directly involves Hunter Biden.
– Muboshgu (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Remove - if the emails are not authentic emails wouldn't Hunter/Joe Biden/Biden's campaign come out and state they are forged/false emails? Yodabyte (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Remove - There has been much development of the story which factually makes false an incorrect statement, but more than that, until proven in a court of law simply having the word alleged or allegations suffices. Unless one wants to go thru many articles/pages that by the same token do not have false as it relates to other individuals, the word false here is NPOV violating. WP should merely present the facts and have with alleged, and then let the reader decide by going thru additional reading. WP should not get in the game of deciding what's true and not true until some official action is taken and then it should present those facts. Let's not let wp become twitter or facebook. SailedtheSeas (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Name one thing that proves Biden pressured the Ukrainian government to fire their prosecutor. Point at one single reliable source that says emphatically "Biden definitely pressured the Ukrainian government" because we can point at explicit sources that say to the contrary. Koncorde (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Are you serious. Biden said it on tape. BTW I like the note below that suggests to use unproven vs false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SailedtheSeas (talk • contribs) 00:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Name one thing that proves Biden pressured the Ukrainian government to fire their prosecutor. Point at one single reliable source that says emphatically "Biden definitely pressured the Ukrainian government" because we can point at explicit sources that say to the contrary. Koncorde (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Use the word "unproven" or similar. That's a better description of the sources -- as others note, they generally don't say "false". Adoring nanny (talk) 04:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Until actual reliable sources say otherwise. The New York Post is not of that calibre. NonReproBlue (talk) 09:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Remove: The bit about Joe Biden using his position to benefit Hunter Biden's employer is completely unproven and is without a shred of evidence, but that is not the same thing as being proven to be false. For example, the conspiracy theory that the US government is kidnapping children to work as slaves on Mars hasn't actually been proven to be false; space flight is possible, slavery is possible, and nobody has gone to Mars and searched every inch for carefully hidden mine entrances. See Russell's teapot.
- The bit about the Ukrainians only hiring Hunter Biden because of who his father is is completely plausible and most likely accurate. So is the theory that the media would be treating this completely differently if the Ukranians had hired a child of Trump or Pence. None of this supports the completely unproven conspiracy theory that Joe Biden was in on it or even aware of it before Hunter Biden was hired.
- We should only use "false" for things that have been actually proven to be false. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence -- but that's the way to bet. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Apologies in advance for the lengthy response, Guy Macon. I disagree. It's not just that there's no evidence supporting the key claim that Joe Biden forced out Shokin for the benefit of Burisma/his son, when you look at the RS they clearly go much further than this. They report the "conspiracy theory" (a term ubiquitous among press coverage) that Joe Biden engaged in corruption in Ukraine to be "false/fake" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7, "baseless" 8 9, "debunked" 9 10 11, "invented" 11 12, "fantasy" 13 14 and "bogus" 15. There are plenty more sources, but I think this is enough to make my point. Like any good conspiracy theory, it's developed out of facts which are then twisted to become "half-true" (i.e. Biden did withold funds, but not for the suggested reason). A point I made above is that the many murky allegations, some of which do have a basis, related to Hunter Biden's privileged incompetence can make it seem like the claim Joe Biden acted inappropriately hasn't been proven false, when in reality it has, as the sources above attest. You can extend the logic of burden of proof awfully far, and, like most other conspiracy theories, you can look at the pieces of supposed evidence that add up into myth and conclude that it is possible. It could be argued this is WP:SYN as multiple RS are clearly saying it's false. It's also contrary to WP:FALSEBALANCE "conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship ... include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world". The only media sources that have seriously speculated that the base claim of Joe Biden's corruption might be true are partisan and not RS. On what basis should we avoid calling this conspiracy theory, relating to living persons with political ramifications and clearly pushed by partisan groups with a motive, false, other than original thought and unreliable sources, when we have a weight of RS clearly saying it is false? Personally, I think the current wording (which has been revised and improved since the start of this RfC) is spot-on: the conspiracy theory consists of a number of unevidenced, dubious and often irrelevant claims, orbiting around and feeding into a central narrative that has itself been repeatedly proven false. Jr8825 • Talk 13:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Guy Macon that's basically what the article says now. I can't say whether it would be different if this were Don Jr., or whether that difference would be justified because Trump's adult children and their partners have played a prominent role in his campaign, including notable mentions in the Mueller report, and have profited personally and through direct nepotism. But that's not the point. The point is that the base claim that Joe Biden intervened to protect Burisma is, as you say, false, and the rest is somewhere between wildly implausible and unproven, depending on which iteration you're talking about. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Certainly we cover it. The very first paragraph of "background" says "As he had no prior experience in the energy sector, this is viewed as a likely attempt to buy influence via his father, and was considered awkward by advisors to the Obama administration".
- That being said, we have fifty six citations and paragraph after paragraph talking about the conspiracy theory and one sentence with one citation talking about the appearance of a conflict of interest.
- It isn't as if there are no sources that discuss the latter:
- Hunter Biden’s Perfectly Legal, Socially Acceptable Corruption --The Atlantic
- Will Hunter Biden Jeopardize His Father’s Campaign? --The New Yorker
- Hunter Biden uses silver spoon to eat crow --The Boston Herald
- Hunter Biden, the black sheep who got Trump impeached, explained --Vox
- The Bidens are not like us --Chicago Tribune
- Hunter Biden: What was he doing in Ukraine and China? --BBC
- The Hunter Biden story is a troubling tale of privilege --The Washington Post
- Being Biden's son has its privileges --Aiken Standard
- (Note that most of the above sources also say that there is no evidence that Joe Biden did anything wrong. The conspiracy theory associated with Hunter Biden's family privilege really is just that -- a consiracy thory with no evidence backing it up)) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Surely it makes sense to have paragraph after paragraph talking about the conspiracy theory in an article about... the conspiracy theory? I'm not sure what your suggestion would be – include more information about Hunter Biden cashing in on his name? Or cut down extraneous detail in the rest of the article? (Which I wouldn't be against.) The article is about the conspiracy theory that Joe Biden was corrupt in relation to Ukraine, discussing Hunter Biden's 'socially acceptable corruption' (great quote btw) beyond the first paragraph dedicated to it just doesn't seem relevant to me. If anywhere, it belongs over at Hunter Biden (I say this reluctantly as I'm aware there's a chaotic situation over at that talk page too). And, sadly, I have to ask how notable individual cases of elite social/business cronyism and nepotism are to an encyclopedia, much as I find it all abhorrent. (I don't think any of this changes the fact that the conspiracy theory is false.) Jr8825 • Talk 17:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. Include more information about Hunter Biden cashing in on his name. It is extremely closely related to the conspiracy theory. A proper coverage of the conspiracy theory details that part that is likely to be true as well as that part which is likely to be false. What we were doing here would be like writing the 9/11 conspiracy theories page while barely mentioning the actual reason why the towers fell, or like writing the Vaccine hesitancy page while barely mentioning what we know about the actual causes of Autism. Many of the sources on this agree, and include analysis in the form of "here is the part that is true, here is the part that is a lie". --Guy Macon (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Make sure that whatever is said is accurate. And make sure that the false claims are noted clearly as false, such as the completely discredited and debunked stuff Trump was ranting about at the 3rd debate. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Make sure this idea of "cashing in" is attributed properly. Hunter did not hire himself. It was the corrupt oligarch and owner of Burisma, Mykola Zlochevsky, who hired Hunter Biden for the purpose of "cashing in" on him as a possible bargaining chip with Joe Biden. Whether Hunter "allowed himself" to be used is another matter. Any corrupt motives belong to Zlochevsky. -- Valjean (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. Include more information about Hunter Biden cashing in on his name. It is extremely closely related to the conspiracy theory. A proper coverage of the conspiracy theory details that part that is likely to be true as well as that part which is likely to be false. What we were doing here would be like writing the 9/11 conspiracy theories page while barely mentioning the actual reason why the towers fell, or like writing the Vaccine hesitancy page while barely mentioning what we know about the actual causes of Autism. Many of the sources on this agree, and include analysis in the form of "here is the part that is true, here is the part that is a lie". --Guy Macon (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Surely it makes sense to have paragraph after paragraph talking about the conspiracy theory in an article about... the conspiracy theory? I'm not sure what your suggestion would be – include more information about Hunter Biden cashing in on his name? Or cut down extraneous detail in the rest of the article? (Which I wouldn't be against.) The article is about the conspiracy theory that Joe Biden was corrupt in relation to Ukraine, discussing Hunter Biden's 'socially acceptable corruption' (great quote btw) beyond the first paragraph dedicated to it just doesn't seem relevant to me. If anywhere, it belongs over at Hunter Biden (I say this reluctantly as I'm aware there's a chaotic situation over at that talk page too). And, sadly, I have to ask how notable individual cases of elite social/business cronyism and nepotism are to an encyclopedia, much as I find it all abhorrent. (I don't think any of this changes the fact that the conspiracy theory is false.) Jr8825 • Talk 17:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Remove per discussion below. --Flying Lambs (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Most of the newspapers of record like the New York Times are skeptical of the allegations to say the least. Maybe future developments could justify removing the "false" qualifier, but for now we have sufficient reliable sources to keep it. Challenger.rebecca (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Let's go with what actually-reliable sources say, shall we? Oh, and when your introduction begins with Now let me give some logic... followed by some standard-issue "LEFT-WING MEDIA BIAS!1!!" non-logic, you're misusing words. --Calton | Talk 00:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Fully agreed. That "LOGIC STATEMENT" rant about "liberal sources" is more of a WP:NOTFORUM violation. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- That "LOGIC statement" clearly violates the rules for creating an RfC, so the RfC template should be removed. -- Valjean (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- The Rfc should still be there. If it really becomes an issue, I could replace a few sentence paragraph with all the "research" from the article...aka listing each source and the sources that say that specific source is liberal or conservative or neutral. IMO a few sentences is better than a giant list like that. Just saying that if it becomes a problem, I can spend an hour or two and fix the issue. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- No, I was thinking more about this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Statement_should_be_neutral_and_brief. I suggest you read it, and that page, before doing more. Then write a neutral RfC above the current opening. Then maybe hat your current opening. -- Valjean (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- The Rfc should still be there. If it really becomes an issue, I could replace a few sentence paragraph with all the "research" from the article...aka listing each source and the sources that say that specific source is liberal or conservative or neutral. IMO a few sentences is better than a giant list like that. Just saying that if it becomes a problem, I can spend an hour or two and fix the issue. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- That "LOGIC statement" clearly violates the rules for creating an RfC, so the RfC template should be removed. -- Valjean (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Fully agreed. That "LOGIC STATEMENT" rant about "liberal sources" is more of a WP:NOTFORUM violation. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. First, it has been over 10 days now, and no well-known reliable sources have taken it up. Next, it should be judged by the standard of conspiracy theories. The whole idea of a conspiracy theory is to make something look true without any evidence. And finally, the statement is question says a series of false allegations, which doesn't exclude any possibly true allegations that might happen to appear. Gah4 (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Remove - we can say "alleged" in the lead, and include the "false allegations" in an attributed statement in the body text where more detail is given. The cited source, FactCheck.org, is editorializing their opinions - they even admitted to "unsubstantiated", referred to Trump attacking Biden, referred to Trump's impeachment but fail to say he was acquitted on those charges, and they stated "As we’ve written, there’s no evidence Hunter Biden was being investigated." There is no evidence that he was not being investigated, either. What we do know is that a subpoena was issued for the laptop and there are ongoing investigations. None of the Bidens have denied that the laptop belongs to Hunter, but the clencher for me is the statement in the cited article: We asked the Biden campaign about the authenticity of the emails and the claim that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden, and it referred us to Hunter Biden’s attorney. We will update this story if we get a response. That sent FactCheck.org's credibility right out the window. Until the allegations are proven false, we don't use garnishments in WikiVoice - it is noncompliant with NPOV. If/when the allegations have been proven false, then we can include it as allegations were proven false. We would not say "the FBI is investigating false allegations" or "the police charged an innocent suspect with false allegations of corruption", unless we are stating it retrospectively and such statements are supported by an innocent verdict. WP is not a court. We can say, "arrested a suspect charged with corruption" but we do not assume media's position in WikiVoice since it is an opinion not a statement of fact. We use media for verifiability, but we don't mirror media's opinion. Present only the facts from a NPOV - separate the wheat from the chaff. Atsme 💬 📧 12:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Is your argument REALLY "well prove he isn't being investigated or he's guilty"??? That would be an outrageous violation of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. IHateAccounts (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Atsme: your issue seems to be about a particular source, but what about the other 7 sources cited there? They may not be the best collection of sources possible, but there's a clear weight of the RS on this – did you see the large collection of sources I gathered a little further up this conversation? Also, the ongoing investigation is not about Joe Biden acting corruptly in Ukraine and it would be very misleading to include this in the lead. It's irrelevant and doesn't bring the falsity of the conspiracy into question. NBC/CNN have reported that it's an investigation into foreign interference, while Fox News, in its characteristically disingenuous way, has tried to link it to a money laundering probe, while reluctantly acknowledging there's no basis to link this probe with Hunter Biden. Even the partisan non-RS sources aren't saying the investigation is related to Joe Biden or him acting improperly. We'd be doing Fox's job for them by presenting it in a way that it appeared to challenge the weight of sources describing the conspiracy as false. Jr8825 • Talk 16:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, Jr8825 - in response to your ping, I understand your perspective, but the other 7 sources are pack journalism, or echo chamber, whichever you prefer. We have to be cautious about today's political media because they tend to publish "opinion journalism" which is void of objectivity, but it's great for clickbait. Media can and does effect political campaigns but long story short, in this case, the media doesn't know anything for certain about what the FBI is investigating or if there is money laundering or any other wrong-doing involved, if any. According to CNN, we are now aware that the FBI "had 'nothing to add' to comments this week by the Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe" relative to Russian disinformation efforts. It's possible that there was some influence peddling by Hunter Biden but we don't know for certain, and we certainly don't know the veracity of the allegations against the Bidens so we cannot say in WikiVoice that the allegations are either true or false; it's just that simple. Until we know for certain, it's all just speculation. We include only the material facts; i.e., there are allegations, and we provide a pragmatic NPOV description of those allegations for our readers. Let the readers decide for themselves. See To say it in WikiVoice, or not??, and another good read is Lumen. Atsme 💬 📧 18:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
the media doesn't know anything for certain about what the FBI is investigating or if there is money laundering or any other wrong-doing involved
Fox News: “Laptop connected to Hunter Biden linked to FBI money laundering probe... It is unclear, at this point, whether the investigation is ongoing or if it was directly related to Hunter Biden”
USA Today: “Rudy Giuliani turns over alleged Hunter Biden laptop to authorities in Delaware”
WSJ: “Federal Subpoenas Seek Information on Giuliani’s Consulting Business...federal investigation into possible money laundering”
WSJ: “Federal Prosecutors Scrutinize Rudy Giuliani’s Ukraine Business Dealings, Finances”
soibangla (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)WSJ: “Two Giuliani Associates Who Helped Him on Ukraine Charged With Campaign-Finance Violations... Prosecutors say Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman were part of a conspiracy to funnel foreign money into U.S. elections”
- Hi, Jr8825 - in response to your ping, I understand your perspective, but the other 7 sources are pack journalism, or echo chamber, whichever you prefer. We have to be cautious about today's political media because they tend to publish "opinion journalism" which is void of objectivity, but it's great for clickbait. Media can and does effect political campaigns but long story short, in this case, the media doesn't know anything for certain about what the FBI is investigating or if there is money laundering or any other wrong-doing involved, if any. According to CNN, we are now aware that the FBI "had 'nothing to add' to comments this week by the Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe" relative to Russian disinformation efforts. It's possible that there was some influence peddling by Hunter Biden but we don't know for certain, and we certainly don't know the veracity of the allegations against the Bidens so we cannot say in WikiVoice that the allegations are either true or false; it's just that simple. Until we know for certain, it's all just speculation. We include only the material facts; i.e., there are allegations, and we provide a pragmatic NPOV description of those allegations for our readers. Let the readers decide for themselves. See To say it in WikiVoice, or not??, and another good read is Lumen. Atsme 💬 📧 18:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Discussion
It's important to understand that even if the purported emails were real (which is not at all certain, since the evidence points extremely strongly to a Russian disinformation operation coordinated with Giuliani), the claim would still be false and debunked.
All this was explored in excruciating detail during the impeachment hearings. The facts are clear:
- Viktor Shokin was corrupt. The first bipartisan motion to remove him was filed shortly after his appointment, and when he was finally removed by an overwhelming majority vote of the Ukrainian Parliament in March 2016 his associates were found with bags of jewels and multiple passports of his.
- Viktor Shokin was not threatening to prosecute Burisma (unless perhaps he was making extortion threats, which is the clear implication in the events leading to Shokin's ouster [4]).
- Investigation of Burisma was dormant. Replacing Shokin made it more likely that the investigation would be reactivated, as indeed it was in 2019.
- The investigation of Burisma relates to events prior to 2014, when Hunter Biden was hired as an adviser on corporate ethics policies in what appears to have been an attempt to at least give the appearance of cleaning up the company's former image, as attention focused on Mykola Zlochevsky, its owner since 2011 and a crony of Yanukovych.
- Removing Shokin was official policy of the United States, the EU, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. He was not alone: the office of Prosecutor General had been held to be corrupt under numerous previous holders. The pressure was not to remove Shokin, specifically, but to remove corruption and hire instead a prosecutor who would enforce the law and deliver a business environment free from corruption, so that Western companies, who have to comply with laws forbidding foreign bribery, could to business.
Nothing about the timeline stacks up. Nothing about the emails stacks up. And the idea that an unencrypted MacBook belonging to a man who has been under intense scrutiny for years, whose father is the Presidential candidate for the Democratic Party, would be left at a strip mall computer shop rather than taken to an Apple store or simply trashed and rebuilt from iCloud is so very implausible that you have to wonder who would even think of it. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Not to mention, dropping a laptop to a guy who just so happens to be legally blind and can't identify who actually dropped it, who just so happens to somehow connect to Rudy Giuliani, who worked with Steve Bannon to pass a copy of the hard drive to the NYPost because the legally blind guy decided that he wanted to give Giuliani a copy in addition to supposedly handing it to the FBI? That's an awful lot of "coincidences" there. It has all the hallmarks of a plot to disseminate something fake while laundering the source... 2601:2C0:C300:B7:FC53:F984:3F15:4B4C (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Remove the word 'false' and add a second paragraph detailing the dubious nature of the emails. It looks very bad as it is, a conservative hitpiece waiting to happen. Pietrus69 (talk) 17:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- We shouldn't be worrying whether conservatives or liberals are unhappy, the important thing is we maintain a neutral point of view and reflect reliable sources, that in itself will do more for readers' trust. Jr8825 • Talk 15:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
How would hiring a sitting US vice president's son (and one in charge of Ukraine policy, on that - Obama's "point man") be "cleaning up" Burisma's image? It has all the appearance of a bribe, even if it's unclear what, if anything, Burisma received in return. 209.6.169.178 (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- He was hired to advise on corporate governance. He was qualified to do so, but doubtless would not have got the job if his name had been Smith. But he was hired at a time when Burisma (and several other Ukrainian businesses owned by oligarchs) were trying to clean up their image. US and European businesses have pretty strict rules about bribery, and foreign companies that engage in corrupt practices are on blacklists and greylists with the financial conduct authorities, with heightened scrutiny. It's charmingly naive to think that the SEC would be swayed by the name Biden on a company's prospectus, but this is a Ukrainian company, and they work in a world where connections are paramount - you can see how they could make an error there. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Corporate boards are rarely filled exclusively with operating professionals from the relevant industry. Biden's educational and professional histories are typical of tens of thousands of corporate board members worldwide. SPECIFICO talk 01:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Elijahandskip, I am concerned by the recent blog post you made. In it, you have a link to this discussion with an invitation to vote on this RfC, which I believe constitutes canvassing. I would ask that you remove the link until this RfC has concluded. For any of your readers coming here, please note that decisions are made through reaching consensus through policy-based arguments, not a simple tally of votes. – Anne drew 15:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Anne drew Andrew and Drew, this is inappropriate. We should probably bring this activity to the administrators noticeboard. Thanks for finding this. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, the user was transparent and notified us about the blog post. But yeah, not appropriate. – Anne drew 15:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- I have undone my post above about the blog. It wasn't canvassing but in the faith of notification to the users I took quotes from. Also I am not removing the link in the blog to the Rfc as I am in America and have free speech. If an admin on Wikipedia tells me to remove it, I will at that time. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Elijahandskip, I am an admin, and I'm telling you that you should remove it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's most important to remove or modify the blog post. Don't canvass and don't expose named editors. Keep on- and off-Wikipedia activities separate. This isn't actual doxing or harassment, but it sure gives me uneasy deja vu feelings. I hate the real world harassment and threats I get nearly every time my activities here are mentioned off-wiki. I'm sure Elijah doesn't intend for that to happen, but it does. -- Valjean (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- I took your name out of the blog. If the other people I used quotes from ask, I will remove their names. I also amended the blog. I kept the link to the discussion, but I took out the reference for people to vote there. (Taking the link out won't do much other than delay people finding it. I won't mention about voting in the blog post. Hope that works.) Elijahandskip (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Elijahandskip: You're still paraphrasing another editor's words, off-wiki, to describe them as "shocking" and showing "complete bias", can you see how this is a problem? I encourage you to remove the link given the advice of the editors above. Jr8825 • Talk 17:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- I took your name out of the blog. If the other people I used quotes from ask, I will remove their names. I also amended the blog. I kept the link to the discussion, but I took out the reference for people to vote there. (Taking the link out won't do much other than delay people finding it. I won't mention about voting in the blog post. Hope that works.) Elijahandskip (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- I have undone my post above about the blog. It wasn't canvassing but in the faith of notification to the users I took quotes from. Also I am not removing the link in the blog to the Rfc as I am in America and have free speech. If an admin on Wikipedia tells me to remove it, I will at that time. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, the user was transparent and notified us about the blog post. But yeah, not appropriate. – Anne drew 15:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
@Jr8825: the link to the Rfc was removed. Also the names of the editors I quotes was removed. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC) UTC)
- Elijahandskip: I find your assertions of “LOGIC” and “liberal sources” to be...fascinating. Not to mention the dubious “consensus” you claimed to create this article in the first place, followed by an effort to canvas for a vote that evidently was not going your way. soibangla (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- For the second time...The blog wasn't to canvas. I made the blog to state my opinion. I only mentioned it to begin with only as an alert to the editors I had used quotes from. 18:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- LOL! soibangla (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- I am only going to say free speech to that. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- LOL! soibangla (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- For the second time...The blog wasn't to canvas. I made the blog to state my opinion. I only mentioned it to begin with only as an alert to the editors I had used quotes from. 18:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Requesting a close on the section about the blog. Issues taken care of. (I hope...) Elijahandskip (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
As one of the quoted editors, this got an eyebrow raise from me, since I'm not sure how calling out the fact that RS across the political spectrum disavowed this reporting qualified as bias, but then I don't get LOGIC, apparently. I do think this is an alarming red flag regarding readiness to edit here, especially given the blog's implications about the editor's relative youth. Grandpallama (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- How old I am means nothing. On my user page, I have stated that I am a senior in High school. That has been up there for months. I also assumed the lead coordinator role of the Current events WikiProject back in April. Opinions are opinions, lets leave it at that and move on. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- To end discussion, I have deleted the post about Wikipedia from my blog. End discussion and we will move on. I need to work on the current event WikiProject...not be arguing about a stupid blog. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Fox News
The article needs to include information recently disclosed which suggests that a person or persons who where noted to be on the email chains of certain alleged Hunter Biden emails have substantiated that the messages where in fact authentic.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-biden-china-email-source-verifies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1217:49A9:C8B5:FB13:948E:E7A7 (talk) 04:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Has this source explained how meta-data of an email supposedly written in 2017 shows it to actually have been written in December 2019? Hyperbolick (talk) 05:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- The emails were later exported to PDF after the laptop was dropped off. It's the metadata of these PDFs that are dated 2019, not the emails. Please read more carefully as to not spread misinformation. Databased (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Databased: can you provide me with the meta-data for the emails? Wait, what's that? There is none? The only meta-data which exists at all is that for the PDF files? How odd, no? Perhaps the files only had to look good enough to fool Giuliani. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- One suspects it's not that hard to fool a guy who married his cousin. https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/05/rudy-giuliani-john-oliver-last-week-tonight 2601:2C0:C300:B7:2CFA:3DA8:CE80:C645 (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- When that source comes forward and names himself, I'll take it seriously. Remember Rudy going on about what his friends at FBI-NY said was going to drop in 2016. You offer that "evidence" you're not serious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C6:4300:6EE0:10A3:59CB:3FE4:D1BE (talk) 05:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- The source (or at least A source) has now come forward. https://nypost.com/2020/10/22/hunter-ex-partner-tony-bobulinski-calls-joe-biden-a-liar/ Justin.olbrantz (talk) 11:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Justin.olbrantz, Reliable source needed. There are so many bad-faith actors engaged here that we need very high quality reliable sources to establish what is actually being claimed and by whom, because there is a regrettable tendency to add one and one and make eleventy. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- He's the CEO of the SinoHawk company. What more credentials could he possibly have to speak about the internal workings of his own company? Justin.olbrantz (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Justin.olbrantz, Reliable source needed. There are so many bad-faith actors engaged here that we need very high quality reliable sources to establish what is actually being claimed and by whom, because there is a regrettable tendency to add one and one and make eleventy. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- The source (or at least A source) has now come forward. https://nypost.com/2020/10/22/hunter-ex-partner-tony-bobulinski-calls-joe-biden-a-liar/ Justin.olbrantz (talk) 11:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Databased: can you provide me with the meta-data for the emails? Wait, what's that? There is none? The only meta-data which exists at all is that for the PDF files? How odd, no? Perhaps the files only had to look good enough to fool Giuliani. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- The emails were later exported to PDF after the laptop was dropped off. It's the metadata of these PDFs that are dated 2019, not the emails. Please read more carefully as to not spread misinformation. Databased (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- First, Fox is not reliable for political claims. Second, there are many more sources that absolutely refute this claim. So: No. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Third neither is MSNBC or CNN. This shows the bias. Guitarguy2323 (talk) 01:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- But wait, the Fox News story doesn't name its source. So, um...fake news, right? It's all so unfair! soibangla (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- For me, only sources that is reliable is the BBC or similar (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc). Fox News and it's affiliated are not used when reporting the news, even news about hurricane because it affiliates to Trump or right-wing. BBC or its similar media tend to more affiliate to American people, which is more reliable than any other news organization. 110.137.170.83 (talk) 03:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- WP:RSP is a useful resource for what is generally considered reliable (and in what contexts), FWIW. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- So if Fox News leans toward Trump on "all articles" and that makes it unreliable, then CNN is unreliable as it leans toward Biden. Simple. CNN and Fox News are both unreliable in politic news. LOGIC! Elijahandskip (talk) 14:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- How about we focus on editing this article and leave broad-strokes discussion of the reliability of various sources for more appropriate locations such as WP:RSN? GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- GorillaWarfare, I agree with GW, this is not the right venue to debate whether a source qualifies as a reliable source. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- How about we focus on editing this article and leave broad-strokes discussion of the reliability of various sources for more appropriate locations such as WP:RSN? GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- So if Fox News leans toward Trump on "all articles" and that makes it unreliable, then CNN is unreliable as it leans toward Biden. Simple. CNN and Fox News are both unreliable in politic news. LOGIC! Elijahandskip (talk) 14:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- WP:RSP is a useful resource for what is generally considered reliable (and in what contexts), FWIW. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- For me, only sources that is reliable is the BBC or similar (CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc). Fox News and it's affiliated are not used when reporting the news, even news about hurricane because it affiliates to Trump or right-wing. BBC or its similar media tend to more affiliate to American people, which is more reliable than any other news organization. 110.137.170.83 (talk) 03:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Proposal: Delete article and take the small amount of relevant info and add it to Biden Campaign article
There is already a Trump-Ukraine scandal article that has most of the facts related to Giuliani and the Bidens. There us also a Hunter Biden article in Wikipedia.
I would propose that the current article is not notable. It can be summarized, with the minimal references in the Biden campaign article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden_2020_presidential_campaign
right under the Trump Ukraine thing. Make a section called "The 2020 Giuliani and Associates accusations." That way it is clear they all come from Giuliani and NY Post.
The current article makes it look like there is a valid conspiracy and an FBI investigation into some laptop. A very neutral description of this entire sequence of events is given by NPR here:
This matter is a trivial item in the big scheme, but some remnants of this will remain in Wikipedia into the Biden presidency, which is likely the outcome of the election. The actual Hunter Biden working for Burisma is well covered already. But currently the article we are discussing is only adding to conspiracy thinking.
Tero111 (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Tero111, No objections here, you are very welcome to nominate for deletion. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Scroll up. There was a split (Premature) vote that lasted 24 hours.Elijahandskip (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, rename to Giuliani-NY Post conspiracy theory. SPECIFICO talk 20:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- NOTE: Only administrators can have to move the page due to highly controversial and visible page, so any users that want to move the page please conducted using Request move tool. I also asking admin to imposing 1RR for this article but it will wait pre-condition that impose 1RR. 110.137.170.83 (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO, move requests can be initiated by anyone. My preferred title would be "Pfffffft", tbh. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- I have no issue with the article existing, however I do object to trying to merge it with the Biden campaign. This is directly related to the Trump–Ukraine scandal where chunks already exist kind of covering these accusations so if any content is to be merged anywhere it should be there.
- Anything related to the laptop is at best currently WP:AVOIDVICTIM as we can assume Biden didn't leak his own info so was hacked, and WP:BLPCRIME for the current unfounded accusations at Hunter Biden and Joe Biden. People can read the news for that info, we are WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGOSSIP. Koncorde (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know that "hacked" is the best term for this. If this is all true, then Biden was just careless with his laptop and lost control of the private information as a result. If the emails have come from the Russian hack of Burisma, of course, then the term is accurate. Pkeets (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, rename to Giuliani-NY Post conspiracy theory. SPECIFICO talk 20:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Truth issues
The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of false allegations which assert that 2020 Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden engaged in corrupt activities while the former was Vice President of the United States and the latter worked for the Ukrainian gas company Burisma
I am curious how an article can be claimed as "a series of false allegations" when all the facts and research have not been completed.
Oak Flat 10-20-2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oak Flat (talk • contribs) 16:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think the same as well. Wikipedia has got severe bias issues in many pages. --47.62.198.161 (talk) 17:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth and argument from ignorance. We go by reliable sources, which uniformly reject any claim of "corrupt activities" by either Biden. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- "Reliable" sources. Yeah, that's Wikipedia's built-in bias. And the result is- The general public does not count Wikipedia as reliable. Any article dealing with a controversial subject cannot be trusted. -Topcat777 (talk) 23:24, 20 Oct 2020 (UTC)
- @Topcat777:, are you opposing our RS policy? I want to be sure I understand you correctly. If you're being sarcastic, your last sentence doesn't make sense. -- Valjean (talk) 05:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- The RS policy probably needs to be changed. Back in 2004, the "respected" news media were regarded as the most reliable sources for current topics, but with an increased availability and diversity of sources of information, this has changed. The bad news is that it is more difficult to write an encyclopedia once there is a diversity of viewpoints, in which one man's conspiracy theory becomes another man's truth. Narssarssuaq (talk) 13:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Topcat777:, are you opposing our RS policy? I want to be sure I understand you correctly. If you're being sarcastic, your last sentence doesn't make sense. -- Valjean (talk) 05:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- "Reliable" sources. Yeah, that's Wikipedia's built-in bias. And the result is- The general public does not count Wikipedia as reliable. Any article dealing with a controversial subject cannot be trusted. -Topcat777 (talk) 23:24, 20 Oct 2020 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth and argument from ignorance. We go by reliable sources, which uniformly reject any claim of "corrupt activities" by either Biden. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Just wondering what the reliable source is that the allegations are fake. CNN? A reliable source by WP's standards maybe. Maybe better to say "the allegations are false according to xxx" given that a lot of these 'reliable sources' are not neutral parties --2A00:23C7:8E0B:6E00:F45D:EDCC:F35:7C25 (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- The allegations that Biden intervened in Ukraine to protect Burisma are false according to the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, and multiple other sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
For the sake of argument
Let’s stipulate the Post story is 100% true. How would that show that “Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden engaged in corrupt activities?” From what I can tell, the only “explosive” part of this story is that Hunter may have introduced Joe to a Burisma board advisor. And that would establish...what, exactly? soibangla (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- That Joe lied about talking to Hunter... wait. No it wouldn't. Dammit. You got me with that old "perception of a conflict of interest" again. Koncorde (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- I guess they're thinking that Hunter introducing Joe to someone proves corrupt dealings? The irony given the Trump children's actual corrupt dealings is impressive. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- There's a pattern of DARVO in conservative circles, "accusing others of what they themselves do". Intriguingly the Freyd Dynamics Lab website is replete with examples from the Trump family. https://dynamic.uoregon.edu/jjf/defineDARVO.html 2601:2C0:C300:B7:F498:F707:531D:DF4C (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
So, this from Politico today...
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-disinfo-430276 "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.”"
After checking Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, Politico is considered fully Reliable. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:F498:F707:531D:DF4C (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory#Retired intelligence officials GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks :) I'm still learning writing style. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:F498:F707:531D:DF4C (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Major Garrett, the chief Washington correspondent for CBS News, says the following: [5] So allegedly, the FBI, the Department of Justice, the Director of National Intelligence, the CBS, a former mayor of New York and presidential candidate, and the New York Post have all been fooled or brainwashed by the Russians. I don't know what to conclude, except that the story Wikipedia is telling by now seems a bit far-fetched. And if it eventually turns out to be completely false, it would seem that Wikipedia has been used to spread disinformation. Narssarssuaq (talk) 07:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Narssarssuaq, Here's the full statement from Christopher Wray:
- Oh, he didn't say anything. As you were, then. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- JzG, it must be a conspiracy theory, then. Narssarssuaq (talk) 09:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Narssarssuaq You need to strike the FBI, the Department of Justice, and CBS from your list. They were not fooled (although I don't know how Major Garrett fell for it). The DNI, a former mayor of New York and presidential candidate who has spent the past year making a public fool of himself, and the New York Post which never had any credibility to begin with, have apparently been fooled or brainwashed by the Russians, probably more than once. On that list, only the DNI is surprising - and he admitted in the next breath that he didn't have much or any actual knowledge about the material. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- You okay? PackMecEng (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. Are you? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- So far, but I'm not the one ranting. Maybe take it down a notch is all I'm saying. When you start accusing people of being "brainwashed by the Russians" or things like "spent the past year making a public fool of himself" it is not a good time. PackMecEng (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- "Making a public fool of himself" are my words, I admit. "fooled or brainwashed by the Russians" are Narssarssuaq's words. I am simply pointing out that he was mistaken about half of the people he suggested have been fooled or brainwashed - namely, the credible half. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- The FBI has stated that this story is not Russian disinformation. They have the laptop classified as part of a money laundering investigation.[6] See NY Times article. Pkeets (talk) 04:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Pkeets, the source doesn't actually say that. "Officials separately confirmed that the F.B.I. seized the laptop and an external hard drive as part of an investigation, though they did not detail the inquiry or whether it involved money laundering or Hunter Biden". Of course it would have been under a code for a money laundering investigation given the Giuliani narrative. But you'll note that the source says they've had it for a year, and the only indictments that seem even tangentially related are Russian hackers, notably those involved in the superficially similar attempt against Emanuel Macron in 2017. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- The FBI has stated that this story is not Russian disinformation. They have the laptop classified as part of a money laundering investigation.[6] See NY Times article. Pkeets (talk) 04:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- "Making a public fool of himself" are my words, I admit. "fooled or brainwashed by the Russians" are Narssarssuaq's words. I am simply pointing out that he was mistaken about half of the people he suggested have been fooled or brainwashed - namely, the credible half. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- So far, but I'm not the one ranting. Maybe take it down a notch is all I'm saying. When you start accusing people of being "brainwashed by the Russians" or things like "spent the past year making a public fool of himself" it is not a good time. PackMecEng (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. Are you? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- You okay? PackMecEng (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Can a reliable source not be a far left publication
Disruptive and responded to. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
It seems the only authorised sources are left wing circle jerks which leads to extremely biased articles like this one... Can you stop being cucks so we can have an encyclopedia that reflects reality instead of this left wing fantasy you pretend we live in?86.4.66.176 (talk) 07:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
|
What has Hunter Biden said?
The FAQ on this talk page says, "The idea that Hunter Biden, a California resident under intense public scrutiny, would drop off an unencrypted laptop at a Delaware computer shop run by a Trump supporter, rather than use an Apple store or a local trusted repairer, is considered dubious by mainstream sources."
Has Hunter Biden said that he never had a laptop dropped off or sent for repair at that shop ("The Mac Shop" in Wilmington), and, consequently, that the computer could not have been his? If not, what has he said about that? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Ratcliff Interview.
I edited the relevant section to include Ratcliff's comments regarding this not being a Russian misinformation campaign ect. It was reverted because the sources used were said to be unreliable despite the fact there is no dispute this is what Ratcliff said. I then undid the revert to include the link the original source which includes the actual video. Of course, this was immediately reverted. Ratcliff is the DNI of the United States and his statements are what they are regardless of whether the interview is made on Fox Business of CNN therefore the source itself is irrelevant as Ratcliff is clearly the verifiable source of the comments themselves which we can see and hear for ourselves. This is clearly an abuse of Wikipedia rules to censor a duly appointed official whose claims differ from the opposition narrative. Thanos5150 (talk) 04:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't particularly appreciate the accusation that the other editor and I are "censor[ing] a duly appointed official whose claims differ from the opposition narrative". You were repeatedly inserting content that has already been discussed at some length on this talk page (see #Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 October 2020 and #Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 October 2020 (3) for two such discussions), with the result that the information was not added. I undid your introduction of the material because a change to that deecision ought to be made by consensus, not unilaterally. The concern is not over whether Ratcliffe said what he said, I can see as well as you can. The concern is over whether including the information improperly implies that an official statement has been made on behalf of the FBI. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- For the convenience of others reading the section, this is the text that Thanos5150 is wishing to add:
In an interview with Maria Bartiromo of Fox Business, US Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said of the emails that they "are not part of some Russian disinformation campaign." He continued to say "Unfortunately, it is Adam Schiff who said the intelligence community believes the Hunter Biden laptop and emails on it are part of a Russian disinformation campaign." and "Let me be clear: the intelligence community doesn’t believe that because there is no intelligence that supports that. And we have shared no intelligence with Adam Schiff, or any member of Congress."[1]
- GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Looks kind of relevant. Is this all still a "conspiracy theory", or could it be described with the more neutral word "allegations"? Narssarssuaq (talk) 06:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- GorillaWarfare, good grief. That's not a national security commentary, it's a series of Republican talking points. What does Chris Wray say? Guy (help! - typo?) 07:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- That paragraph doesn't mention the FBI at all, so any supposed implication is your own improper inference. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah that proposed text is a hard no from me dawg. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
First it was removed because the sources used were not "reliable" so I changed it to the original source including the actual interview with Ratcliff. Problem solved. Then you reverted it because "The concern is over whether including the information improperly implies that an official statement has been made on behalf of the FBI". What is it going to be next? Regardless, the problem with this is the edit does not claim it is an "official statement" nor does Ratcliff make this claim. He is however the DNI and this is what he is telling the American people in an interview which it stands to reason the words of the Director of Intelligence of the United States has as much weight if not more than CNN's "a US official and a congressional source briefed on the matter" and equally deserving to be included in this article if it is to be objective. Therefore, if this is really such a "concern" then say in the edit to the effect "While not an official statement from the FBI, in an interview with Fox Business DNI Ratcliff said...." So I have eliminated the first reason it was reverted and now the second. There is now no reasona whatsover not to include these comments from Ratcliff.Thanos5150 (talk) 04:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Thanos5150: Please look at the diff of your most recent edit. I don't think you did what you meant to do. But yes, repeatedly adding content to an article after it has been challenged (even if it is part of the quoted source) is considered edit warring. I'm not about to go report you for it, I'm just asking you to please discuss before reintroducing the Ratcliffe claim, as it has been repeatedly challenged on the talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
[DELETE] Thanos5150 (talk) 05:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
My mistake. Sorry I missed that you reverted it back and said: "actually, this part I'm okay with, though no objections to this being reverted if others disagree. But Thanos please stop with the edit warring)". I have undid my undo to revert to your revert. Thanos5150 (talk) 05:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Thanos5150: if you check the revision history you'll see GorillaWarfare reverted herself after looking again at your addition of the CNN quote, and explained she had no objection to it in the edit summary. I think you mistakenly removed your addition by undoing her more recent edit. Any repeated reverts like this are edit warring, regardless of the context, so do be cautious as there are active discretionary sanctions on this topic. Jr8825 • Talk 05:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, Thanos, glad we got that portion sorted out at least. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- The notion that we can have an entire subsection dedicated to a snippet of an opinion from unnamed and unaccountable former intelligence officials (formerly and dishonestly titled "Intelligence community"), but not even one full clear sentence from the current head of the American intelligence community is clearly fucked up in favour of those who want to believe commies are lurking behind everything in US politics. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- InedibleHulk, and what do reliable independent secondary sources say? Looks to me as if they give more weight to 50 long-term trusted intelligence officials rather than one Trump loyalist. Can't think why. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Reliable sources are reporting on Ratcliffe's comments.[2][3] His comments should be mentioned in the article, along with any reliably sourced caveats or skepticism. – Anne drew 16:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Anne drew Andrew and Drew, "In a carefully worded letter". You know what that means, right? Guy (help! - typo?) 16:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- I have no objection to also mentioning the carefully worded letter in the article. – Anne drew 16:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- It is noteworthy that the DNI is saying things. It's also noteworthy that the reliable sources are pointing out how he's acting as a Trump surrogate and giving half-truths at best. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Muboshgu, I'm not opposed in principle - in USA Today they frame it as: "Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said Monday that recently published emails purporting to document the business dealings of Hunter Biden are not connected to a Russian disinformation effort, even as federal authorities continued to review whether the material was part of such a campaign." But I think we need more sources to establish what the hell is going on, because even the Daily Mail describes Ratcliffe as a "Trump loyalist". Guy (help! - typo?) 16:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)x
- There is nothing sinister about a government official being viewed as loyal to that government's president. I'm pretty sure the guys the last three presidents nominated weren't treacherous bastards, either. It's almost as if a federal administration is supposed to work together. Anyway, I fold. I've seen all of you defend this Russophobia angle for four years. You're seasoned and steadfast, and resistance is futile. Anyway, Canada encourages you to choose Harris, nice and polite-like, see? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- InedibleHulk, true, there is "nothing sinister" in Ratcliffe supporting Trump. But, the politicization of non-political roles in this administration is unprecedented. I don't agree with your claim that there is "Russophobia" here. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- @InedibleHulk: It seems pretty clear to me that there's extremely strong unease, expressed in a wide variety of reliable sources, about Ratcliffe's integrity and partisanship, not least with his statement on the laptop. Here's the Economist (not exactly a left-wing source) at the time of his appointment: what Mr Ratcliffe lacks in experience he makes up for in devotion to Mr Trump. Mr Ratcliffe falsely accused Robert Mueller, during his congressional testimony, of having exceeded his brief as special counsel. He propounded the conspiracy theory that “there may have been a secret society” of federal agents working against Mr Trump. The New York Times uncovered embellishments to his biography, including one claim that he “arrested 300 illegal aliens in a single day” (prosecutors do not have powers of arrest), and another that he “convicted individuals funnelling money to Hamas” (he did not). See other sources expressing similar distrust: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Perhaps you should WP:AGF, rather than presume others are pushing an agenda? Jr8825 • Talk 21:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- The thing is, this is about whether Russia or a Russian is the source of information about Hunter Biden and by extension Joe, not Trump. If there was evidence of meddlesome Russians, per "Trump's own intelligence advisers", it would be welcomed with open arms on Wikipedia, to contradict and mock the president. It already has gone that way many times. The amount of "Russian interference" themed articles is testament to the agenda, not my lack of good faith. And look below. Fox is not allowed to discuss partisan topics, only CNN. You may not be part of it, but the bias toward linking Trump to Putin is thriving here. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- InedibleHulk, it would be quite shocking for a Trump admin official to break from Trump. We're not here to "mock" Trump. You do need a refresher on AGF. We don't have an "agenda" re: Russia, we're documenting facts. Russia hacked Burisma in January. And now here we are with a mysterious laptop with these emails. Even Ratcliffe says Russia (and Iran) are interfering right now. It's no surprise that the reliable sources are dubious of the story, and of Ratcliffe. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Doubt is opinion, not fact. Relay the documented fact that the same community that found evidence of Russian interference in other areas found none here, and contradict the conspiracy theory this article currently spreads to suggest otherwise. I believe you could, without politicizing it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- InedibleHulk, it would be quite shocking for a Trump admin official to break from Trump. We're not here to "mock" Trump. You do need a refresher on AGF. We don't have an "agenda" re: Russia, we're documenting facts. Russia hacked Burisma in January. And now here we are with a mysterious laptop with these emails. Even Ratcliffe says Russia (and Iran) are interfering right now. It's no surprise that the reliable sources are dubious of the story, and of Ratcliffe. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- The thing is, this is about whether Russia or a Russian is the source of information about Hunter Biden and by extension Joe, not Trump. If there was evidence of meddlesome Russians, per "Trump's own intelligence advisers", it would be welcomed with open arms on Wikipedia, to contradict and mock the president. It already has gone that way many times. The amount of "Russian interference" themed articles is testament to the agenda, not my lack of good faith. And look below. Fox is not allowed to discuss partisan topics, only CNN. You may not be part of it, but the bias toward linking Trump to Putin is thriving here. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- There is nothing sinister about a government official being viewed as loyal to that government's president. I'm pretty sure the guys the last three presidents nominated weren't treacherous bastards, either. It's almost as if a federal administration is supposed to work together. Anyway, I fold. I've seen all of you defend this Russophobia angle for four years. You're seasoned and steadfast, and resistance is futile. Anyway, Canada encourages you to choose Harris, nice and polite-like, see? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think the USA Today framed that fairly well, and we can frame it similarly, with the right sourcing. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Muboshgu, not a great source, but I trust your judgment. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could float a new proposal for wording to discuss? I do think it ought to be mentioned, but we need to be more careful to reflect the framing we're seeing in RS. As we've seen on this talk page (and as I'm seeing a lot offwiki), a lot of people are misinterpreting Ratcliffe's comments as "the intelligence community confirmed Russia is not involved" or "the emails are legit", despite no one having said such a thing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- JzG, what's wrong with USA Today? WP:RSP has it in green. Anyway, it's just one source, and there are surely many more out there. I've casually read some of them. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Muboshgu, not a great source, but I trust your judgment. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Muboshgu, I'm not opposed in principle - in USA Today they frame it as: "Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said Monday that recently published emails purporting to document the business dealings of Hunter Biden are not connected to a Russian disinformation effort, even as federal authorities continued to review whether the material was part of such a campaign." But I think we need more sources to establish what the hell is going on, because even the Daily Mail describes Ratcliffe as a "Trump loyalist". Guy (help! - typo?) 16:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)x
- Anne drew Andrew and Drew, "In a carefully worded letter". You know what that means, right? Guy (help! - typo?) 16:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Reliable sources are reporting on Ratcliffe's comments.[2][3] His comments should be mentioned in the article, along with any reliably sourced caveats or skepticism. – Anne drew 16:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- InedibleHulk, and what do reliable independent secondary sources say? Looks to me as if they give more weight to 50 long-term trusted intelligence officials rather than one Trump loyalist. Can't think why. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I can see Ratcliffe's comments being picked up by reliable sources, but generally as a footnote to the saga, rather than as a headline itself. The proper context of his statement seems to be as a rebuke to Schiff's comments - so I suggest we include it but framed in a way that makes it clear his comments aren't revealing new information about any investigations by the FBI/intelligence organisations. See this example from the Independent (UK). Jr8825 • Talk 19:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with this. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- I support holding the RFC reexamining the question and hopefully getting a definitive answer on Fox News's unreliability in the area of politics. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ratcliffe-hunter-biden-laptop-emails-not-russian-disinformation-campaign
- ^ Perez, Evan. "FBI says it has 'nothing to add' to Ratcliffe's claim on Russian disinformation". CNN.
- ^ Johnson, Kevin. "DNI Ratcliffe: Russia disinformation not behind published emails targeting Biden; FBI reviewing". USA TODAY.
Fox News reports:
The FBI’s subpoena of a laptop and hard drive purportedly belonging to Hunter Biden came in connection with a money-laundering investigation in late 2019, according to documents obtained by Fox News and verified by multiple federal law enforcement officials who reviewed them.
WSJ reported in November 2019:
Subpoenas issued to people with ties to President Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, indicate a broad federal investigation into possible money laundering, obstruction of justice and campaign-finance violations and show that prosecutors are probing Mr. Giuliani’s consulting businesses and other sources of income. [7]
and
Among the charges reportedly under consideration in the subpoenas are obstruction of justice, money laundering, conspiracy to defraud the United States, making false statements to the federal government, serving as an agent of a foreign government without registering with the Justice Department, donating funds from foreign nationals, making contributions in the name of another person or allowing someone else to use one's name to make a contribution, along with mail fraud and wire fraud. [8]
soibangla (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- The whole affair is making me think we need to revisit Fox News at the reliable sources noticeboard sooner rather than later, and see if there is finally agreement on having it listed as generally unreliable for politics. Given its recent reporting I fail to see how a consensus can't be found on this. Jr8825 • Talk 19:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- WP:RSP already does list Fox News as unreliable for politics. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu: - no it doesn't, look again. The last RfC found "there is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims", which is a marked step above generally unreliable. Jr8825 • Talk 19:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ah you are right, I must've misremembered. Well, the Hunter Biden laptop story is another for RSP to consider, once we have all the facts. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Muboshgu, still a source to avoid, though, because "Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims". Doesn't get more contentious than this. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- "Contentious" is putting it mild; Pizzagate redux might be apt. XOR'easter (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Is the contention that Giuliani isn't under federal investigation, that this drive wasn't requested in connection with that investigation or that the FBI didn't request this drive at all? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- The subpoena for the devices wasn't issued by a judge, it was issued by a grand jury. Why would a grand jury have been empanelled? To investigate the Bidens? Or others, perhaps? Others who nearly a year ago were reported to be under investigation by SDNY for multiple major felonies? Fox News is oddly silent on this. soibangla (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Fine, but the Fox News Claim you quoted and Guy called contentious says nothing about who issued the subpoena, or what it suggests. Personally, I have no problem believing the feds are truly after Rudy. His character strikes me as nefarious. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Soibangla, or the recently indicted hackers. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- The subpoena for the devices wasn't issued by a judge, it was issued by a grand jury. Why would a grand jury have been empanelled? To investigate the Bidens? Or others, perhaps? Others who nearly a year ago were reported to be under investigation by SDNY for multiple major felonies? Fox News is oddly silent on this. soibangla (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Is the contention that Giuliani isn't under federal investigation, that this drive wasn't requested in connection with that investigation or that the FBI didn't request this drive at all? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- "Contentious" is putting it mild; Pizzagate redux might be apt. XOR'easter (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Muboshgu, still a source to avoid, though, because "Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims". Doesn't get more contentious than this. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ah you are right, I must've misremembered. Well, the Hunter Biden laptop story is another for RSP to consider, once we have all the facts. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu: - no it doesn't, look again. The last RfC found "there is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims", which is a marked step above generally unreliable. Jr8825 • Talk 19:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- WP:RSP already does list Fox News as unreliable for politics. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- I began a discussion Here. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Email authenticity
Article includes the sentence "a political scientist and disinformation expert at Johns Hopkins University, noted that the emails could have been forged or that forged material could have been mixed with genuine materials".
If these emails are not genuine emails wouldn't Hunter/Joe Biden/Biden's campaign come out and state that they are forged emails? As far as I'm aware nobody has done that more than a week after the NY Post article was published. Yodabyte (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe, but maybe not. The Biden campaign probably figures that the less oxygen they give to the Hunter laptop story, the better. We can't know for sure. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- The emails contain potential serious corruption with adversarial countries, why wouldn't Biden want to knock that down right away if these are forgeries? Yodabyte (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- I assume because it wouldn't "knock that down" to more explicitly comment on them. Any further statement from the Biden campaign on this would be something for newscasts to report on, followed by the Trump response, giving the story more oxygen and making it a distraction for their final two week strategy. But I'm just speculating with no inside information. We have nothing to add to the article based on what they aren't doing. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- I guess so...just think that a headline saying something like "Biden Says Laptop Emails Forged" would only help Biden's campaign. Yodabyte (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe but it would also give oxygen to right wing talk radio's outrage engine, which would respond along WP:MANDY lines. It's also very possible that what's on the "laptop" is a mixture of stolen/hacked material and nongeniune material, similar to Russia's disinformation attempt in the 2017 Macron e-mail leaks October surprise attempt where "false documents were mingled with genuine ones in order "to create confusion and misinformation."" The correct PR response to a baseless tabloid "story" like this is could be no response. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- I guess so...just think that a headline saying something like "Biden Says Laptop Emails Forged" would only help Biden's campaign. Yodabyte (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yodabyte, only if you believe that Joe Biden had Viktor Shokin fired to protect Burisma. Since that has been known to be false for over four years, not so much. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Guy, not trying to be rude or sarcastic (sometimes good faith can't come across very good when typing online) but I read your reply above several times and have no idea what you are trying to say. Yodabyte (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yodabyte, per
The emails contain potential serious corruption with adversarial countries, why wouldn't Biden want to knock that down right away if these are forgeries
, but when the underlying claims have been known to be false for over a year (which is the case here) there is every reason not to dignify them with a response. That's all. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yodabyte, per
- Guy, not trying to be rude or sarcastic (sometimes good faith can't come across very good when typing online) but I read your reply above several times and have no idea what you are trying to say. Yodabyte (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- I assume because it wouldn't "knock that down" to more explicitly comment on them. Any further statement from the Biden campaign on this would be something for newscasts to report on, followed by the Trump response, giving the story more oxygen and making it a distraction for their final two week strategy. But I'm just speculating with no inside information. We have nothing to add to the article based on what they aren't doing. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- The emails contain potential serious corruption with adversarial countries, why wouldn't Biden want to knock that down right away if these are forgeries? Yodabyte (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- We certainly can't use the Bidens/Biden campaign not saying something as though it were a reliable source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Also consider that the NY Post has deliberately NOT allowed any other outlet access to the information to try to vet it or confirm anything. They're playing it close to the vest and trying to drip-drip-drip things out to keep it a running story and feed the right-wing talk radio engine. Tabloid practices, and very shady. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- NBC News apparently requested a copy from Giuliani four days ago and have not heard back [9]. Politico has also noted their inability to review or verify the material [10]. XOR'easter (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Also consider that the NY Post has deliberately NOT allowed any other outlet access to the information to try to vet it or confirm anything. They're playing it close to the vest and trying to drip-drip-drip things out to keep it a running story and feed the right-wing talk radio engine. Tabloid practices, and very shady. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Inside the campaign to 'pizzagate' Hunter Biden
Inside the campaign to 'pizzagate' Hunter Biden. Pizzagate-style rumors in 2016 were largely confined to far-right message boards. This year, they are reaching the mainstream with help from a website boosted by Trump. -- Valjean (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Ratcliffe follow-up
This article [11] says "Fox News has learned that the FBI and Justice Department officials concur with an assessment from Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe that the laptop is not part of a Russian disinformation campaign targeting Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden". So apparently not only the DNI is saying this but FBI and DOJ as well. Can this information be added into to the article? If true this is pretty important, it would seem to put to rest claims of a Russian interference campaign similar to what took place in 2016. Yodabyte (talk) 01:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Problem #1: Fox. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources "Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims. Editors perceive Fox News to be biased or opinionated for politics; use in-text attribution for opinions." IHateAccounts (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Before automatically classifying all conservative media sources as unreliable, it might be helpful for Wikipedia to look at how censorship of the NY Post played in Congress this last week. Wikipedia shares some of the characteristics of Facebook and Twitter in this regard. Also, I notice the NY Times apparently published something about the Bidens' business dealings back in 2018. [12]. Might this be added to the article? Here's a more recent NY Times article reviewing the statements of government officials [13] Here's some fairly balanced coverage from the BBC [14] Pkeets (talk) 04:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone's classifying all conservative media as unreliable. The NYT article on Ye Jianming has nothing to do with the subject of this article, unless you propose we rename it into "Joe Biden corruption conspiracy theories". The NYT article sums up the allegations as "a bid to damage Mr. Biden's presidential campaign" by "President Trump's allies". The BBC article sums up the NYP article's claims and the Biden campaign's rebuttal, there's nothing new there. Jr8825 • Talk 05:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- "How censorship of the NY Post played in Congress"? I really don't think that the temper tantrums of the likes of Ron Johnson or Ted Cruz have any bearing on what is encyclopedic. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone's classifying all conservative media as unreliable. The NYT article on Ye Jianming has nothing to do with the subject of this article, unless you propose we rename it into "Joe Biden corruption conspiracy theories". The NYT article sums up the allegations as "a bid to damage Mr. Biden's presidential campaign" by "President Trump's allies". The BBC article sums up the NYP article's claims and the Biden campaign's rebuttal, there's nothing new there. Jr8825 • Talk 05:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Before automatically classifying all conservative media sources as unreliable, it might be helpful for Wikipedia to look at how censorship of the NY Post played in Congress this last week. Wikipedia shares some of the characteristics of Facebook and Twitter in this regard. Also, I notice the NY Times apparently published something about the Bidens' business dealings back in 2018. [12]. Might this be added to the article? Here's a more recent NY Times article reviewing the statements of government officials [13] Here's some fairly balanced coverage from the BBC [14] Pkeets (talk) 04:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Fox says "two senior administration officials told Fox News Tuesday" - so there's still nobody from the FBI confirming this, ands even if they did, and I can't stress this enough, it would be irrelevant. Whether it's Russian disinformation or Iranian or Rudy Giuliani using Russian-sourced data for his own disinformation or whatever, is completely irrelevant to the fact that the claim of Joe Biden having intervened in Ukraine to protect Burisma has been known to be false for well over a year. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Ratcliffe's reputation
I think something brief needs to be added next to coverage of Ratcliffe's statement detailing how a range of sources have expressed scepticism of his claim because of his reputation for partiality. I think it would probably fit best between the response from Schiff's spokesman and "The New York Times reported that there was no firm evidence..." Perhaps something along the lines of "a number of commentators have expressed concern about Ratcliffe's impartiality/a conflict of interest, noting that he is considered a Trump loyalist"? (maybe this can be worded better?)
I'd be grateful if someone could have a look at this and add a sub-clause or brief sentence to cover this. Here are some relevant sources, all opinion pieces as I haven't really looked properly since I'm signing off, there's probably better factual reporting coverage elsewhere (although the opinion pieces from RS may be good enough themselves, especially if the writers are notable (I haven't checked)): 1 2 3. I can take a look again tomorrow if nobody gets round to it. Many thanks, Jr8825 • Talk 06:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Jr8825, I am inclined to agree - there are a lot of independent sources commenting on it, and several have noted the very careful wording being used. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Leslie Stahl interviews Trump and he pushes conspiracy theory
You may never see the entire interview, as Trump walked out because Stahl would not play along with the Giuliani concocted October surprise.
Here is the relevant part, but read the whole thing in the link.
"Lesley Stahl: (21:19) You’re taking something that was investigated-
Donald Trump: (21:22) Lesley, let me ask you. You think it’s okay for the Mayor of Moscow’s wife to give him millions and millions of dollars, three and a half million dollars, to give his family three and a half? Do you think it’s okay for Hunter Biden to say that we’re giving the big guy 10% of this massive amount of money they’re taking? Do you think it’s okay for all of these horrible things that you’ve seen, where they’re getting hundreds of thousands, and millions of dollars, where China gives them a billion and a half dollars to manage, the family, a billion and a half dollars, and then he’s supposed to negotiate? Let me tell you, it’s the second biggest scandal. The biggest scandal was when they spied on my campaign. They spied on my campaign.
Lesley Stahl: (22:06) There’s no real evidence of that.
Donald Trump: (22:07) Of course there is. Is it’s all over the place. Lesley, they spied on my campaign and they got caught."
LOWER DOWN
"Donald Trump: (24:03) Instead of, “Why did Hunter get three and a half million dollars from Moscow?” Instead of, “Why is an energy company paying your son $183,000 a month, or whatever they’re paying him?” And he has no experience in energy. You discredit yourself. I don’t have to discredit you.
Lesley Stahl: (24:21) So this story about Hunter and his laptop, some repair shop found it, the source is Steve Bannon and Rudy Giuliani.
Donald Trump: (24:33) I don’t know anything about that. I just know it’s a laptop and they haven’t-
Lesley Stahl: (24:35) And you’re making this one of the hottest, most important issues [inaudible 00:24:40]
Donald Trump: (24:43) I don’t know about the two gentleman you mentioned.
Lesley Stahl: (24:43) It’s an important issue-
Donald Trump: (24:47) It’s a very important issue to find out whether or not a man is corrupt, who’s running for president. Who’s accepted money from China, and from Ukraine, and from Russia. Yeah, I think that’s an important issue." Link: https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-unedited-60-minutes-interview-transcript Tero111 (talk) 10:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Tero111, seriously, if we never had to deal with "Donald Trump says thing" ever again, I would breathe a huge sigh of relief. Incoherent craziness with a nuclear megaphone. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. I brought this up as mainly the Trump World view of the matter vs. The Press (Leslie, mainstream press). The press has little interest in this laptop that caanot be verified by any journalist in those papers and sites. Tero111 (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Current state of play
- The opening sentence
The article opens by saying:
- The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of false allegations which assert that 2020 Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden engaged in corrupt activities while the former was Vice President of the United States and the latter worked for the Ukrainian gas company Burisma.
Does that accurately frame the scope of the article? I would say not: I would say that in fact the scope is a series of unproven and speculative claims built on the false claim that Joe Biden engaged in corruption in Ukraine. Sources definitively refute any claim that Joe Biden intervened to benefit Burisma, but there is no definitive refutation of any claim of corruption by Hunter (nor has any such claim be credibly advanced by Ukraine or US prosecutors). Starting out by flat-out saying it's BS seems to me to be a significant source of the conservative apoplexy we see here - it's more nuanced than that, though admittedly not much.
- Background
Background fails TL;DR: I think we should split it into a couple of subsections:
- the claim about Shokin (which IMO is black and white and can be dealt with in a couple of paragraphs at most);
- the FBI warnings against Giuliani in 2019;
- the FBI seizure of the laptop late in 2019 (probably including commentary on the repair shop)
- the Ukrainian request for FBI assistance with a Russian hack of Burisma in January 2020.
- NY Post claims
This is also over-long IMO and could maybe even be retitled in line with the seemingly deliberate timing (why not raise it in 2019 when the laptop was handed to the FBI? why wait until a year later when no charges have been filed?).
I'd also be interested to know if there are any reality-based parts of the conservative narrative that remain substantially unaddressed.I don't see any, but the article is overly detailed and I may be reading stuff into it from knowledge of contest rather than what's actually written down. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- @JzG: Implemented changes to the lead per WP:BRD, as I feel a lot of discussion has been centred around this and there's hopefully common ground to be found here. Jr8825 • Talk 15:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Also, I agree with your view that the Background section needs some cutting down. Jr8825 • Talk 15:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Tony Bobulinski Testimony
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.
The New York Post section needs to be updated to mention the testimony of Tony Bobulinski, Hunter Biden's business associate, that the e-mails relating to his SinoHawk venture are authentic, that Joe Biden was actively involved in the venture, and that "the big guy" referenced in numerous e-mails refers specifically to Joe Biden. Furthermore that Bobulinski has turned over additional evidence not found in the original laptop which is currently being analyzed by the senate investigation. https://nypost.com/2020/10/22/hunter-ex-partner-tony-bobulinski-calls-joe-biden-a-liar/ Justin.olbrantz (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- There is no testimony because there is no court case. As to the Senate investigation, I have just one word to say to that: Benghazi. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Here's a tweet from Jacqui Heinrich, a Fox News reporter, throwing cold water on the Bobulinski angle of the conspiracy theory. She says she reviewed the emails and found nothing incriminating or unethical. Her points: (1) the "Chairman" refers to Xi (possibly suggesting that "the big guy" is also Xi), (2) Joe had no role in this, (3) Bobulinski said he was working with Hunter, Jim Biden, and two others on this, neither of them are Joe. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- So that's the stuff he turned over. He made a lot of bold declarations including that he worked directly with Joe and that Joe was "the big guy". Whether true or false, the fact that he said it is incontrovertible and deserving to be in the page as it is evidence to be added to the rest. Justin.olbrantz (talk) 00:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Justin.olbrantz: if it's false it's not a fact and doesn't deserve to be on the page. Jr8825 • Talk 00:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Justin.olbrantz: No, "the fact that he (Bobulinski) said it" doesn't make it notable or deserving to be on the page. This is Wikipedia; there are higher standards than those of the [[National Enquirer], New York Post or Fox News. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- This wiki page is made up of a great deal of information (possibly even a majority) that is unconfirmed but considered noteworthy because of who said it and their credentials. In this case the person saying it is the CEO of the company, and as such has all the credentials anyone needs to speak about the workings of the company. If you want to say he's lying, go right ahead and prove it. But until then his statements meet the criteria used for a large part of this page. Justin.olbrantz (talk) 01:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- This wiki page is made up of a great deal of information that is considered noteworthy because reliable sources have reported on a person saying it. My, or your, or any other editor's opinion of what statements are noteworthy to do with this whole situation is completely irrelevant, but if enough reliable sources report on someone saying something, then is when we ought to as well. So far you've shown the New York Post, which is not a reliable source and should not be trusted as far as determining what is or is not credible or noteworthy in relation to this affair. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- This wiki page is made up of a great deal of information (possibly even a majority) that is unconfirmed but considered noteworthy because of who said it and their credentials. In this case the person saying it is the CEO of the company, and as such has all the credentials anyone needs to speak about the workings of the company. If you want to say he's lying, go right ahead and prove it. But until then his statements meet the criteria used for a large part of this page. Justin.olbrantz (talk) 01:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Justin.olbrantz: No, "the fact that he (Bobulinski) said it" doesn't make it notable or deserving to be on the page. This is Wikipedia; there are higher standards than those of the [[National Enquirer], New York Post or Fox News. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Justin.olbrantz: if it's false it's not a fact and doesn't deserve to be on the page. Jr8825 • Talk 00:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- So that's the stuff he turned over. He made a lot of bold declarations including that he worked directly with Joe and that Joe was "the big guy". Whether true or false, the fact that he said it is incontrovertible and deserving to be in the page as it is evidence to be added to the rest. Justin.olbrantz (talk) 00:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Although the New York Post is discussed in this article because the story it published was noteworthy and covered in reliable sources, the New York Post itself is considered generally unreliable and cannot be used as a reliable source. Per WP:RSP#New York Post, "There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable. A tabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication." GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- ...and if you'd actually looked into it before responding you'd have known that he made the declaration publicly on TV for everybody to see. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZdixYIU2w0 Justin.olbrantz (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's all well and good, but until it's reported as noteworthy by independent reliable sources it shouldn't go in the article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- ...did you really just say that until somebody writes about it you won't believe video evidence? Justin.olbrantz (talk) 01:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Justin.olbrantz: The problem here appears to be that you don't understand the policies and/or have a glaring lack of media literacy skills. The fact that Fox - who will let anyone on TV, seemingly, as long as they are going to say something that feeds their partisan base - allowed him on TV 90-something minutes before the debate, does not mean that Wikipedia should breathlessly repeat them in this article. That is especially true since a number of his claims have already been contradicted by the coverage of sources that actually adhere to journalistic and ethical standards. Jacob Wohl has made "declarations publicly on TV for everybody to see" on Fox too, and has about as much credibility. Though I guess we have to give Bobulinski a little credit for remembering to zip his pants before going on camera. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- In fairness to Wohl, that was Jack Burkman who had the zipper incident GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- The problem here is that you don't know who Bobulinski IS. He's Joe and Hunter Biden's business associate and CEO of the joint venture between them. There literally isn't anybody more qualified in the world to make such statements than him. Justin.olbrantz (talk) 01:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Please stop assuming editors can't or don't research things. I think we all know who Bobulinski is. But we don't reprint every word that comes out of his mouth just because we personally think it's important—that is a determination for reliable sources to make, not us. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Justin.olbrantz: The problem here appears to be that you don't understand the policies and/or have a glaring lack of media literacy skills. The fact that Fox - who will let anyone on TV, seemingly, as long as they are going to say something that feeds their partisan base - allowed him on TV 90-something minutes before the debate, does not mean that Wikipedia should breathlessly repeat them in this article. That is especially true since a number of his claims have already been contradicted by the coverage of sources that actually adhere to journalistic and ethical standards. Jacob Wohl has made "declarations publicly on TV for everybody to see" on Fox too, and has about as much credibility. Though I guess we have to give Bobulinski a little credit for remembering to zip his pants before going on camera. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- ...did you really just say that until somebody writes about it you won't believe video evidence? Justin.olbrantz (talk) 01:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's all well and good, but until it's reported as noteworthy by independent reliable sources it shouldn't go in the article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- ...and if you'd actually looked into it before responding you'd have known that he made the declaration publicly on TV for everybody to see. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZdixYIU2w0 Justin.olbrantz (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) No, I did not just say that. I have no doubt that he said it, but we don't put everything someone says into Wikipedia until it's identified as noteworthy by independent reliable sources. The issue is not with its verifiability, it's with its notability. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)@Justin.olbrantz: Even Fox now doesn't buy it. "Ex-Hunter Biden associate's records don't show proof of Biden business relationship", "Fox News has reviewed emails from Bobulinski related to the venture — and they don't show that the elder Biden had business dealings with SinoHawk Holdings, or took any payments from them or the Chinese. " https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-biden-tony-bobulinski-joe-biden-unanswered-questions
- "There is a presumption that people who contribute to the English-language Wikipedia have the following competencies:...the ability to read sources and assess their reliability." Wikipedia:Competence is required IHateAccounts (talk) 01:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) No, I did not just say that. I have no doubt that he said it, but we don't put everything someone says into Wikipedia until it's identified as noteworthy by independent reliable sources. The issue is not with its verifiability, it's with its notability. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
This is more of a notice, but I have begun a discussion about breaking CNN up how Fox News is broke up in Wikipedia RS. Here is the discussion. {This section is just a notice as this related to the article current discussions.} (Current Event WikiProject Coordinator) Elijahandskip (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Elijahandskip, this was debated only weeks ago and the consensus was that it's reliable. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
No article topic defined
It seems the article fails to state what its topic is.
The lede says that the theory is a series of false allegations
but then doesn't list even one allegation that it designates as false. For example, the lede says: The conspiracy theory centers around the allegation [...]
. So is this allegation false? Again, the lede doesn't say so.
The title of the article doesn't help either... I suppose there's more than 1 conspiracy theory about Biden and Ukraine floating around, so which one is this article about?
The body only has these two sections: Background
and New York Post reporting
. These are not sections that would indicate that they define the article topic (compared to e.g. a section labeled "Definition" or "Theory").
A well-written article "identifies a notable topic". This is not the case here.
--Distelfinck (talk) 14:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Distelfinck, yeah, I made that point above. I think we're getting somewhere now, but there's a lot of content and it still needs quite a bit of editing to remove extraneous noise IMO. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Distelfinck: @JzG: I'm not convinced that this diff is an improvement, it's not a massive deal but I think it's unnecessary and overcomplicates the sentence - as well as pushing "false" further back. I can see why you could argue it helps to make the article subject more explicit. I undid the edit but then restored it, as I'm not sure. Your thoughts? Jr8825 • Talk 00:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Choose a more neutral title?
Hi editors,
I feel like calling the news incidence a "conspiracy theory" is a pretty strong word with preference in one-side's narrative, and calling them "scandal" is favoring the opposite side. I wonder if there are other editors who also feel the page needs a more neutral title. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 22:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Xinbenlv: This has been done to death. It's a conspiracy theory. See the FAQ at the top of the page. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Then at least call the article "Joe-Biden-Ukraine-corruption conspiracy theory". The current title is very ambiguous and could mean any of a number of conspiracy theories, some of which involve Joe Biden, some of which only involve Hunter Biden. --Distelfinck (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- The problem there is that inevitably, the people pushing the conspiracy theory will move the goalposts. "Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth"... we're seeing this now in action, the attempt by the NY Post tabloid, Bannon & Giuliani landed with a sound reminiscent of a poo hitting the bottom of the outhouse tank, so now they're trying "but what about china" with more nonsense that isn't substantiated in the slightest. At this point the goalposts may as well be on teflon furniture sliders. IHateAccounts
- Distelfinck, that is to fall for the fallacy of guilt by association, which of course is the entire point of this farrago. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Then at least call the article "Joe-Biden-Ukraine-corruption conspiracy theory". The current title is very ambiguous and could mean any of a number of conspiracy theories, some of which involve Joe Biden, some of which only involve Hunter Biden. --Distelfinck (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
(talk) 23:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- @IHateAccounts: There are other sources that are considered RS per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources claiming it e.g. WSJ report, WashingtonPost report at least an active contested incident. I'd suggest something like "speculation / allegation" / "investigation". xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 23:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Xinbenlv: If you're going to misrepresent sources this is not going to be a good discussion.
- Your Wall Street Journal link starts out "corporate records reviewed by The Wall Street Journal show no role for Joe Biden".
- The Washington Post article you linked, compared the contents of the (apparently false/misleading) column by right-wing pundit Kimberley Strassel to the actual news coverage, which showed that her column was false and misleading: "“The venture . . . never received proposed funds from the Chinese company or completed any deals, according to people familiar with the matter,” Journal reporters Andrew Duehren and James Areddy wrote. “Corporate records reviewed by the Wall Street Journal show no role for Joe Biden.” The reporters also quoted another partner in the venture, James Gilliar, who said he was “unaware of any involvement at anytime of the former vice president.”"
- Now, who are you saying claims it, and which "it", precisely, are you referring to? IHateAccounts (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Also @Xinbenlv:, what do you mean by "the news incidence"? Do you mean the various non-reliable sources desperately trying to make this into a "news story"? Or do you mean something else? IHateAccounts (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Xinbenlv: If you're going to misrepresent sources this is not going to be a good discussion.
@Xinbenlv: In your opening statement, you said: I feel like calling the news incidence a "conspiracy theory" is a pretty strong word
. Where in the article do we actually do that? --Distelfinck (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- There's a defined means to request page moves. Far as I can tell anybody who wishes can put the proper template on this page to start that. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Hyperbolick: It was already requested just last week Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory/Archive 1#Requested move 15 October 2020. It closed with a Wikipedia:Snowball clause result of NO. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Last week's was whether conspiracy theory should be changed, not whether to add Joe. It's a fair question for a new request. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- I see two directions we could go with a new article title: Either make the title more specific (add "Joe", etc). Or make the title broader ("Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theories"). Which direction would you guys prefer? --Distelfinck (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Last week's was whether conspiracy theory should be changed, not whether to add Joe. It's a fair question for a new request. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Hyperbolick: It was already requested just last week Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory/Archive 1#Requested move 15 October 2020. It closed with a Wikipedia:Snowball clause result of NO. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Giuliani's Biden conspiracy theory SPECIFICO talk 12:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Theories plural would probably be fine. As much as I like SPECIFICO's suggestion, far more right-wing pundits and conspiracy theorists have been involved in purveying this utter nonsense and adding to it, moving the goalposts or rewriting it every time something is proven false. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- I would support "theories", but I'm not sure I see why we would adjust the title to specify Joe Biden. The conspiracy theories involve both Joe and Hunter Biden, and furthermore it fits the convention at Trump–Ukraine scandal. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- @GorillaWarfare: I suspect that they want to specify "Joe Biden" because if they can get that change, plus change the article to "allegations", they can post links that nobody will read and portray the article title as supporting their false claims of nefarious activity. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- but wouldn’t it be Joe and Hunter Biden Ukraine conspiracy theory anyway? Not as if we’re distinguishing from something not invoking the name of the son. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- @GorillaWarfare: I suspect that they want to specify "Joe Biden" because if they can get that change, plus change the article to "allegations", they can post links that nobody will read and portray the article title as supporting their false claims of nefarious activity. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Vanity Fair
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/10/wall-street-journal-cold-war-explodes-over-hunter-biden
This seems very relevant. "The Hunter Biden story has caused rifts throughout Rupert Murdoch’s media empire. Despite Hunter Biden’s emails being obsessively discussed this past week on Fox News, the network’s news division reportedly passed on the initial story, which broke in another Murdoch family-owned outlet: the New York Post. Some Post journalists wanted nothing to do with the story splashed across the tabloid’s cover. “Reporters at the WSJ, Fox News, and NYP have all come to the same conclusion about these documents but they are being drowned out by bad faith activists on the opinion side at these Murdoch companies who favor Trump’s re-election,” noted Politico’s Ryan Lizza. “That is the story.”" IHateAccounts (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Do you have a proposal for what wording you think should be added to the article based on this source? Might help jumpstart discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm trying to think about how I would word it currently. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- IHateAccounts, not a RS. It's interesting to know, but we can't use it. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Vanity Fair isn't an RS? I was under the impression it was. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- GorillaWarfare, we need to steelman the bullshit. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Perfectly good source. Use attribution where necessary. - Valjean (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- In this case, they're just surveying the landscape of media reactions and pointing to stories that have already come out (e.g., the NY Post writer not wanting his own name on the story was reported by the New York Times). I don't see a problem with having the paragraph we currently do in the "Other press outlets" sub-section. XOR'easter (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- GorillaWarfare, we need to steelman the bullshit. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- @JzG: I agree it wouldn't be a good source for political claims, but don't see why it's unsuitable for the press reaction section, which is where the statement was added. I'm not dead-set on its inclusion and don't think it's vital, but right now it provides a valuable analysis on the response of the media (which is surely one of the most discussed aspects of the whole affair). Regardless of whether the current wording could be improved (it could easily be rewritten to be more factual and neutral instead of analytical), I'm curious why you think it's not a RS for discussing the media reaction? Jr8825 • Talk 22:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- VF is known mostly for its glossy coverage of movie stars and socialites, but they also publish some very solid journalism, one or two major articles each issue. Their writer Gabriel Sherman is something of a Fox News expert. soibangla (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- @JzG: I looked up Vanity Fair on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and it's in green, that was my first thing to check. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Vanity Fair isn't an RS? I was under the impression it was. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: I think it should be mentioned in the "reactions" section. I will try writing something. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- @IHateAccounts: Thanks for taking a stab at that addition, I've made some adjustments to make the language more neutral, let me know if you have any thoughts. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 17:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Teamwork makes the dream work. Looks good to me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Looks good to me, too. Thanks. XOR'easter (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Good job. The casual acceptance of the Giuiani narrative on Fox & Friends among other Fox shows is quite striking. Some of that may have received sufficient mainstream comment to be worth specific mention. As with all fringe material, the problem is that the mainstream largely ignores the more egregious of the "alternative fact" narratives. Particularly noteworthy is that POTUS is a loyal Fox viewer and seemed unaware that most of last week's debate audience was not up to speed on the buzzwords and details of the tale and was scratching their heads when he got into the Mr. Big stuff. SPECIFICO talk 18:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO, we are mostly quite well informed on Fox narratives here, so it was a real surprise to see someone share a segment from one of the shows commenting on the debate and saying that most people who heard Trump wittering on about China and the "laptop from hell" would be like "wtf, dude?" - I hadn't realised the extent to which this bullshit has apparently simply not registered with anyone other than news junkies. Perhaps that's why some of our new friends think it so important to get The Truth™ on Wikipedia, idk. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Guy, I've heard it described as trying to follow Lost by starting with season 6. XOR'easter (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ben Smith, media columnist for the New York Times, writes:
And if you'd been watching the debate, but hadn't been obsessively watching Fox News or reading Breitbart, you would have had no idea what Mr. Trump was talking about.
That column also has some reporting on how the Wall Street Journal poured water on the whole thing. XOR'easter (talk) 00:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO, we are mostly quite well informed on Fox narratives here, so it was a real surprise to see someone share a segment from one of the shows commenting on the debate and saying that most people who heard Trump wittering on about China and the "laptop from hell" would be like "wtf, dude?" - I hadn't realised the extent to which this bullshit has apparently simply not registered with anyone other than news junkies. Perhaps that's why some of our new friends think it so important to get The Truth™ on Wikipedia, idk. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Teamwork makes the dream work. Looks good to me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Move NY Post emails section to another article?
This is supposed to be an article about a conspiracy theory around Biden withholding loans. But most of the article goes into details of the NY Post emails, details which are only tangentially related to the conspiracy theory. I suggest we move the NY Post emails section to a different article (maybe a new one, maybe an existing one). The emails stuff is relevant on its own, regardless of the conspiracy theory, and should definitely have a place in Wikipedia, but this doesn't seem to be the right one. --Distelfinck (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Distelfinck, maybe, maybe not. I say we wait a couple of weeks and see if it has any lasting significance. Current evidence indicates not, in which case it can be summarised down. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
An Observation
- "Bigfoot, also known as Sasquatch, in Canadian folklore and American folklore, is an ape-like creature that inhabits the forests of North America."
- "Grey aliens, also referred to as Zeta Reticulans, Roswell Greys, or Grays, are purported extraterrestrial beings."
- "The jackalope is a mythical animal of North American folklore (a fearsome critter) described as a jackrabbit with antelope horns."
- "The Loch Ness Monster, or Nessie, is a cryptid in cryptozoology and Scottish folklore that is said to inhabit Loch Ness in the Scottish Highlands."
- "The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of unevidenced claims centered on the false allegation..."
Given that it is apparently Wikipedia's policy to include the words "unevidenced", "false" and "debunked" in the opening lines of an actively disputed issue, someone better get to work adding it to all of the other patently unevidenced, false and debunked claims out there. Have fun with the religion articles. ~ Eidako (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Eidako: This is the very subject of the RFC up the page, where this comment would be most useful. As it stands opinion there seems pretty split. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- What is the impact on the existence or otherwise of bigfoot on living individuals? Guy (help! - typo?) 22:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps the idea is that we ought to use 'mythical' instead of 'false'? Hyperbolick (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hyperbolick, seems like a distinction without a difference to me. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps the idea is that we ought to use 'mythical' instead of 'false'? Hyperbolick (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
These are misleading examples: they are myths, folklore, paranormal theories, cryptozoology etc. This is a conspiracy theory, about a living person, without high political ramifications. There is precedent for this article's lead at much more similar articles, such as:
- Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories (second sentence: The movement falsely asserted Obama was ineligible to be President of the United States because he was not a natural-born citizen of the U.S.)
- White genocide conspiracy theory (White genocide is a myth, based on pseudoscience, pseudohistory, and hatred, driven by a psychological panic often termed white extinction anxiety. There is no evidence that white people are dying out or that they will die out, or that anyone is trying to exterminate them as a race. The purpose of the conspiracy theory is to scare white people, and justify a commitment to a white nationalist agenda in support of increasingly successful calls to violence). Jr8825 • Talk 23:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
How about some North Korean propaganda?
- The Sinchon Massacre was an alleged massacre of civilians between 17 October and 7 December 1950,[1] in or near the town of Sinchon (currently part of South Hwanghae Province, North Korea). North Korean sources claim the massacre was committed by South Korean military forces under the authorization of the U.S. military and that 30–35,000 people were killed.
- Otto Frederick Warmbier (December 12, 1994 – June 19, 2017) was an American college student who was imprisoned in North Korea in 2016 on a charge of subversion.
~ Eidako (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- I restate: this is the subject of the RFC. That is where this decision will be made, so speak there. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- "The Bowling Green massacre is a fictitious incident of terrorism mentioned by Kellyanne Conway." – Muboshgu (talk) 23:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
submitted for your consideration
Some asserted that major media outlets were ignoring new developments relating to the Bidens, with FoxNews.com reporting on October 22 that since Bobulinski came forward "much of the mainstream media has either downplayed or ignored the Biden controversy," noting that CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, and CBS did not cover Bobulinski's public remarks.[15] FoxNews.com reported the next day that its review of Bobulinski's documents did not support his assertions.[16] Two days later, correspondent Griff Jenkins confirmed on the Fox News Media Buzz program that the network "found no role for Joe Biden" in the Bobulinski documents. Host Howard Kurtz noted that the Bobulinski emails dated from 2017, when Joe Biden was not in office, to which Jenkins replied, "That’s correct. One thing is for sure, it’s not getting the kind of attention that Fox has given it and the New York Post and others as we get close to this election."[17]
soibangla (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, the conservative media are bitching about the failure of their October Surprise. Any reliable independent sources for this though? Guy (help! - typo?) 22:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Following your posts and edits it seems that reliable independent source is any source that pushes your views and debunks the opposite ones, kinda lame tbh 7rexkrilla (talk) 10:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Putin’s view in reactions?
Putin interviewed today denies that Hunter Biden did anything criminal. Intelligence analysts see this as a signal, switch to Biden.
- link Hyperbolick (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Article Violates NPOV
The Hunter Biden scandal has been getting significant attention on conservative networks like Fox News. I would argue this article, and perhaps even the title, violates NPOV. While I have no doubt this "scandal" is being pushed by Republican operatives, Hunter Biden's shady business dealings have not been disproven or proven. In my opinion, this article should be renamed Biden-Ukraine scandal, or maybe Hunter Biden-Ukraine scandal, and the first sentence should be rewritten to say:
"The Biden-Ukraine scandal is a series of allegations accusing 2020 Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden of engaging in corrupt activities relating to his son Hunter Biden by the Ukrainian gas company Burisma."
I believe that pushing a one sided narrative goes against the interests of this encyclopedia and public knowledge. As one of the top results on Google, we should be as neutral and nonpartisan as possible in our writing.
--Flying Lambs (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Flying Lambs: please read the FAQ at the top of this talk page. The various speculative allegations against Hunter Biden are unevidenced. The allegation that Joe Biden engaged in corrupt activities related to Ukraine is false (a Republican committee even cleared him of wrongdoing). Jr8825 • Talk 01:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- The Republican committee came to that conclusion on September 23rd, 2020. The recent allegations and New York Post came to light in mid October. I think that this content should be reviewed by a group of non-partisan editors who are not emotionally involved in this article. --Flying Lambs (talk) 02:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia editors report what reliable sources say, we do not conduct original research into reviewing and evaluating reports. The NY Post is a known tabloid without a reputation for fact checking. They are known for their sensationalistic reporting and gossip columns.
- As for "emotionally involved" editors, I think you can find people that are passionate arguing both sides of this conspiracy theory. Liz Read! Talk! 02:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Flying Lambs: This is the very subject of the RFC up the page, where this comment would be most useful. As it stands opinion there seems pretty split. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- The Republican committee came to that conclusion on September 23rd, 2020. The recent allegations and New York Post came to light in mid October. I think that this content should be reviewed by a group of non-partisan editors who are not emotionally involved in this article. --Flying Lambs (talk) 02:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- There is so much data now this page should be moved to biden foreign affairs Baratiiman (talk) 06:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Baratiiman, nope. The claims about Joe Biden are either flatly false or sourced entirely from conservative talking heads. We don't move it until there's credible evidence. Reliable sources are, so far, unanimous in concluding that there is none. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- JzG thats because you see only the news organization not the news.Baratiiman (talk) 08:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Baratiiman, that statement makes no sense. In this case reliable sources have specifically looked at the content of the story, and concluded that it's as fishy as hell; they have then noted, very often, that the organisation promoting the story has a very poor reputation for factual accuracy.
- People took Watergate seriously - eventually - because it was being investigated by serious journalists at the Washington Post and New York Times. People don't take this seriously - yet, and maybe never - because it's being pushed by people with limited credibility (Rudy Giuliani hangs out with known Russian intelligence agents, Steve Bannon is under indictment for fraud, and Fox News' own lawyers say nobody takes Tucker Carlson seriously) in non-credible sources such as Breitbart and the Daily Caller. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- lmao you cant call every news by nytimes, washpost true and every news by Breitbart and the Daily Caller a lie.and anyone who trusts wikipedia while this is the state of FACT CHECK needs to show themselves to a neuron surgeonBaratiiman (talk) 09:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Baratiiman, we don't call everything in NYT and WaPo true, and we don't call everything on Breitbart a lie. But when NYT and WaPo and WSJ and numerous other RS all say that what Breitbart says is a lie, and when no reputable source says it's true, which is the case here, then we have no difficulty in accepting that this is one of those times when Breitbart is lying.
- And if you don't understand why WaPo and NYT are reliable and Breitbart and the Daily Caller are not, then I would question your fundamental competence. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- lmao you cant call every news by nytimes, washpost true and every news by Breitbart and the Daily Caller a lie.and anyone who trusts wikipedia while this is the state of FACT CHECK needs to show themselves to a neuron surgeonBaratiiman (talk) 09:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- JzG thats because you see only the news organization not the news.Baratiiman (talk) 08:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Baratiiman, nope. The claims about Joe Biden are either flatly false or sourced entirely from conservative talking heads. We don't move it until there's credible evidence. Reliable sources are, so far, unanimous in concluding that there is none. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- There is so much data now this page should be moved to biden foreign affairs Baratiiman (talk) 06:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
To Bobulinski or not to Bobulinski
Soibangla added a section on Tony Bobulinski to the article, who I think is neither relevant (not connected to Joe Biden or Ukraine) nor notable enough to warrant inclusion. I've held off from removing it, but would like to hear others' thoughts on this. I note that SPECIFICO closed a discussion on this above with the conclusion that there is "no RS support this narrative". My view is Bobulinski turned out be a nothingburger and including more highly tenuous allegations against Hunter Biden does nothing to serve the reader. I'm not convinced there's significant coverage in RS, but admit I haven't looked very deeply at this. Jr8825 • Talk 06:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Jr8825: - I've removed it because I too agree that it's not relevant. That's about allegations regarding China. This is the Ukraine conspiracy page. starship.paint (talk) 09:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- The Wall Street Journal reported on it, and then the New York Times reported on how the WSJ news people undercut their opinion people. There's more than enough RS coverage to write about it, and so the question becomes, should we write about it here? It's not about Ukraine, but it is part of the same swirl of allegations and mud-slinging; it doesn't not fit. XOR'easter (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- I doesn't fit within the current title and scope. If it's notable enough then perhaps the article's scope needs to be significantly widened to "Joe Biden corruption conspiracy theories" (I semi-jokingly suggested this further up the page) but even then this would be insufficient as the Bobulinski allegations are exclusively about Hunter Biden as far as I'm aware. Is alleged corruption by a not-exceptionally-notable person like Hunter Biden worth including at all? I'm repeating myself a bit as I just said this above, but my inclination is that if it's worth including, it should be over at Hunter Biden's article. Do we really need an article such as "Corruption allegations against Joe and Hunter Biden?" or "2020 presidential election corruption allegations"? Jr8825 • Talk 17:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's an allegation spread by the same people as part of the same propaganda campaign. I think we can spare a few sentences to talk about it for context-setting, without changing the article title or anything drastic like that. I would also not object to the alternative of including it at Hunter Biden, where we have a few paragraphs about China-related things. XOR'easter (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's definitely separate to this article. Koncorde (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- I went ahead and transferred the text over to the section of the Hunter Biden article where it looked to fit best. XOR'easter (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- That looks appropriate. XOR'easter. It didn't have anything to do with Joe Biden & the Ukraine. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- @XOR'easter: thanks for the move. I know it's no longer in this article, but since we've been discussing this segment I have a question about the following line: "on October 21 he emailed a statement about his allegations to a variety of sources, including Breitbart, which published it in full" – what exactly did Bobulinski say in this statement and can the basic premise of it be summed up for the reader (in half a sentence maybe) if it's significant enough to be mentioned? Jr8825 • Talk 00:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- If this were actually something, if they actually had evidence, they'd have put it out and made sure that every REAL news outlet vetted it and was running the story before early-voting and mail-in voting started. Instead they're sliding it out through tabloid sites like the NY Post, Breitbart, "The Federalist", Daily Wire. Now it's "ooh there's going to be a big bombshell interview on Tucker Carlson... tomorrow... we swear." Political Science 101: this is what frauds do when their story won't hold up, they know it won't hold up, but they want it to be a big splash and keep it from being fully debunked until after election day. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- I went ahead and transferred the text over to the section of the Hunter Biden article where it looked to fit best. XOR'easter (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's definitely separate to this article. Koncorde (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's an allegation spread by the same people as part of the same propaganda campaign. I think we can spare a few sentences to talk about it for context-setting, without changing the article title or anything drastic like that. I would also not object to the alternative of including it at Hunter Biden, where we have a few paragraphs about China-related things. XOR'easter (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- I doesn't fit within the current title and scope. If it's notable enough then perhaps the article's scope needs to be significantly widened to "Joe Biden corruption conspiracy theories" (I semi-jokingly suggested this further up the page) but even then this would be insufficient as the Bobulinski allegations are exclusively about Hunter Biden as far as I'm aware. Is alleged corruption by a not-exceptionally-notable person like Hunter Biden worth including at all? I'm repeating myself a bit as I just said this above, but my inclination is that if it's worth including, it should be over at Hunter Biden's article. Do we really need an article such as "Corruption allegations against Joe and Hunter Biden?" or "2020 presidential election corruption allegations"? Jr8825 • Talk 17:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- The Wall Street Journal reported on it, and then the New York Times reported on how the WSJ news people undercut their opinion people. There's more than enough RS coverage to write about it, and so the question becomes, should we write about it here? It's not about Ukraine, but it is part of the same swirl of allegations and mud-slinging; it doesn't not fit. XOR'easter (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Cruz: Hunter Biden attacks don't move 'a single voter'
Ted Cruz: Hunter Biden attacks don't move 'a single voter' -- Valjean (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Valjean, I have seen several people saying that as a result of this they will not be voting for Hunter Biden. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Is this a suggested edit? If not, let's close this as NOTFORUM. —valereee (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- You don't see the possibilities? The source provides the view of Ted Cruz on this smear, and that might be suitable for content. It's just a matter of wording and placement. This is very much on-topic. OTOH, the discussion might been started by a forum vio. -- Valjean (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Cruz's statements are on-topic, though they're just one person's opinion being reported in an interview. I'm not sure they rise to the level of significance where omitting them would hurt the article. Perhaps we'll see additional reporting on what the allegations did or did not influence, and we can write a summary of that with a Cruz quote slotted into it. XOR'easter (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
If there is no purposed edit this should be closed as NOTAFORUM. PackMecEng (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- BS. AGF. I'll hat the offending part. -- Valjean (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- I meant the whole section. PackMecEng (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ah. Okay. Problem already solved. -- Valjean (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, what was the purposed edit for the source? PackMecEng (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- I didn't propose an edit, but provided a RS which might be useful. There is no requirement that every comment must include proposed content. This is a collaborative project and sometimes I place something of possible use on the table for discussion that might lead to the collaborative creation of content. I hope you see that as in keeping with why we are here. XOR'easter has just made a constructive, not obstructive, response to the subject of this thread. -- Valjean (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is not twitter or a place for retweets. PackMecEng (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- What's your point? I mean, if I had posted something from an unreliable source, you could make a strong, policy-based, argument to remove it based on a forum violation or forbidden advocacy of fringe POV, but I haven't done that. It's a RS with a mainstream POV. So why are you casting shade on my good faith attempt to help build the encyclopedia using good sources? Providing more building blocks is part of the preparation for building a structure. Every effort should be encouraged. -- Valjean (talk) 01:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Please AGF, my point was very clear that article talk pages are for improving articles and not forums for posting links with no suggested change. In the future please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format or keep it on twitter. Thank you. PackMecEng (talk) 02:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- What's your point? I mean, if I had posted something from an unreliable source, you could make a strong, policy-based, argument to remove it based on a forum violation or forbidden advocacy of fringe POV, but I haven't done that. It's a RS with a mainstream POV. So why are you casting shade on my good faith attempt to help build the encyclopedia using good sources? Providing more building blocks is part of the preparation for building a structure. Every effort should be encouraged. -- Valjean (talk) 01:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is not twitter or a place for retweets. PackMecEng (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- I didn't propose an edit, but provided a RS which might be useful. There is no requirement that every comment must include proposed content. This is a collaborative project and sometimes I place something of possible use on the table for discussion that might lead to the collaborative creation of content. I hope you see that as in keeping with why we are here. XOR'easter has just made a constructive, not obstructive, response to the subject of this thread. -- Valjean (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, what was the purposed edit for the source? PackMecEng (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ah. Okay. Problem already solved. -- Valjean (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- I meant the whole section. PackMecEng (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
"Conspiracy theory" claim in title is a possible breach of WP:OR and WP:PROMOTION
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I do not see the term "conspiracy theory" being overwhelmingly used by reliable sources in their description of this topic. If this terminology cannot be substantiated (and if a renaming of the article does not take place) I will nominate the article for deletion, for breach of WP:OR and - arguably - WP:PROMOTION. Narssarssuaq (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith
- Threatening to nominate something for deletion isn't a good way to get anything done
- {{Requested move}} exists for an reason
- Edit: Also an move has already been requested recently, see Requested move 15 October 2020 which was closed as an SNOW keep so I highly doubt a second request would be more succesful
- Asartea Trick | Treat 14:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- If the choice of words in the article's title cannot be substantiated, I will nominate the article for deletion. Narssarssuaq (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Narssarssuaq: you should read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point before doing so. IHateAccounts (talk) 14:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's about the choice of words in the article's title, which appears to be unsubstantiated and thus in breach of WP:OR. Narssarssuaq (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- The choice of words was already addressed in a move request, which closed as a Wikipedia:Snowball clause overwhelming result. Nominating the page for deletion because you don't like the consensus would seem to be definitionally disruption. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is about sources in relation to the article's title. From the above discussion, I have now recovered the following sources, quote: "false" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7, "baseless" 8 9, "debunked" 9 10 11, "invented" 11 12, "fantasy" 13 14 and "bogus" 15 I thus consider it possible (if not necessarily substantiated) that Wikipedia's selection of reliable sources consider this to be a "conspiracy theory", and I will not nominate the article for deletion. Narssarssuaq (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC) I have no more time to try to fix the article. I recommend that other editors analyze e.g. the title and the lead, and make sure that it is authored from a neutral point of view without any undue weight. Narssarssuaq (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- The choice of words was already addressed in a move request, which closed as a Wikipedia:Snowball clause overwhelming result. Nominating the page for deletion because you don't like the consensus would seem to be definitionally disruption. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's about the choice of words in the article's title, which appears to be unsubstantiated and thus in breach of WP:OR. Narssarssuaq (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Narssarssuaq: you should read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point before doing so. IHateAccounts (talk) 14:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- If the choice of words in the article's title cannot be substantiated, I will nominate the article for deletion. Narssarssuaq (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
so is there an article that i simply can't find that covers the broader issue that includes china?
I've done a few searches but this is the only place i can find and this article is solely about ukraine while the real issue actually covers china and russia as well as ukraine. thx. SailedtheSeas (talk) 04:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- I found a few articles for you, hopefully these help Fact check: Claims that Hunter Biden received $3.5M from Russia are unproven, lack context and The Hunter Biden ‘Scoops’: Here’s Why The Media Largely Hasn’t Picked Up The NY Post Stories (Hint: It’s Not Bias). I think the problem you may be running into is that there isn't actually a "real issue", despite the efforts of some dubious sources attempting to make it appear as such. NonReproBlue (talk) 06:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- SailedtheSeas, the China issue would probably be covered on one of the many articles about Donald Trump. Unless you mean the other China issue? Or the other other China issue? Guy (help! - typo?) 09:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Now they've lost their only "evidence"! How convenient for Trump. He can falsely charge Joe and Hunter Biden with corruption and smear them, but without any evidence because his people "lost it". -- Valjean (talk) 06:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Documents have been found. -Topcat777 (talk) 21:41, 29 Oct 2020 (UTC)
- Or switched in transit by some nefarious actor. Definitely need some kind of forensic analysis done to ensure that "found" documents were not tampered with along the way. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Everybody's still waiting for the promised proof to come out, but I'm certain once it does we'll have a page put together and posted within a few weeks. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
NPOV issue: title vs. content
The putative allegation of conspiracy (according to the article) was an explicit quid-pro-quo on Biden influence peddling. The statements in the article alleging that this assertion was made are unsourced and the title seems to be based on these unsourced statements. There's nothing sourced in that article that someone specifically alleged that much less that allegation being the major issue. . And the contents of the article pretty broadly cover everything about the Bidens and Ukraine (including all of the factual material) under the "conspiracy theory" title charaterization. Criticism of what the Biden's did is generally that the estabished facts (as covered in this article) look bad on their own without allegation of anything further such as a conspiracy. The current title of the article does not cover and mis-labels and mis-characterizes the content of the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- North8000, the conspiracy theory is that Joe Biden intervened in Ukraine to help Burisma, and thus Hunter. This has been comprehensively debunked. There may be better names for it than conspiracy theory, but none has yet been suggested that does not risk portraying it as a genuine controversy, which it never was: it is a manufactroversy entirely drummed up by Republican operatives. Contemporaneous accounts of the sacking of Shokin generally don't even mention Biden, but instead a broad coalition including the US, EU, IMF and World Bank. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Then you need to remove everything in the article outside of that scope, and then add a "Not to be confused with..." tag at the top. Until this has been done, the scope of the article is evidently less clear than what you allege. Narssarssuaq (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Narssarssuaq, as soon as we stop the conservative media moving the goalpoasts we can look at the proper scope of the article. I suspect that something like "Disinformation campaign against the Biden family" will do, but idk. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Then you need to remove everything in the article outside of that scope, and then add a "Not to be confused with..." tag at the top. Until this has been done, the scope of the article is evidently less clear than what you allege. Narssarssuaq (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
An accusation that "Joe Biden intervened in Ukraine to help Burisma" is not an allegation of a conspiracy. Also it is unsourced that there are allegations of a conspiracy, and those unsourced statements are the little basis that there is for the title. Also this article contains a large amount of factual information that doesn't fall under anything that is unproven (or even contested) or under anything that is an alleged or actual "conspiracy". North8000 (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with North8000. For instance… Has Hunter denied the authenticity of those emails yet? That being said, it is unrealistic to believe that this article will become even a nanometer less biased (at least not until the election is over). We all know why.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ -
Daveout
(talk) 01:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC) - "Conspiracy theory" is an unfortunate term that's used in cases where there may not be an actual conspiracy, simply because there's no sensible alternative term available, although "political smearjob" might be a reasonable alternative in many cases. soibangla (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
In reality it is some "negative appearing" factual material. His son got a high paying non-work director job in the foreign oil company obviously because he was Joe's son and they were hoping for some influence but there's no proof of that. So you just put the facts out without conjecture or presumed motives either way. And when his opponents wish to highlight such, yes one can note their POV effort as such, but one doesn't have to mis-characterize such as a straw man "conspiracy" allegation. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Glenn Greenwald Article on Hunter-Biden Emails
So there's a new article by Glenn Greenwald who has quit from the Intercept, disputing that the emails are debunked, instead saying there is an ongoing media cabal attempting to silence facts and get Biden elected.
Article: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-biden-censored 185.124.28.198 (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- A self-published post of an article that a reliable source refused to publish is not a reliable source. If you're hoping to include Greenwald's resignation and accusations against The Intercept as a topic in this article, there are some reliable sources, but I'm not sure this is the article for it (at least not at any length). But if you want to use the article itself as a RS, we cannot—in fact, The Intercept has explicitly said that Greenwald balked after being "asked to support his claims and innuendo about corrupt actions by Joe Biden with evidence". GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- GorillaWarfare is correct. Greenwald leaving The Intercept because he refused editorial oversight makes his self-published post almost the definition of unsuitable for a BLP. XOR'easter (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is not a biographic article per se, but yes, the information needs to be very sober. Some will hold that certain other people are currently smeared by Wikipedia's claim that this is a "conspiracy theory" (which is why the "conspiracy theory" claim is unsuitable for the current scope of the article and must be changed). As for rules, please refer to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, which "describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow". It seems that a mention of the uncontroversial essence of Greenwald's opinion piece, which can easily be verified to have been written by Greenwald, will provide some broader context and therefore improve the article. Greenwald also seems to comment on the media coverage, not on individuals. And, to make it clear, I suggest that we could make the objective observation that a world-famous journalist has written something related to the topic, not that we should embrace and celebrate his comments. Please remember that Wikipedia was never intended to be a tool for amplifying the views of the news media and, as a consequence, suppressing criticism of said media. That was not, and is not, the intention of the policies you mention. I will not edit the article once again, though, so someone else will have to write it. Narssarssuaq (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Amen to that! His career is a sad story. He used to be good. -- Valjean (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- GorillaWarfare is correct. Greenwald leaving The Intercept because he refused editorial oversight makes his self-published post almost the definition of unsuitable for a BLP. XOR'easter (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Same old same old. Reliable sources will not report any of this as fact. Unreliable sources will, and then reliable sources report on the fact that it's bollocks. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the pattern. It's also the proscribed route we are supposed to follow when documenting those parts of the "sum of ALL human knowledge" that are bollocks. We are supposed to try to include them at Wikipedia, and that's how. If secondary RS cover nonsense, then it might be eligible for mention here. If not, it doesn't have enough due weight for mention. -- Valjean (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
WaPo coverage of how Glenn Greenwald loses job over this smear operation:
- Glenn Greenwald resigns from the Intercept following dispute over Biden story. While the crusading journalist claimed censorship, his former editors accused him of trying to publish unsupported innuendo.
- "Apparently, Glenn Greenwald was colluding with Tucker Carlson to help Trump by smearing Joe Biden — and editors at The Intercept told him to fuck off."[18]
Valjean (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- So an example of he said, they said. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- According to The Intercept editor Betsy Klein, "The narrative he presents about his departure is teeming with distortions and inaccuracies—all of them designed to make him appear a victim, rather than a grown person throwing a tantrum. It would take too long to point them all out here, but we intend to correct the record in time. For now, it is important to make clear that our goal in editing his work was to ensure that it would be accurate and fair. While he accuses us of political bias, it was he who was attempting to recycle a political campaign’s—the Trump campaign’s—dubious claims and launder them as journalism." ([19]) They don't mince words at The Intercept, it would seem... GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
I hope this will save us from the perennial attempts to use Greenwald and his reporting as sources for politics-related articles. SPECIFICO talk 23:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
@Daveout: While the sources were better in your edit, there are still major NPOV issues with that text. We can't present Greenwald's allegations uncritically without mentioning that it is really only Greenwald who appears to believe his interpretation of what happened. Furthermore, I'm still unconvinced the incident is worth even mentioning here. Maybe at Glenn Greenwald or The Intercept. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- his claims weren't "uncritically" reproduced here. there's the words "claims" and "allegedly" in the text. plenty of news media published this story, how is it irrelevant? and it is also directly related to this article! -
Daveout
(talk) 23:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)- It is uncritical to present one side (Greenwald's) of a dispute without describing the other side's position, when all RS I've seen have included substantial coverage of The Intercept's rebuttal as well as some mention of Greenwald's own somewhat recent shift towards right-wingish talking points about mainstream media and "Russiagate" coverage. Yes, plenty of news media have published the story—that doesn't necessarily make it noteworthy to this article, perhaps unless there is some RS that finds legitimacy in Greenwald's accusations. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Glenn is the lead-off guest on Tucker Carlson's show right now. So there's that. soibangla (talk) 00:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- And the response: [20]. Well, that about wraps it up for Glenn Greenwald. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Work of a fake "intelligence firm"
This smear operation the work of a fake "intelligence firm":
- How a fake persona laid the groundwork for a Hunter Biden conspiracy deluge. A 64-page document that was later disseminated by close associates of President Donald Trump appears to be the work of a fake "intelligence firm." Dossier on Hunter Biden is the work of a fake "intelligence firm" called Typhoon Investigations, according to researchers and public documents. The author of the report, self-identified Swiss security analyst Martin Aspen, is a GANS-fabricated identity.
Valjean (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- I saw this and added a brief summary of it over at Hunter Biden, since it's about China rather than Ukraine. XOR'easter (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- My addition was reverted; see Talk:Hunter_Biden#Martin_Aspen for discussion. XOR'easter (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- XOR'easter, it might belong here, it's part of this narrative. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- My addition was reverted; see Talk:Hunter_Biden#Martin_Aspen for discussion. XOR'easter (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Tucker Carlson, who has spent the past two weeks obsessing on the Hunter Biden emails, now says it's time to leave Hunter alone: "The point is pounding on a man, jumping on, and piling on when he’s already down is not something we want to be involved in." -- Valjean (talk) 02:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
date on John Paul Mac Isaac faded form
re https://media.disrn.com/articles/79b0b2e0-e803-45cb-ac4c-bd42310a4339.jpg
The writing on this one sheet being spread around is pretty faded, have any sources made an interpretation as to what date is written there? I really just am not up to attempting to OCR that.
https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2020/10/1862/1048/thumbnail_image1.jpg very clearly says 17 December 2019 for comparison.
One thing I am trying to figure out, is out of the statements that Mac Isaac has given, did he say at some point make as statement regarding:
- when the laptop first came into his possession
- when due to lack of payment he became his legal owner
I can't remember either of these being said. WakandaQT (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- If secondary RS mention this, then that is what will interest us. Until then, it has no due weight. -- Valjean (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- There's no way on earth we're going to make edits to this page based on what individual editors squinting at a faded primary source that has been alleged to be a note by the computer repair shop owner says. We do not do interpretation of original source materials like that, this is an encyclopedia and not a place for original research. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)