Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Hunter Biden/Archive 1) (bot |
GlassBones (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 131: | Line 131: | ||
* "So it's not a "myth" that Joe Biden did anything wrong. That's pretty much accepted fact." — it's not accepted fact at all. It's an obviously transparent political smear because Trump fears Joe can beat him so he's trying to keep him from winning the nomination. I mean, seriously. This is a complete no-brainer. [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 23:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC) |
* "So it's not a "myth" that Joe Biden did anything wrong. That's pretty much accepted fact." — it's not accepted fact at all. It's an obviously transparent political smear because Trump fears Joe can beat him so he's trying to keep him from winning the nomination. I mean, seriously. This is a complete no-brainer. [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 23:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC) |
||
*I think maybe someone should take this editor to AN or AE for a topic ban on the topic. Their Joe Biden song is a broken record. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 23:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC) |
*I think maybe someone should take this editor to AN or AE for a topic ban on the topic. Their Joe Biden song is a broken record. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 23:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC) |
||
::You are entering dangerous waters, Nakedtruth. It should be obvious that the editors of Wikipedia are overwhelmingly liberal and will do nearly anything to protect the left-wing bias in all articles about political figures. Tread carefully. [[User:GlassBones|GlassBones]] ([[User talk:GlassBones|talk]]) 04:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Hunter Biden Fees at Burisma == |
== Hunter Biden Fees at Burisma == |
Revision as of 04:34, 7 November 2019
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
No objectivity in introduction
The introductory section abandons all objectivity and sources from wikipedia instead of finding it's own source. This page is locked but if it's not going to get cleaned up it needs to be deleted, it's really making us look bad. 2600:6C42:7400:248:248E:6D40:4D3B:9440 (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Jogershok (talk) 20:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Jogershok, do you have any specific comments you want to make? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I is duplicitous to say there is no evidence that Joseph Biden, while Vice-president, did nothing to have the prosecutor removed. He admitted he pressured Ukraine officials to fire the prosecutor of lose funding. The page should not be locked and subject to revision. We do not know Biden's true reason for wanting the firing but the conclusion was that it has noting to do with his son. To say Trump questioned Biden's motives is true but to land on Falsely claimed" is not a fact in evidence at this point. BIAS IS ATTACHED to the wording.Jogershok (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Jogershok, nobody said Joe Biden had nothing to do with removing the prosecutor. We are trying to say that the removal of the prosecutor had nothing to do with Hunter Biden. In fact, we know "Biden's true reason for wanting the firing": the prosecutor was removed because he was corrupt. He wasn't investigating Burisma as he was supposed to be. So, Joe Biden having the prosecutor removed had nothing to do with Hunter and actually could have put Hunter at greater risk. Trump is following a conspiracy theory and we can and will call it out as false. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Why would you make any claim regarding the statement's veracity in this article, let alone link to another wikipedia article in lieu of an actual source? 2600:6C42:7400:248:F1BD:5F8E:FF9F:DF40 (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- There's a wikilink there because Donald Trump makes so many false statements that it has become an encyclopedic topic of its own. See Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. The actual sources for the "false" entry are at the end of the sentence. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Why would you make any claim regarding the statement's veracity in this article, let alone link to another wikipedia article in lieu of an actual source? 2600:6C42:7400:248:F1BD:5F8E:FF9F:DF40 (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
We do not know Biden's true reason for wanting the firing
— In fact, we do. It has been extensively reported by multiple reliable sources and discussed on this Talk page ad nauseam, which is why the article has consistently reflected the overwhelming consensus of reality. At this point there is simply no excuse for not knowing this, and anyone who continues to insist it is debatable should be considered to exist in a conservative media bubble. This whole thing is a concocted nontroversy. It is a political smear job. soibangla (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Alleged Misinformation
The Wikipedia page excerpt ( below) about Hunter Biden is factually incorrect. The excerpt below may reflect opinion but not fact. Wikipedia is compromised when it is a platform for political views. The truth is told by Joe Biden himself in his own words during a videotaped interview in 2016. He brags on video tape that he forced the dismissal of a Ukrainian prosecutor using the threat of withholding a billion dollar aid package. I put two different links to this videotape but you did not allow them. Look it up yourself by googling Biden bragging Ukraine.
Hunter Biden- Wikipedia excerpt
In 2019, President Donald Trump falsely claimed that Joe Biden had sought the dismissal of a Ukrainian prosecutor in order to protect Hunter Biden from investigation.[3][4][5] However, Hunter Biden was not under investigation,[6] and there is no evidence of wrongdoing done by him in Ukraine.[7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurel Long (talk • contribs) 19:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- What he is saying does not actually contradict what the reliable sources we are relying on are saying. What they are saying is that the claim that Joe Biden sought the dismissal in order to protect Hunter is false. It's as if someone claimed that Napoleon went to Waterloo to see Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. You can find plenty of sources that say that Napoleon went to Waterloo, but none of them will stop that claim from being false, as the Star Wars prequels were not even announced until 178 years after his trip to Waterloo. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Someone is lying to protect the Biden's. It is criminal for people to hide the fact that Joe Biden bragged to the CFR about getting a Ukrainiane prosecutor fired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakedtruth (talk • contribs) 04:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- Nakedtruth, the BLP applies to talk pages too, and you may well have already committed a violation. I strongly suggest you be more respectful of the rules. I will leave a few notifications on your talk page to alert you to discretionary sanctions that apply to this article. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- Nakedtruth, Biden bragging about the prosecutor getting fired has nothing to do with his son. At all. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Biden bragging about the prosecutor getting fired is part of the narrative and it is wrong to keep that part out. Also you are keeping out what Hunter Biden said about himself. There is no justification for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakedtruth (talk • contribs) 04:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- Nakedtruth, Biden bragging about the prosecutor getting fired is part of your narrative, but it's not part of the true story, in which Hunter Biden has still never been accused of wrongdoing. I don't agree with removing what Hunter said about the role when he resigned. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Muboshgu, you are wrong. Biden's bragging IS part of the story. The page claims Biden didn't brag about stopping any prosecution. That is not true. Biden bragged about getting a prosecutor fired. The prosecutor who got fired was investigating Burisma. The way the page reads it looks like Trump made up the bragging part when that is not at all true. You disagree with removal of what Hunter Biden said about himself? Fine. PUT IT BACK! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakedtruth (talk • contribs) 04:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
This page is a distortion of the facts. Biased and argumentative "facts" are being allowed, and direct quotes from Hunter Biden regarding his work with Burisma are being blocked. Thus the page paints a false narrative that nobody there was nothing questionable about Hunter getting the Burisma job when even Hunter admitted it was likely due to his dad's influence and the page falsely claims Joe Biden didn't brag about stopping any prosecution when he bragged about getting a prosecutor fired. People who try to correct this mis-information are accused of "disruptive editing." Why? That makes no sense. The Hunter Biden page should be removed if facts inconvenient to the Biden's are not allowed on it. Nakedtruth (talk) 04:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- Muboshgu, here is the next one. Isn't that just the most vacuous and irrelevant quote ever? I don't know if I need to alert Geographyinitiative to discretionary sanctions--I thought they were reasonably well informed of our policies, but who knows. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- Drmies, it's a bad quote. I didn't realize it was that bad. I can see why Beau was the son running for political office. We should include what he said though, maybe in a recap format that quotes him barely if at all. On another note, this account hadn't edited since 2014. The name seems familiar. Has there been a similarly named account pop up recently? Do you have any suspicion of coordination?
- I'm definitely not 100% sure, but I think it's generally a good idea to get some kind of an idea of his perspective on why he was selected for the job. Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- Geographyinitiative, I agree with you. I just think that quote makes really bad copy and we should try to summarize the quote instead.
Dimes, I only edit when there is a subject that interests me and that hasn't been since 2014. I'm not sure why that matters. I quoted Hunter directly so that you couldn't say I was distorting anything. It's a catch 22. Quote directly "Why are you quoting?" Don't quote directly "That's a distortion." It makes no sense that an article on a public figure that is recently in the news has no reference to a recent interview that he actually did especially when most people hadn't heard of that public figure previously. Also I put in an accurate summary earlier and you, or someone else, took it out. This is the summary. Hunter Biden admitted to ABC News that he likely would not have gotten his job at Burisma if his father had not been the vice president. Nakedtruth (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- The problem is, as Muboshgu says, it's a bad quote. It doesn't give any insight at all--it's a leading question that he avoids answering, or maybe that's all he has. So it gives no additional perspective at all. That an article wouldn't have a quote from a recent interview is absolutely normal--we don't really work in quotes, but in verified statements. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- Quote 1 is summed up as "Son of famous man gets job. Suggests that some level of his success will be down to his dads name." This is neither some incredible insight, nor particularly insightful or meaningful, however we can see it is being included here in order to push the narrative that his only reason for being employed was due to the connection with his father, which would then be tied back to the prosecutor, which will then be tied back to the company and Hunter, and the US demand of the firing of a prosecutor protecting the former President and his pro-Russian oligarch friends.
- Quote 2 is summed up as "Man involved in public scandal that has unfairly maligned his father is disappointed and regrets being involved only as a result of the scandal itself" but is dressed up as an admittance of guilt / culpability. Hunter is quite clear in his quotes that he refers to the wider situation which is omitted through the direct quote mining, particularly when positioned as it was immediately following Quote 1. Koncorde (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Misinformation
I think the editor is splitting hairs regarding this excerpt from Hunter Biden page: “In 2019, President Donald Trump falsely claimed that Joe Biden had sought the dismissal of a Ukrainian prosecutor in order to protect Hunter Biden from investigation.”
The fact is Joe Biden on videotape in front of an audience, admitted to and bragged about successfully getting the Ukrainian prosecutor using the threat of withholding a billion dollar aid loan.
The way the excerpt is written makes it sound like President Trump’s “false” claim is completely unfounded and even absurd and that poor Joe Biden is a victim of evil Trump. When in fact Joe Biden is guilty of what Trump is being accused of and impeached about now.
Since it is half accurate as you say, because the reason for Joe Biden’s unethical and possibly illegal coercion to get a Ukrainian prosecutor fired is a mystery, then delete this excerpt altogether or write it in a way that is fair and accurate.
Be honest, the anti-Trump political bias is glaring. If there is no proof that Hunter Biden was being investigated then why even mention it at all except to have an excuse to say that Trump made a false accusation? Laurel Long (talk) 06:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Editor: “What they are saying is that the claim that Joe Biden sought the dismissal in order to protect Hunter is false. It's as if someone claimed that Napoleon went to Waterloo to see Star Wars..”
So “Napoleon went to Waterloo to see Star Wars..” is false.
Therefore, Napoleon never went to Waterloo?
Really? Laurel Long (talk) 06:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- There's no more simple a way to sum up the accusation, or the cause. Biden, in his role with the US, sought the dismissal of a pro-Russia stooge who was refusing to investigate companies associated with his former boss. The suggestion thereof was that there was likely collusion pre-dating the events in Ukraine that saw investigations dropped or suspended conveniently for some politicians and oligarchs directly involved with Russia. Asking for him to be sacked is not the same as asking the president of a country to turn its investigative agencies over to concoct public allegations under duress. Koncorde (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- You are making an accusation without factual backup. Biden and his allies CLAIM that he asked for the prosecutor to be fired because he wasn't investigating. But the fact is that the investigation into Burisma stopped AFTER the prosecutor in question was fired. There is no proof that Trump sought an investigation of Biden ot "concoct public allegations." In fact that is provably false. In April 2019, the newspaper TheHill published a story questioning Joe Biden's ethics in regards tot he Ukrainian prosecutor. Trump did not ask for an investigation until several months later. Nakedtruth (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Nakedtruth, everything you just wrote is false. Was that Hill piece you're talking about written by John Solomon? – Muboshgu (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, per Muboshgu. We know that the Biden situation was long discussed before TheHill piece, and had already had aspersions cast about its fidelity. Meanwhile the start date of the Presidential request is far from "several months" as there is the synchronous removal of the US Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, suggested in response to her refusal to toe the party line when it came to manipulating the Ukrainians into doing Trumps dirty work. The Solomon piece is either conveniently coincidental, or part of the narrative building, depending on how much into the conspiracy theory you buy. Koncorde (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Muboshgu Wow. If everything I said was "false" then how did you know there The Hill piece was written by John Solomon? I said there was a piece written by The Hill months prior to Trump asking for an investigation. You just proved me correct and proved yourself to be spreading a falsehood. Good job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakedtruth (talk • contribs)
- I don't believe Muboshgu was disputing the existence of said article, but that your other statements and interpretation of "facts" are wrong. Koncorde (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Koncorde, bingo. Nakedtruth, I'm asking if the article from The Hill that you didn't provide a link to was written by John Solomon because we know that he is involved in creating the myth that somehow Hunter and Joe Biden did something wrong.[1] – Muboshgu (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- I don't believe Muboshgu was disputing the existence of said article, but that your other statements and interpretation of "facts" are wrong. Koncorde (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Muboshgu Wow. If everything I said was "false" then how did you know there The Hill piece was written by John Solomon? I said there was a piece written by The Hill months prior to Trump asking for an investigation. You just proved me correct and proved yourself to be spreading a falsehood. Good job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakedtruth (talk • contribs)
- Yeah, per Muboshgu. We know that the Biden situation was long discussed before TheHill piece, and had already had aspersions cast about its fidelity. Meanwhile the start date of the Presidential request is far from "several months" as there is the synchronous removal of the US Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, suggested in response to her refusal to toe the party line when it came to manipulating the Ukrainians into doing Trumps dirty work. The Solomon piece is either conveniently coincidental, or part of the narrative building, depending on how much into the conspiracy theory you buy. Koncorde (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Nakedtruth, everything you just wrote is false. Was that Hill piece you're talking about written by John Solomon? – Muboshgu (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- You are making an accusation without factual backup. Biden and his allies CLAIM that he asked for the prosecutor to be fired because he wasn't investigating. But the fact is that the investigation into Burisma stopped AFTER the prosecutor in question was fired. There is no proof that Trump sought an investigation of Biden ot "concoct public allegations." In fact that is provably false. In April 2019, the newspaper TheHill published a story questioning Joe Biden's ethics in regards tot he Ukrainian prosecutor. Trump did not ask for an investigation until several months later. Nakedtruth (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
This edit re-inserted a nominally polished version of material that had been removed for good reason, supporting it with The Epoch Times, which is not a reliable source for American politics. I'm already at 1RR for today, so somebody else will have to deal with this. (For that matter, do these two clicks of "undo" on the same day count as a 1RR violation, or does some sub-codicil exception apply?) XOR'easter (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- I've made my opinion on the information above.:
- Quote 1 is summed up as "Son of famous man gets job. Suggests that some level of his success will be down to his dads name." This is neither some incredible insight, nor particularly insightful or meaningful, however we can see it is being included here in order to push the narrative that his only reason for being employed was due to the connection with his father, which would then be tied back to the prosecutor, which will then be tied back to the company and Hunter, and the US demand of the firing of a prosecutor protecting the former President and his pro-Russian oligarch friends.
- Quote 2 is summed up as "Man involved in public scandal that has unfairly maligned his father is disappointed and regrets being involved only as a result of the scandal itself" but is dressed up as an admittance of guilt / culpability. Hunter is quite clear in his quotes that he refers to the wider situation which is omitted through the direct quote mining, particularly when positioned as it was immediately following Quote 1.
- The additional sentence introduced undermines the argument being made that he was unqualified which makes it even less notable or significant and still remains largely irrelevant. Koncorde (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, somehow it's sound and fury signifying even less. XOR'easter (talk) 16:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Koncorde The point I was making about the Hill article is that it was written PRIOR to Trump attempting to investigate Biden. That is a fact. Maybe Trump was "fooled" by The Hill. Or maybe you are fooled by Biden. What we know for a fact is that when Biden sought to get the Ukrainian prosecutor fired, that prosecutor was investigating Burisma, Hunter Biden worked for Burisma and Joe Biden knew this. In the very least that is a clear conflict of interest on the part of Joe Biden. Right now THREE current Democratic candidates running for president against Joe Biden have come out and said they would not be okay with their VP's son working for a foreign company. So it's not a "myth" that Joe Biden did anything wrong. That's pretty much accepted fact. It's up for debate as to whether or not he did anything criminal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakedtruth (talk • contribs) November 2, 2019, 22:58 (UTC)
- What you just described is misinformation at minimum, and more likely just disinformation. It sounds like a Hannity transcript.
- "Biden sought to get the Ukrainian prosecutor fired" — yes, but why, and on behalf of whom?
- "that prosecutor was investigating Burisma" — except actually not really, which is part of why he was pushed out
- "that is a clear conflict of interest on the part of Joe Biden" — it could have turned out to be a conflict of interest if Hunter or Joe did anything wrong, but in the end there is no evidence they did
- "THREE current Democratic candidates running for president against Joe Biden have come out and said they would not be okay" — well of course they say that, they want to knock Joe out of the box so they can win the nomination, what else would you expect them to say?
- "So it's not a "myth" that Joe Biden did anything wrong. That's pretty much accepted fact." — it's not accepted fact at all. It's an obviously transparent political smear because Trump fears Joe can beat him so he's trying to keep him from winning the nomination. I mean, seriously. This is a complete no-brainer. soibangla (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- I think maybe someone should take this editor to AN or AE for a topic ban on the topic. Their Joe Biden song is a broken record. Drmies (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- You are entering dangerous waters, Nakedtruth. It should be obvious that the editors of Wikipedia are overwhelmingly liberal and will do nearly anything to protect the left-wing bias in all articles about political figures. Tread carefully. GlassBones (talk) 04:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Hunter Biden Fees at Burisma
I think the article should include the fees earned by Hunter Biden's companies rather than an amount that he drew from one of the companies. The current figure of $ 50k is not his salary but occasional drawings from a partnership bank account. The fees are well referenced and there are fees for both his legal practice and his investment partnership. RonaldDuncan (talk) 12:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Even if the reporting on the various fees he's earned is reliable, I'd say that the details of his compensation are probably below the threshold of significance for a general biography. "Lawyer charges billable hours, film at 11." XOR'easter (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Why do you think this is noteworthy for his biography? The coverage it's received is mostly relates to insinuations relating to various debunked conspiracy theories about him and his father. SPECIFICO talk 16:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- Has anyone else noticed how the Straw man use of the term "conspiracy theory" has been muscled up to include the word "debunked"? We're too smart and well educated here to be falling into that type of labeling which immediately blocks critical thinking...the label "communism" was used in such a widespread way back in the 50s and its really sad if we are still as intellectually malleable and mislead into dead ends now as we were then.
- Besides all that, most of the time the expression does not even apply grammatically; e.g. "A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors". Who are the participants of the alleged "conspiracy" and what is the alleged "conspiracy"? All I've heard alleged is a simple old-fashioned profiteering. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- A conspiracy theory generally is an improbable explanation based on omitted evidence and/or baseless speculation and is often promoted by parties with an interest in denying the mainstream statements of fact. These may circulate widely without being disproved by evidence or exposure of their illogic. The various Ukraine conspiracy theories implicating the Democrats, Crowdstrike, the Bidens, et al proliferated rapidly over the initial weeks of public attention to the scandal. Then the mainstream media caught up with them and began reporting and explaining why they were either nonsense or false. So that's why "debunked conspiracy theory" has entered our discourse. Other conspiracy theories have yet to be debunked, e.g. Jeffrey Epstein is alive and living in a tunnel at Disney World. SPECIFICO talk 15:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- ok, thanks for the detailed explanation. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- A conspiracy theory generally is an improbable explanation based on omitted evidence and/or baseless speculation and is often promoted by parties with an interest in denying the mainstream statements of fact. These may circulate widely without being disproved by evidence or exposure of their illogic. The various Ukraine conspiracy theories implicating the Democrats, Crowdstrike, the Bidens, et al proliferated rapidly over the initial weeks of public attention to the scandal. Then the mainstream media caught up with them and began reporting and explaining why they were either nonsense or false. So that's why "debunked conspiracy theory" has entered our discourse. Other conspiracy theories have yet to be debunked, e.g. Jeffrey Epstein is alive and living in a tunnel at Disney World. SPECIFICO talk 15:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
1 RR on this Blp?
I was just advised that is the case. Should there not be a notice on the BLP? Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Nocturnalnow, it says so on one of the top banners on this talk page, just beneath WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, Thank you. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Nocturnalnow is correct. There is supposed to be an edit notice, not just a talk page banner which is easily overlooked. Assuming that this page has been placed under discretionary sanctions by an admin, could an admin please take care of this?- MrX 🖋 00:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu: You placed this article under discretionary sanctions. Would you please add an edit notice also? (You might also want to make sure you're not WP:INVOLVED)- MrX 🖋 00:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- MrX, I think I've walked that line a little too finely, which is why when things stirred up this morning, I went to RFPP rather than do it myself. I feel it is appropriate for me to protect pages in post-1932 U.S. politics in cases of clear vandalism, but this dispute is beyond that. Ymblanter protected the page this morning, would you be willing to add whatever edit notice MrX is referring to? I'm not sure which one you mean.
- @Muboshgu: Placing an article under discretionary sanction restrictions is a very specific process, regulated by Arbcom. A talk page notice like this has to be created so that it appears when an editor tries to edit the article. The restriction also has to be logged here. (See WP:ACDS#Logging). - MrX 🖋 00:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- MrX, and.... I didn't know that, so I didn't do it. Thanks for pointing it out. I'll log it now.
- @Muboshgu: Placing an article under discretionary sanction restrictions is a very specific process, regulated by Arbcom. A talk page notice like this has to be created so that it appears when an editor tries to edit the article. The restriction also has to be logged here. (See WP:ACDS#Logging). - MrX 🖋 00:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- MrX, I think I've walked that line a little too finely, which is why when things stirred up this morning, I went to RFPP rather than do it myself. I feel it is appropriate for me to protect pages in post-1932 U.S. politics in cases of clear vandalism, but this dispute is beyond that. Ymblanter protected the page this morning, would you be willing to add whatever edit notice MrX is referring to? I'm not sure which one you mean.
Is it NPOV to say Trump "falsely" ?
"President Trump falsely claimed that Biden "walk[ed] out of China with $1.5 billion in a fund.."
I mean, really? That seems so CNNish to me. Do you guys/gals really want that kind of OR and OPED wording in this Blp? Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Nocturnalnow, if something is false, we say that it's false. It's not OR. To me, "CNNish" would be to have one Democrat saying that what Trump said is a lie, and one Republican to say that Trump didn't say what he said. We're doing the opposite of CNN, in fact, by not hedging and employing this false equivalency. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Would we be saying that Bush "falsely" claimed that Iraq had WMDs? Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Nocturnalnow, why wouldn't we? They had the conclusion they wanted and they tried to shape the evidence to fit it. But, this is not an article about George W Bush and WMDs. This is an article about a man who has nothing to do with Ukrainian corruption, unless there's something that hasn't come out yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Falsely claimed is, indeed, the neutral choice of wording. The falsity is demonstrable, but we cannot say whether the claim was a deliberate lie or if he believes it himself. XOR'easter (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Correct. Trump lied (as usual), so we reflect that, as our sources have. - MrX 🖋 16:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Well, we don't know for sure that he lies. He could just honestly believe all of the chain emails our racist uncles forward. They get read to him daily on Fox and Friends, Hannity, Tucker, etc. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Correct. Trump lied (as usual), so we reflect that, as our sources have. - MrX 🖋 16:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Falsely claimed is, indeed, the neutral choice of wording. The falsity is demonstrable, but we cannot say whether the claim was a deliberate lie or if he believes it himself. XOR'easter (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Nocturnalnow, why wouldn't we? They had the conclusion they wanted and they tried to shape the evidence to fit it. But, this is not an article about George W Bush and WMDs. This is an article about a man who has nothing to do with Ukrainian corruption, unless there's something that hasn't come out yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Would we be saying that Bush "falsely" claimed that Iraq had WMDs? Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Full protection?
Its not warranted imo….not enough time to hash out on talk page, imo. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Nocturnalnow, edit warring on a highly sensitive BLP such as this one, despite 1RR restrictions. I think Ymblanter made a good call. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I'd also say that Ymblanter made a good call. XOR'easter (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
FAQ?
I can't count how many times we've had to try to explain how Joe Biden didn't fire Shokin to protect Hunter Biden. #No objectivity in introduction is the most recent example. Should we try to draft up an FAQ so that we at least have some standard responses we can point to? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Based on my experience, I think you would find it to be a waste of time. Ideally, users would read such a FAQ, but they frequently don't even read any previous discussions before commenting. How about a sticky that instructs users to read previous discussion before commenting. Then, if the the same comments are brought up again, we can just ignore them?- MrX 🖋 00:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
No evidence of wrongdoing?
The lead states there is no evidence of wrongdoing done by Biden in Ukraine (it's also mentioned two times lower in the article). The page is currently locked so I can't edit but another user needs to change text to "there is no evidence of illegality done by him in Ukraine". According to the NYT and WaPo (and other reliable sources) Biden had no experience in Ukraine or natural gas. So to say there is no "wrongdoing" is false, when there is prima facie evidence of corruption and nepotism (i.e. wrongdoing). Circulair (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, but even a lack of experience doesn't mean "wrongdoing", let alone provide evidence of corruption. I alert you to WP:BLP, and advise you to take that seriously. Drmies (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- Circulair, you really need to be careful in the American politics subject area. You have already received two Discretionary sanctions alerts and been blocked once, so you're skating on thin ice. Lack of experience is not a crime, and there could not have been any nepotism.
- If you want to talk about a serious lack of experience and nepotism, look at Trump's own children in WH positions without any experience or qualifications. Their actions cause other nations to laugh at us because these are the actions one expects from a banana republic where corruption and nepotism are normal in government. They couldn't even get a security clearance in the proper way. Now that is nepotism. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- BullRangifer, you don't think Ivanka's experience running a clothing line prepared her for serving in the White House? What about Jared's experience with the boondoggle of 666 Fifth Avenue preparing him to end the opioid epidemic and the Israeli-Palestinian crisis? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- LMAO! I think that means I'm qualified to run the EPA and/or CIA. BTW, aren't there plans to change that address to 666 Obama Avenue? -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- BullRangifer, you don't think Ivanka's experience running a clothing line prepared her for serving in the White House? What about Jared's experience with the boondoggle of 666 Fifth Avenue preparing him to end the opioid epidemic and the Israeli-Palestinian crisis? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 7 November 2019
This entire page is a lot of personal opinion and jumping to conclusions. Constantly says President Trump “falsely” stated. The editor has no way to determine that is a fact or not and could simply say “President Trump stated”. 104.194.220.130 (talk) 00:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- To the extent that this is a request for a specific edit, it is a request that we abandon our reliable sources. No changes made. XOR'easter (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)