Talk:Hunter Biden/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Personal Life/ Drug Addiction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BLP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 October 2020

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

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

The beginning is slanted and contains opinion

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

---

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

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

THIS IS PRE PACKAGED DNC TALKING POINTS

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

Does the DNC edit your site nowadays?

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

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

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

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

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

Fox news addition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources :

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

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

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

1. Those are not RSes.

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

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

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

"Right-wing conspiracy theories" are a strawman

Sorry, guys, I log in here about once every 4 years, so I am a total Newb. Please edit out anything I type here as an offhand edit for commentary purpose only. Really, I will not be offended. I'm by no means a "professional wiki editor", and I do not even remember how many years it's been since my last login. But, holy fucking shit. The "right" is trying paint the media as some kind of "Orwellian demagogue" and here we are strictly trying to control the dialogue. What the fuck are we doing? We proclaimed Wikipedia as "the people's voice", yet here we are almost proving some mother fucking Tucker Carlson's view of a "controlled" media by deflecting any scrutiny of Hunter Biden's (by now undeniably) involvement in some Ukrainian oil company's Board of Director activities. We CAN'T deflect this. It is too well known. There HAS to be some other way to explain this other than "debunked" claims. Eventually, someone is going to say "Debunked HOW?", and we are going to look like idiots if we can't come up with anything other than, "because we, and lots of people, SAY SO." There is (or must be) plenty of evidence that shows that there is no connection between that laptop and HB other than his signature on the work order. We can't just "dodge" this. When the public come here and see that everything that's been written on the "free and open" discussion is, golly, locked from being edited, we are going to look biased, if not complicit. Wiki's own credibility is on the line here. There has to be a better way to handle this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The objectivity of this article is more objectively refuted with each passing day. I'd post the articles that makes that clear but I'd get smacked down and my comments would be deleted as they have been already this week. Happily, no one turns to Wikipedia to determine whether the accusations against Joe and Hunter Biden are true. Sad for those of you who spend so much of your lives on the premise that the opposite is true. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of talk pages is to discuss the article. Mostly I am against removal of talk page discussions, but if they don't make positive suggestions for changes to the article, they can be removed. Otherwise, you need some WP:RS for changes you suggest. Gah4 (talk) 12:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Is the Wall Street Journal a reliable source? How about National Review? My positive suggestion is for someone with the clout to post unreverted to find a reliable source for the boatload of information that is out there about Hunter Biden's dealings in Kazakhstan. At present there is not a single mention of the word Kazakhstan in this article. That fact alone is a major indictment of the objectivity of those of you who control this article.Michael-Ridgway (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

You leftists are entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts. If the Biden family's pay-to-llay scheme has been debunked then please show debunking more substantial than "we liberals don't believe it."

I won't hold my breath. Cpurick (talk) 23:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Cpurick, the Wall Street Journal looked through the emails and found no evidence of "pay to play" [sic]. Find some evidence that there was. And assume good faith. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

If "corporate records show no role" was a standard of proof, then there wouldn't be such a thing as forensic accounting.

I did assume good faith right up until it went public that Burisma paid Hunter Biden $1M/year. Once that came out, no manner of influence peddling is beyond reasonable suspicion. Cpurick (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Cpurick: starting out by ranting about "you leftists" indicated that your purposes here are at odds with WP:NOTFORUM policy. Especially when your nonsense, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons violating accusation has been shown false. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/ukraine-corruption-burisma-biden-trump-giuliani/2020/06/14/9ca28342-adb1-11ea-a43b-be9f6494a87d_story.html IHateAccounts (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 October 2020

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New York Post story

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

The background is implausible? Really? The Bidens haven't refuted that it was Hunter's computer, nor denied the basics of the facts laid out in the emails. But even if they had (or now have), it cannot be said the claims have been "debunked" or that they are a "right wing conspiracy". It might be alleged to be a right wing conspiracy, but there's no proof of that. For Wikipedia to claim with zero evidence that it's debunked, and a conspiracy, is a dereliction of its duty to present information fairly. We can say the claims are unproven, but not that they are debunked or a conspiracy --Itsgeneb (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

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

"Absolutely no doubt." Well there you have it. The matter is resolved. Without evidence. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Wikipedia's list of sources, reliable and otherwise, National Review gets a yellow background. This headline appears in today's edition of the National Review: "Hunter Biden Business Partner Confirms Email Showing Joe Was Offered Ten Percent Stake in Chinese Business Deal." The business partner in question is said to be named Tony Bubolinski. His full statement was not included in the article but can be found on a completely unreliable news source by doing a Google News search on Tony Bubolinski. I was unable to find any fully qualified reliable sources where the name Tony Bubolinski figures in a single archived article. So to respond to one or more "absolutely no doubt" comments that might figure in this article, I have "absolutely no doubt" that the New York Post is providing the world with factual information at the present time. As you can imagine, I am always saddened when Wikipedia gets something so completely wrong. Happy editing. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 14:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Hunter Biden/Ukraine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Like this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The "what ifs" are being perpetrated by those labeling the allegations "debunked" and "right wing conspiracy" - not by the NY Post or Fox News or the many dissenting voices on this Talk page and elsewhere. The claims are just that - claims - which the Director of National Intelligence affirmed and for which the FBI (plainly no friend of the president or the right in general) took the extraordinary step of saying they had nothing further to add to the DNI's statement. It is thus a stunning overreach to label the accusations as debunked. On what basis are they debunked? Even the Bidens have not directly denied the statements in the emails. Recipients of the emails have publicly validated they either sent or received those emails. What is the evidence, other than there's a consensus of leftist WP editors who agree that anything damaging to Biden must be described as illegitimate? Where is the evidence to legitimize the smears made against Giuliani in this Talk page? WP is making a mockery of itself. Let's acknowledge the facts - an abandoned laptop, which by all available evidence appears to have belonged to Hunter Biden, was provided to the NY Post which reports that it contained extensive information that, if true, would appear to confirm allegations that Joe Biden illegally influenced the Ukraine government to fire a prosecutor in order to protect his son's $1 million per year position on the board of Burisma. That is the allegation, made by a reputable newspaper, supported by the DNI, validated in effect by the FBI, and undenied by the Biden family. It's consistent with past misbehavior by Hunter Biden. Why would WP thus claim that the allegations are debunked? It's absurd, and it smacks of a desperate maneuver by left-leaning WP and major media organizations to claim otherwise. --Itsgeneb (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The reason that there is so much interest in this article is because Hunter Biden made a lot of money in foreign countries while his father was vice president. This raised suspicions that Hunter was trafficking on his father's name and high position in the US government. When asked about this, Joe Biden said that he had never spoken to his son about his international business dealings. Is there consensus among the editors for this article that this statement stands unrefuted as of 10/22/2000? Here's the current wording from the article's lede. "Biden served on the board of Burisma Holdings, a major Ukrainian natural gas producer, from 2014 to 2019. He and his father have been the subjects of debunked right-wing conspiracy theories pushed by Donald Trump and his allies concerning Biden business dealings and anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine." To me, it sounds like something straight out of the Ministry of Truth only made plausible by the Ministry of Truth rejecting out of hand any source that the Ministry of Truth rejects as "unreliable." Michael-Ridgway (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The reason there is so much interest in this article is because his father is running for president. The "but her emails" approache worked against Trump's previous opponent, and so they are attempting to replicate the strategy. The insinuations made through this laptop story are dubious at best, and this fact check by the Tampa Bay Times does a good job of putting the China stuff into context. As this is a highly contentious BLP of an election-related figure less than two weeks prior to an election, we're going to be really conservative about what we add to it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Further, isn't it time to update your characterizations of the "debunked right-wing conspiracy theories?" (Isn't that redundant?) The deubunked right-wing conspiracy theories, as everyone knows, now claim that these corrupt dealings took place not only in Ukraine but also in China, and in Kazakhstan. So if I add China and Kazakhstan to that statement, am I going to get reverted? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I have used wikipedia for 15 years, and I don't understand how or why it's come so left-wing biased. How can you claim this has been debunked? Who has it been debunked by and how? At best it should be said to be under investigation, and this is a very legitimate accusation which has actual physical evidence. Just because left-wing media are trying to cover it up doesn't make it a "conspiracy theory". This is exactly the kind of polarising partisan journalism that is being now brought to wikipedia. Starcraftmazter (talk) 06:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

These issues are now covered here: Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. Read that article for the details before complaining. -- Valjean (talk) 06:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Chinese Communist Party

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wall St. Journal - The Biden Family Legacy - Tvaughan1 (talk) 02:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Kim Strassel? Really? HAHAHA! soibangla (talk) 02:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Kim Strassel is perhaps the best investigative journalist in the world. She was consistently right about the Trump/Russia collusion hoax, while sources that Wikipedia deems reliable (WaPo, NYT, etc.) were consistently lying, as the Mueller investigation proved. The left-leaning group of Wikipedia editors protecting this article is embarrassing. Your attempts to deny the existence of relevant, factual, reliable information is clearly anything but neutral. This can't continue. This article has become the subject of worldwide ridicule for Wikipedia.Tvaughan1 (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tvaughan1: We do not use opinion pieces as reliable sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Kim Strassel's article is relevant for the facts it details. She, and the WSJ are reliable sources. It is clear what is being stated as fact, and what is her opinion. This is absolutely within Wikipedia's WP:RSOPINION guidelines.Tvaughan1 (talk) 06:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing that you said there is accurate. Every single word is wrong. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The supposed "neutrality" of this article is a joke. The work of you and the other reputation defenders, along with a widespread mainstream news blackout of the story, and social media blocking of any negative information about Joe and Hunter Biden has become the new story. User:Jimbo_Wales must be proud.

* https://www.afr.com/world/north-america/checking-on-biden-conspiracy-wiki-watcher-helps-decide-what-you-see-20191004-p52xlp

* https://www.rt.com/usa/503926-hunter-biden-debunked-wikipedia/

* https://thepostmillennial.com/wikipedia-runs-cover-for-bidens-says-claims-against-them-were-debunked

* Breitbart article... wikipedia-editors-censor-hunter-biden-bombshell-call-new-york-post-unreliable-source/Tvaughan1 (talk) 06:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Tvaughan1, RT.com?!?! Russian state media? Wow. The Post Millenial is also red on WP:RSP, and freaking Breitbart..... Seriously? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The Wall St. Journal is publishing relevant, notable facts which are corroborated by multiple sources. The former CEO of SinoHawk Holdings authenticates the email which show that Joe Biden was going to receive an equity stake in a venture with Chinese oil company CEFC. https://www.wsj.com/articles/hunter-bidens-ex-business-partner-alleges-father-knew-about-venture-11603421247 Tvaughan1 (talk) 06:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tvaughan1: stop copy-pasting copyrighted material (WP:CV). And yes, we know what Bobulinski claims. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm quoting only the relevant facts for discussion. Since the WSJ is behind a paywall, most Wikipedia editors can't read the article. So, now that you know that Bobulinski verifies the authenticity and the meaning behind the emails that show Joe did discuss Hunter's overseas business dealings, are we ready to remove the ridiculous "debunked right wing conspiracy theories" language from the top of the article? That is a ludicrously biased summary of the situation. Tvaughan1 (talk) 06:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Newsweek says that WSJ says: provide no evidence that Joe ever used his political standing as a former vice president to aid Hunter's business dealings in China. Seems to disagree with what you say. Gah4 (talk) 06:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Bobulinski verifies that he met with Joe Biden, and the topic was what you would clearly call "overseas business dealings". So it's clear Joe lied when he said he never even discussed such matters with his son (which is ludicrous on its face). This is corroborated by articles in the NY Post and Fox News. The Bidens (and you) can argue that these foreign "investors" would have wanted to make such deals with Hunter and his other business partners if his father wasn't the Vice President (or former Vice President), but that is also ludicrous. At a minimum, we know that the laptop is authentic, and we know that the emails involving Hunter Biden and Bobulinski are authentic. And yet, the laptop and a description of the contents of the laptop and the controversy surrounding the laptop are not mentioned in this article. Tvaughan1 (talk) 07:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Tvaughan1 Agree. Time for the lead to be rewritten based on the new evidence. NationalInterest16 (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Bobulinski claims that he met with Joe Biden, but he only claims it when talking to non-reliable tabloid the NY Post, and Fox News's politics division (not reliable for politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources) specifically because he knows they won't behave to normal journalistic and ethical standards. And no, we do not "know that the laptop is authentic", nor do we know similar about the claimed emails, given that fake emails salted into hacked materials are a tactic the Russians were caught using before in the 2017 Macron e-mail leaks disinformation scheme and that the timeline of supposed custody of the "laptop" makes absolutely no sense. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Tvaughan1 & NationalInterest16:

On Thursday evening Kimberly Strassel, a Trump-booster for the Wall Street Journal opinion pages, published a column claiming that text messages from a business partner of Hunter Biden “raise questions” about Joe Biden’s involvement in a deal with a Chinese company. Hours later, the news side of the Wall Street Journal shot down some of those questions. [3]

soibangla (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Another misdirection from the brigade. No disagreement on any facts, which remain clear. The laptop was dropped off by Hunter Biden, who signed a receipt. Neither Hunter Biden or Joe Biden dispute the authenticity of the laptop and its contents. The only "conspiracy theories" that have been debunked are those claiming that the laptop was the product of Russian disinformation. This is just sad and embarrassing for Wikipedia.Tvaughan1 (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The laptop was dropped off by Hunter Biden, who signed a receipt is not established fact. Neither Hunter Biden or Joe Biden dispute the authenticity of the laptop and its contents. It must be enormously frustrating that many are not taking the bait and giving the story oxygen, a story that even Fox News passed on because it reeked. And there is no misdirection: the WSJ news division once again contradicted what one of their opinion writers, in this case a member of the editorial board, wrote. soibangla (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a WP:BLP, not a court. We do not operate by the standard of "well, they didn't deny it". So far, it appears that everything here are claims by Bobulinski. We can add material that Bobulinski makes these claims (assuming consensus), but can cannot say anything more. At the moment, these are allegations (cf., Joe Biden sexual assault allegation and Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations). Nothing can be said in WP:Wikivoice. From what I can tell, the laptop stuff is all about China (right?) and the debunked statement in Wikivoice is regarding Ukraine. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

For the moment, the Bobulinski claims have not been covered in any credible media (probably for good reason). The pivot to screaming that it's about "china" when the NY Post was claiming earlier that it was all about "Burisma", is interesting only in the political-science sense that "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" to quote Conspiracy theory. Debunk or falsify the theory as it currently exists, and the adherents will just try to move the goalposts and rewrite it to try again. Absent any Wikipedia:Reliable sources coverage that didn't simply involve saying "well Fox News says", adding the Bobulinski claims should either not be done at all until such coverage develops, or needs to have a disclaimer in giant red blinking neon lights. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Fox News has reported on this extensively since day 1. "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." So Fox News CAN be used as a source. Anyone claiming that Fox News is lying in their reporting about the receipt for the laptop has quite a burden of proof to meet. My point here on this talk page is that all who are working to block any and all mention of the laptop can't make up your own "facts" that purport the laptop to be Russian disinformation, or purport another source for the laptop. That's not a good faith discussion about the relevance, notability and reliability of the story. EvergreenFir - Editors like me aren't advocating for any conclusions in this article in WP:Wikivoice. But no mention of the actual concerns and evidence supporting those concerns is clearly not neutral. Tvaughan1 (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

As of today, the FBI has agreed to interview Bobulinski regarding the information, and Bobulinski has handed over the mobile devices that allegedly have proof of the inappropriate dealings. So it's false to claim that Bobulinski is only talking to FOX and the New York Post about this. Regarding the receipt, as EvergreenFir was kind enough to point out, this isn't a court room; however, it is additional evidence supporting the veracity of the emails. A reasonable person could question the veracity of the emails if there was no supporting evidence, but this starts to change as more evidence emerges.

To recap the evidence for other editors, we have a receipt with Hunter Biden's signature, the store owner has testified under penalty of felony perjury that the laptop is Hunter Biden's, we have pictures from the laptop that are of Hunter Biden, the FBI has said the laptop is not Russian disinformation and the DNI has said the laptop is not disinformation. Furthermore, we now have a secondary source, Bubulinski, who says the emails are real. Again, this is not a court room, but the preponderance of the evidence clearly points to the emails being real.

Since the evidence points to the emails being real, and the emails clearly document issues about Joe Biden's involvement with his son's business dealings in BOTH Ukraine and China, the lead of the article should be changed from "debunked right-wing conspiracy theories" to "He and his father have been the subjects of renewed controversy concerning Biden business dealings and foreign policy in Ukraine and China". This does not presume guilt, it is in WP:Wikivoice, and it avoids many of the problems that the current lead does; namely that the current lead has been the subject of repeated controversy, that the original sources don't use the term "debunked", and that the original sources are now extremely outdated. Additionally, this change is entirely accurate considering that the controversy has dominated news coverage for a week now and was brought up by an NBC moderator during the Presidential Debate NationalInterest16 (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

"Ex-Hunter Biden associate's records don't show proof of Biden business relationship amid unanswered questions", "Tony Bobulinski had claimed the former VP was involved in discussions about his son's dealings overseas", "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

It's interesting how neither NationalInterest16 nor Tvaughan1 can bother to provide links to the stories they claim back up their statements.

"But so far the Bobulinski allegations seem like bubkes. At 10:47, minutes after the debate ended, the Wall Street Journal, part of the same media empire as Fox News and the Post, reported, “Text messages and emails related to the venture that were provided to the Journal by Mr. Bobulinski, mainly from the spring and summer of 2017, don’t show either Hunter Biden or James Biden” — the former vice president’s brother — “discussing a role for Joe Biden in the venture. Even if Bobulinski is telling the truth, that Joe Biden knew about the China enterprise, it’s not clear what the scandal is — he was a private citizen at the time and not yet running for president. Trump has elevated an unsubstantiated assertion that Biden had knowledge about his son’s legal and failed business venture to a “crime” for which he “should be in jail.” To put in context how absurd this allegation is, one of the first things George W. Bush did after he left the White House was deliver a paid speech in China. Somehow he remains at large." https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/23/hunter-biden-wins-the-debate-431558

The "preponderance of the evidence" does not say any such thing. We do not know yet the provenance of the laptop, nor of any emails contained within. The accusations these two are trying to make, suspiciously trying to avoid giving precise links to the pages they claim or providing links to known problematic sites, are getting over the line of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy in my estimation. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

the store owner has testified under penalty of felony perjury that the laptop is Hunter Biden's - I never heard that one before. Show me a source that says he has testified under oath. According to Fox News, Mac Isaac "can't be 100% sure" who dropped off the laptop. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Change debunked to disputed in header

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

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

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

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

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

None of the sources given for the "debunked" line actually say the story is debunked. They say the story lacks evidence. Additionally, those stories were written before the latest emails have been released, providing new evidence that the original story may actually be true. So we are using the word "debunked" based on outdated sources that do not actually use that term. NationalInterest16 (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

NationalInterest16: Please explain what, exactly, in the recent story is new evidence that the original story may actually be true. The story appears to say "we've got the laptop! we've got emails! we've got pictures!" but what exactly in the emails implicates the Bidens in wrongdoing? The possibility that Hunter introduced Joe to a Burisma board advisor? Feh. soibangla (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that "debunked" is unsupported by the cited source. MainePatriot (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• 'Debunked' seems to be supported by the sources (every one cited there unequivocally says the conspiracy theories about him are "false", eg. [4] At a campaign rally in Iowa, President Donald 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 I'm not seeing anyone producing the non trivial evidence from reliable media outlets you're claiming exists. --02:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Multiple articles do say "false" in the headline. None of the articles substantiate the claim that the allegations are false. They state there is little evidence that they are correct. Just so everyone's clear on the allegations, Republicans were claiming that Joe Biden adjusted US Foreign Policy to enrich his son (and possibly himself). The original evidence for this claim, provided by the current sources for the lead, is Hunter Biden was not qualified for the role, that he got the role because of his last name, and that no one has been able to verify what his role actually was with the company. Additional evidence would be that the issue was raised with Joe Biden by ethics advisors in the White House and Joe Biden chose to ignore the advisors. At the time, this was certainly not enough evidence to claim that Viktor Shogun was fired to benefit Joe Biden and his son, hence why all the articles say the allegations are unsubstantiated.

Again, the articles provide no evidence supporting the idea that the allegations are "debunked". The debunked line we currently have in the lead appears to be something that we added without any supporting sources. It has also been a repeated subject of controversy on this page because numerous editors have pointed out that is clearly WP:Bias.

The emails have provided additional evidence that has now been corroborated by a third-party source who is a former business partner of Hunter Biden. The emails indicate that Joe Biden met with a top Burisma executive, refuting a previous claim by Joe Biden that he had never taken part in his son's business dealings, and that the results of the meeting would be crucial to the renewal of Hunter Biden's employment with the company. Additional emails indicate that Hunter Biden and Joe Biden received direct compensation for Joe Biden's foreign policy directives in China. This has also been corroborated by the former business partner of Hunter Biden. If proven true, this would be a violation of the emoluments clause.

I think it would be going too far to say that these allegations are proven correct, but in the face of this new evidence, we certainly cannot reasonably claim that the allegations have been debunked. Therefore, the lead should be changed to "He is currently the subject of investigations into his business dealings in Ukraine." That statement does not presume guilt or innocence, it simply states the facts in a neutral tone as an encyclopedia should. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NationalInterest16 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Is he under investigation? Cite sources please. Here's one from today: 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) 19:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Modifying the lead section

Hi folks,

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

The main source:

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

Other sources about this :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MonsieurD, absolutely nothing has changed with the terming of Joe or Hunter Biden doing anything wrong in regards to Burisma or the Ukraine. Some emails and text messages were released that, if authentic, prove that Joe Biden loves his son and supported him through his addiction. The metadata on many of the other documents makes them appear to be forged. Reliable source discuss this as possible Russian disinformation. Here's one: [5] – Muboshgu (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The fact that mainstream media considered reliable sources on Wikipedia (i.e. Fox News) considers the allegations credible enough to cover and does not qualify them to be conspiracy theories supports my complaint. Fox News is not considered a reliable source for politics on Wikipedia; per WP:RS/P, the most recent RFC failed to reach a consensus, which defaults it to yellow / low-quality. When its reporting is contradicted by higher-quality sources we cannot use it, nor can we cite it as a source for WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims with political ramifications. Beyond that, none of the sources above suggest that the underlying conspiracy theory has evolved or changed. --Aquillion (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] etc. etc. etc. Koncorde (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So let's sum up

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

So we have a claim *without ANY source*

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

BUT

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

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

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

it should be removed immediately.

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

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

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

Thanks a lot for the attention, take care.

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

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

• I am not aware of a policy that says we can have too many reliable sources (just like nobody has a clue what you mean when you say someone can be banned for giving you too much to read which you then ignore).
• You have repeatedly admitted to only reading one of the sources. It doesn't say what you want it to say and soooo we have a claim without any source.
• We have no idea what you actually expect the sources to say about more unverified claims, other than you want to change the focus of the lede to the laptop contents (which you have not provided a reliable source for) and that you think that the laptop un-debunks the debunked conspiracy theory (which remains debunked, because the existing sources cover the actual course of events, and Trump was impeached for his efforts).
• There is absolutely nothing contentious about the claim Trump is pushing conspiracy theories (there are yet more sources in the body of the article for further claims).
• We are not tackling the current "laptop" claims until there is actual reliable sources covering recent events. You seem to want us to use unverified claims from Giuliani and Trump to overturn months of efforts to spread a conspiracy.
• The NYP article "alleges" and "claims" and "infers" and "purports" a lot but is an unreliable source by wikipedia standards to use to change the article, it also doesn't make the allegations that Trump and Giuliani are making. Fox News coverage is using the exact same quantified language because it cannot verify the claims (although it verifies an email, though not the meaning of the content)[18] but isn't stopping Trump from repeating the same conspiracies.[19]
• Currently there are a wealth of sources discussing the apparent unreliability of the claims[20][21][22]
• The conspiratorial nature of the theories[23][24][25][26][27](and more opiniony pieces[28][29])
• The long term plan to release the information close to the election.[30]Giuliani apparently held the information for months and released it less than three weeks before the election. Giuliani has long been involved in efforts by the president and his allies to highlight Hunter Biden's work overseas to damage Joe Biden and boost Mr. Trump's reelection campaign, and in 2019 met with a Ukrainian lawmaker who has been deemed an "active Russian agent" by the U.S. government.
• And of course the depth of the conspiracy:[31] He added that the FBI didn't send the information it had to Congress because "there's a small group at the top of the FBI that hates Trump. And they haven't been rooted out. They haven't been taken out. They're still there. And they hate this country."

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for Giuliani, he literally went on live TV crying about being investigated (both in association with Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman) and for other myriad things. Derkach isn't one of those reasons at present.[32][33][34][35][36][37][38] Koncorde (talk) 10:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Makes unsubstantiated claims and personal attacks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the conspiracy theory debunked? Yes.

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

Does the NYP even suggest it? No.

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

moot point. This is not even in discussion.

What you did in 2019 was may be good then, but is outdated. The single recent source just do not support your claim. All other are from 2019, and at least one changed story. You still have to provide a single quote from a recent source to support your claim.

Irrelevant.

You are pushing the conspiracy theory here

You cannot undebunk what wasn't debunked in the first place. And don't need too.

LOL, yes it does. well that at least what the WSJ think (opinion piece, not proof of anything, of course) https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-laptop-window-on-the-oligarchy-11603235685?mod=opinion_lead_pos8

End result: what is left of your claim? you have no source. Change required. Come back with sufficient sources. Gem fr (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Just one comment, since the above section is very much WP:TLDR: I’d like to respond to User:Gem fr’s comments you believe in a conspiracy theory, according to which “Giuliani and Derkach saved this last bit of their Burisma smear for mid-October", without any piece of evidence and no source. and Giuliani and Derkach saved this last bit of their Burisma smear for mid-October.", which was your claim, and IS a conspiracy theory. The fact that they "saved this for mid-October" actually IS documented; intelligence reports predicted a year and a half ago that they would do exactly that. From Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections: A year and a half earlier, in early 2019, White House officials had been warned that the Russians were planning to leak forged emails in the weeks before the election, and that Giuliani could be the conduit for such a leak.( Source ) This is not a "conspiracy theory"; it is a prediction from the American intelligence community of one way the Russians were planning to interfere in this election. And it came true exactly as they predicted, right down to Giuliani as the conduit. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

MelanieN, thank you, summed it up better than I did. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:04, 21 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) 01:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

DNI, DOJ, FBI in apparent agreement

This article [39] 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) 01:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:RS/P, Fox News is not considered a reliable source for politics. According to more reputable sources the FBI is refusing to comment, per its longstanding practice of not getting involved immediately prior to an election; based on this and given Fox News' institutional purpose of advancing right-wing politics, coupled with its established history of publishing untrue or distorted material as part of that goal, it's reasonable to assume that the unnamed "officials" they refer to are simply people who agree with them ideologically and not people with any actual knowledge of the investigation. In any case we cannot cover WP:BLP-sensitive political news from Fox unless a more reputable source picks it up. --Aquillion (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The last Rfc closed by a panel of 3 uninvolved editors stated in summary (my bolding) "for science and political referencing there is no consensus regarding the reliability of Fox News, and it should be used with caution to verify contentious claims. For other subjects Fox News is generally considered reliable". Tha Rfc did not say is was not considered reliable. Id take it any day of the week over your link to a "newspaper" that had to settle a lawsuit for defamation of an underage kid from Kentucky. With all that though, I would prefer to see multiple sources to support this per BLP.--MONGO (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, the Washington Post is considered fully reliable at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and the "lawsuit settlement" you refer to was settled for nuisance value (as in https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/351/ https://lawandcrime.com/media/some-lawyers-think-covington-catholics-nick-sandmann-walked-away-from-media-lawsuits-with-peanuts/) so... maybe your judgement needs a recheck? IHateAccounts (talk) 03:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh great, opinions as to what an unknown settlement was. Really enjoyed the way the anonymous twitter lawyer is cited as one of the "some lawyers". WaPo surely settled now because as these lawsuits work there way through the courts, they didn't want to be the last entity holding the bag.--MONGO (talk) 07:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, IHateAccounts, but no to WaPo being "fully reliable" in this case. Context matters and so does the fact that WaPo's editorial board endorsed Joe Biden for president. The same for The NYTimes, which probably explains why we're not hearing anything about from the left media's echo chamber about the investigation. Aquillion, this isn't about politics, it's about money laundering, and whatever other nonpolitical activity has raised question. What his son has been doing probably doesn't look good for "the big man" but that's political and not what the news is focused on. This is Hunter Biden's article anyway. Atsme 💬 📧 22:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, no, WaPo is fully reliable. Their editorial board is separate from their investigative reporting. NY Times too. You may have noticed this as the WSJ editorial board is spinning tall tales of Biden corruption while the WSJ investigative reporters read the emails and saw no business deals involving Joe Biden. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, see NPOV#Bias in sources which weighs heavily, but also see WP:PARTISAN: When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. If WaPo is not a biased source, then neither is Fox Newsl, c'mon. WaPo's editorial board endorsed Biden - their editorial control is not going to be neutral relative to anything about Biden or his family, and the same for context. We can attribute, but just find a better source. Atsme 💬 📧 01:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Washington Post isn't "biased" just because you don't like the results of responsible outlets that follow standard, ethical journalistic practices and separate their opinion department from their journalistic department properly. Attempting to compare them to Fox is an exercise in false equivalence. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

it's about money laundering Note that Fox News, which first reported that allegation, juxtaposes "Hunter Biden" with "money laundering" in the title of the article, but in the body concedes: "It is unclear, at this point, whether the investigation is ongoing or if it was directly related to Hunter Biden."[40] And there's this, which could mean the devices were seized pursuant to a completely different investigation. soibangla (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

which probably explains why we're not hearing anything about from the left media's echo chamber about the investigation The far more likely explanation is that good journalists have learned from their previous mistakes to not reflexively take the bait whenever folks like Bannon "flood the zone with shit" and thereby give oxygen to the shit and spread the shit. Even Fox News knew it was shit and passed on it until NYP let the cat outta the bag, giving Fox News permission to pounce on it. soibangla (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Yodabyte, the FBI has not said anything (they are not going to "do a Comey" on this one). The DNI and DoJ are both part of the political apparatus, and multiple sources are discounting their statements as a result. regardless, so what? If it's not Russian disinformation, it's still very obviously disinformation. The provenance and timing make that absolutely clear. The Trump campaign appear to be very pissed off that nobody is taking any part of this at face value, but it';s not really our job to fix that for them. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Just adding my twopenneth to echo MONGO's point that Fox News is 'no consensus' on political and science articles. I have seen a number of editors state that it's not RS for these matters, which is not quite correct. I don't know what the policy is on 'no consensus', I would imagine err on the side of caution. Perhaps an experienced editor or admin can fill us in on exactly what the procedure is with 'no consensus' sources, so that the position is clear if an editor wants to quote it. Simply saying 'not reliable' doesn't seem correct. RandomGnome (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

RandomGnome, for "no consensus", if use is challenged you need consensus that it's reliable specifically in context on the article talk page. In this case it's pretty clear that Fox is pushing a heavy barrow uphill, and there are more reliable sources discussing the same matter so all we're missing is Fox's particular spin on the facts - which is no loss IMO. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, also saw that Aquillion answered the question further up the page When its reporting is contradicted by higher-quality sources we cannot use it, nor can we cite it as a source for WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims with political ramifications. RandomGnome (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully, those who state as fact that the information being reported by the very unreliable New York Post is "disnformation" because of its timing were just as emphatic that the Access Hollywood tapes were absolutely disinformation because of their timing. In my mind, Steve Bannon has timed the release of the information to match that of NBC in 2016 on the ground that what's good for the goose is obviously good for the gander. But that's just my speculation. I certainly would never state such a claim as being "absolutely clear."

Not simply because of its timing, but also because of its content. Was the authenticity of the Access Hollywood tape challenged? Bannon: "The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit." soibangla (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Sadly, "flood the zone with shit" works on those like (Personal attack removed). Especially since the Access Hollywood tapes were a result of real investigative journalism, the reporting of which was part of the reason (along with his investigation of Trump's various charity fraud rackets) David Fahrenthold was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Are there no rules to which I can appeal to object to the ad hominem slam above. It would be one thing if I were an anonymous poster but I use my real name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael-Ridgway (talk • contribs) 11:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Assuming good faith

I'm very concerned about people not assuming good faith on this talk. Please stop. I'm not going to try to comb thru every word to figure out who-all needs a warning, but I am (for my sins) putting this talk on my watch and will start giving out warnings from here on in. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're operating in bad faith. —valereee (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. This is overdue in my opinion. I also think protecting the talk page sends the wrong message when a controversial article is attracting strong good faith opinions from all sides regarding the facts as reported by RS. RandomGnome (talk) 02:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@RandomGnome: I was upset about the page protection too but since there seem to be plenty of people who haven't been around for months or years popping up constantly to create Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy violations like this (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHunter_Biden&type=revision&diff=985443845&oldid=985437770), I see how it was even worse before the protection was put in place. Most of them don't cite any source or if they do, they cite things that definitely aren't reliable sources because right-wing echo chamber sites and outlets (New York Post, Breitbart, Fox and so on) are desperate to try to turn their baseless accusations into a media event. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@RandomGnome: also, consider that Talk:Joe Biden had to be protected similarly due to trolls from russian addresses who were leaving things that admins had to fully remove from the page history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHunter_Biden&type=revision&diff=985443845&oldid=985437770 IHateAccounts (talk) 03:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: Thanks. I take your point, but I think we have other tools in the toolbelt to use against political activist editing rather than blanket protection, which stifles debate of good faith concerns over how we're reflecting RS reporting, and worse, clears the path for a small pool of editors to engage in WP:OWN/Multiple-editor ownership. RandomGnome (talk) 03:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Questionable notability

To whom it might concern. I have recently noticed extensive debate in this article. Surely, all of that spring from bona fide attempts to get things right. However, the sheer existence of so many conspiracy discussions, IMHO, does not prove this or that point about the article's content. It merely demonstrates this article should not exist at all. I am aware my opinion is quite radical, but let me outline my case:

1. Hunter Biden is notable for only one event (WP:BLP1E).

2. Being related to a notable person, doesn't make you automatically notable ([[WP:]]).

3. All this page is about Hunter Biden being a victim (WP:AVOIDVICTIM).

4. From what I read in this page, he is a suspect (WP:SUSPECT))? My take is that he is innocent until proven wrong. And this should mow down all debates about verifiability. But I don't want to stress too much on the "suspect" thing.

5. Since you debate a lot about the term "debunked", let me remind you the best term here is "alleged". The example under section WP:BLPPUBLIC perfectly applies to this scenario, IMHO. We do have actual guidelines on how to write stuff. Let us just follow the guidelines.

6. In general, as a WP:BLP1E, we are not even sure the event is there. Quite the opposite. It's a non-event, so far. So I don't see why he should deserve an article for himself. Why not a mention in an article about his father?

7. This article contains too much for someone who has just lead some companies and been involved in a case meant to taint his father's name (suspect until verified). It meets the WP:TOOMUCH threshold. I assume bona fide attempts by authors in order to demonstrate his public relevance. But still... Not really notable.

8. Again, the lack of notability is embedded in the birth of this page, which was indeed created in 2008, but with barely 500 words and severe lack of notability at its birth. It was updated ever since, as it often happens. Most relevant updates are 2019-ish so, IMO, it is a bit as if this page was completely drafted in 2018. Hope you see my pint.

9. Finally, what I believe is the nail on the coffin of this article: WP:RECENT. Of course most events date back to 2016 (if I read correctly) but all the case and allegations are being pushed during election time. I am afraid I do really have to seriously question articles being manipulated or debated in talks pages as it happens. Most of the links that "corroborate" this or that version are just "news". And I know how much media outlets are important in our society and in the American one in particular... But should not we wait for the dust to settle down?

CONCLUSION: The only terms under which I would accept the existence of such an article is that Hunter Biden is potentially a WP:PUBLICFIGURE... But believe me, guys, he is far from having a role in the public administration.

Final salute: when answering to me, please understand I am not a US citizen so I bona fide find it hard to understand why someone should be included in Wikipedia with a page of his own... And not that of the event or his notable relative. MarcelloPapirio (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

This wall of text makes my eyes bleed. It's completely unreadable. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, User:IHateAccounts. I am sorry you perceive my contribution to cause you harm. Please help me understand what it is not clear and I will endeavour to rephrase it. I was attempting at making a rational argument and corroborate my points. I am obliged to invite you to be more explicit about your disagreement, so that I can deal with it systematically. Moreover, since you are a fairly new User (joined 4 days ago), let me illustrate how it works: you may reply to this post with further details. All the best, I am sure we can join forces together in this long road towards truth and knowledge.MarcelloPapirio (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@MarcelloPapirio: your text appears as a large square block, literally a Wikipedia:Wall of text. It's unreadable. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts I am sorry for that, but my editing capabilities on mobile phone are limited. I tried to give it a "bullet points" style to make it more affordable to read. However, you must understand that, although some WoTs are frowned upon, when you start a discussion you need some decent beef. Back in the days, I remember making a proposal and then regretting not having explained all points when it came to voting. So I tried to build my case with strong evidence. Since deletion and merging require strong evidence. So, although I regret my WoT made you uncomfortable, it was written bona fide and not with a disruptive goal. I will thus stand my ground and possibly edit the bullet points or numbered list as soon as I get hold of a better device. You must understand not all of us have access to PCs all times, owing to location and availability of resources. MarcelloPapirio (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@MarcelloPapirio: Then I will politely suggest that you hold such long comments until such time as you can enter them in on a computer and format them in ways that are readable, please. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm somewhat in agreement. I don't think it's a bad idea to simply have this as an addendum (and change the wording alleged if allegations MUST be there, because there IS NO DEBUNKING, saying such is WP:PEACOCK) to Joe Biden's page. Quite frankly according to WP:BLPCRIME, there shouldn't even be any mentions of any allegations, and if there is, because there are no verdicts, it should not be listed as "debunked." Quite frankly the only reason the man is making headlines is for his alleged scandals and crimes, so him being notable is only in relation to Joe Biden and how he has allegedly been involved in corruption which has not been verified true (so Wikipedia cannot say it is true) nor false (so Wikipedia cannot say it is false/debunked).WePFew (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@WePFew: factually speaking, large portions of the allegations have in fact been proven false and debunked. Part of the problem with a conspiracy theory is that its adherents just rewrite it whenever it is disproven. "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." That has, since these are a result of right-wing media in the USA desperately trying to come up with something that will "stick" long enough to affect the USA's election, required repeated attention from fact-checkers, news organizations, and editors here to handle the mess. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with OP about a few things, however Hunter has kind of progressed beyond 1E. His initial firing / drug scandal was the 1E event and he really should haven't ever had an article, and I suspect wouldn't have if he wasn't Joe's son. However since then he has become the focus of a prolonged series of conspiracy theories, allegations etc, and has himself done media appearances. This kind of shunts it past 1E quite a fair bit.

Today, Hunter is directly referenced in more than one event. First drug issue, then Burisma conspiracy theory, then the impeachment in Congress, then his own appearances, then Giuliani's dirt digging, then being the subject of negotiations for the impeachment trial in the senate, and now as the subject of possible hack and smear campaign just prior to an election meaning he is intrinsic to the 2020 campaigns of both Biden and Trump. It all stems largely from 1 idea, but it is now multiple prongs of prolonged media coverage. Koncorde (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Some sources may "debunk" the theory but that would not automatically require us refer to it as a "debunked" theory. It is being looked into as we write this article. We should properly refer to it as an "allegation", not a "debunked" theory. Bus stop (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you tell us what the new conspiracy theory is? Koncorde (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Bus stop and User:Koncorde: I deeply appreciate your response (I am still on mobile), but please be advised my proposal is for a whole deletion (or merging), not a wholehearted discussion of whether the conspiracy is real or not. Consider the following: if it is all debunked, it means Hunter has become famous for just 1E. And said 1E is, allow me, menial... It would mean we create a lengthy page for each person who is notable because of a relative and is, incidentally, a drug user. This could have been mentioned as a single sentence in Biden's page. Now, if the conspiracy is true, or at least arguable... Then you fall into the realm of "recentism". TL;DR: either conspiracy is false and he is not notable because of that single scandal, or the conspiracy is arguable... But then the page is about current events and should have a huge huge disclaimer on it.MarcelloPapirio (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your argument, MarcelloPapirio, backed up with policy points and I would agree with you that Hunter Biden has only become notable, as more than the former Vice President's son, since the development of the 2020 presidential campaigns. You could propose it for deletion at Articles for Deletion but I think there'd be a strong vote to Keep it due to the Ukrainian conspiracy theory becoming a news story in its own right. If you were going to propose it to AfD, I'd do so after the election, when this discussion might not be so polarizing.

IHateAccounts, please do not try to shut down other editor's contributions because they aren't in a format you find visually pleasing. Such intolerance is striking for such a new account. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Liz: I wasn't trying to "shut down" their comment, I was hoping they would reformat it into something readable! Walls of text are especially jarring for people who have to deal with mild visual problems and dyslexic episodes. And sprinkling random bolded numbers into the lines makes it WORSE because it keeps pulling my eye off track! IHateAccounts (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

IHateAccounts—you say "your text appears as a large square block" and the text "keeps pulling my eye off track" and you refer to "mild visual problems and dyslexic episodes" and you ask MarcelloPapirio to "reformat it into something readable". A stopgap measure might be to cut and paste the post into a separate window on your computer such as a word processing document and then rearrange the text so that a new line is started for each bulleted and numbered point. And of course you can enlarge and bold the text too. Bus stop (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: I also have a tough time reading large blocks of text on Wikipedia sometimes, especially when using a wide screen. I wrote some CSS and JS to make things a lot easier for me, and you're free to try it out if you think it might help. Basically you just click a link in the top right hand corner (or use the hotkey Ctrl-Y) and it makes the text larger, changes to a serif font, limits the max width of the text on the page, etc. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment—MarcelloPapirio—I just wanted to bring to your attention WP:INHERITED in relation to "2. Being related to a notable person, doesn't make you automatically notable". Bus stop (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
• While I understand the NOTINHERITED and BLP1E arguments that could be made for deletion, the level of coverage we have seen of Hunter Biden should be enough to establish his notability. I am fairly certain an AfD would result in "keep". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. Unfortunately, I believe it too. It would result in KEEP. I think we do really agree about the outcome.

However, as I have seen before on Wikipedia, the keep can be mostly the result of the emotional attitudes of users towards the current events, with little to no bearings in a 10-years time. Look at the history of this page:

- in 2008 it was just a stub, with no actual reasons to exist.

- later on, it became a page in its own right but just related to the drug scandal. I mean... A guy gets kicked out of the army for drug use... And gets a page?

- Finally, the already-existing page got hyped by being popularized on /pol/ and other platforms by MAGA or anti-MAGA users.

And this is how pages are born. Out of Tabloid-like interest. Encyclopedia-worthy... I doubt. Although I concede some maximalist users on Wikipedia are from the "keep-it-all" school and "never-delete".

Anyway, this whole stuff becomes utterly redundant since we have a heavy and burdensome page on the Biden 2020 Campaign, which doesn't even have the "recent" template on top of it.

So yeah, people would keep it, but because of their love of gossip. Not because it is worthy of being in an encyclopedia. You can summarise it all with a couple of sentences. MarcelloPapirio (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

June 15

19 years, 11 months and 11 days

Regarding the International Business Times does anyone know if IBtimes.sg is actually them (or an imitator) and if Parwinder Sandhu actually writes for the company?

I'm not going to post the story until verifying that but I can't be the only one curious about if this is misinfo or not. WakandaQT (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

That would be a good question for WP:RSN Atsme 💬 📧 16:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

IBT is Generally Unreliable, I am going to stretch to say so are all affiliates. Koncorde (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Koncorde, especially for this. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

According to https://www.ibtimes.com/corporate/about, ibtimes.sg is for the "Singapore Edition" page, it's part of IBTimes and should fall under what Koncorde pointed out. Generally Unreliable. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

"National Railroad Passenger Corporation"

Out of curiosity, why does the infobox use the obscure name "National Railroad Passenger Corporation" rather than the common name "Amtrak"? feminist (talk) | free Thailand 09:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Feminist, probably because that's the legal name. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Other articles on Amtrak executives, including Richard H. Anderson (businessman), Charles Moorman and Joseph H. Boardman, do not use the full legal name for Amtrak. If this is the only reason for using the obscure term, it should be changed. feminist (talk) | free Thailand 11:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Tony Bobulinski

The section debunking Tony Bobulinski is a bit dated and needs a bit of a touch up. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Michael-Ridgway, or removal, as being a rather obvious grievance-based hatchet job. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Michael-Ridgway, you are returning from a block related to this subject, so you should be very careful. If your "touch up" is based on unreliable sources, then you're in violation and could get blocked for a much longer time, and likely also get a topic ban from AP2 and BLP. (Notice the notices and warnings you got on your talk page.) -- Valjean (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Photo

@Muboshgu: Can we perhaps find a better photo to use? That one seems strange, like it was clipped out of a frame of video. It has his eyes in an odd expression and I'm sure something better and more neutral could be found. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

If you can find a photo in the public domain that is better than what we have, great. It's not a great photo, but it could be far, far worse. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Not a lot out there. This looked briefly promising, but it's CC BY-NC-SA, which is not a usable license. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

It's true. Good photos of Hunter are hard to come by. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Michael-Ridgway, it's almost as if he's not a public figure. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Guy, that's a good point, and if he's not a public figure, BLP is much more strict with mention and sourcing of negative content. -- Valjean (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What he means is, photos with a license that Wikipedia can use. The image was pulled from this Youtube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dzWdtHhAvQ and there are plenty of better shots that could be used. Of course it's a crappy 360p video with a ton of artifacts, but Youtube has frame-by-frame so it should be do-able. If someone will help me get the information boxes right I'll even work on it. @GorillaWarfare: or @JzG: can you help with this maybe? IHateAccounts (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: Happy to help if you need it. You should hopefully be able to just duplicate what's being used for the existing photo, but give a shout if you run into any issues. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare:, @Muboshgu:, I have uploaded this. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:R._Hunter_Biden_at_Center_for_Strategic_%26_International_Studies_(Speaking).png I am hoping it is better, can you review it please? IHateAccounts (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I've swapped out the license template and added some categories. Should be all set now. As for the actual photo, I'm not sure it's an improvement on the current one–it's a good bit dimmer (fixable) but it's also clipped from a point where he's mid-speech. I've embedded both in a gallery below for other commenters to review more easily. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I know he's mid-speech, but at least he doesn't look like he's having a staring contest with the camera? Also I've tried to brighten it a bit using paint.net but someone with more skill maybe could do better. Looking at the video it looks like whoever uploaded the first one brightened it too. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• 
  Current photo used in article
• 
  IHateAccounts' suggested photo

Hunter Biden's alleged dealings in China (and Ukraine)

A comprehensive quality article from a disinterested reliable source.

[Hunter Biden: What was he doing in Ukraine and China?]

I'll leave it to the rest of you to come to consensus as to whether it contains information that should be in this article at this time. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 05:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

It's a rehash article that doesn't actually add any more information, and doesn't corroborate any of the NY Post's claims. "The BBC Reports the NY Post Tabloid Said" would be ridiculous to try to shoehorn into an article. IHateAccounts (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

You're assuming bad faith. I didn't post it with an agenda. I posted it because it does in fact provide information not found in this article, not because I'm claiming that it corroborates shadowbanned reporting from the very unreliable New York Post. Michael-Ridgway (talk)

@Michael-Ridgway: Thank you for that link. It will at least help those of us trying to wrap our heads around this all. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The lede to this story makes no mention of China, only Ukraine. For people who only read ledes and move on (like Alexa), and given the fact that Hunter Biden flew on Air Force 2 with Joe Biden as part of his business networking adventures, isn't the omission of any mention of China at least nominally suspect? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Michael-Ridgway, what do you propose that we add? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for asking, Muboshgu. I admit that it's hard for me to compose a single sentence that summarizes what is stated in the two sections dealing with China. It's especially awkward trying to do that when the sentence about the Ukraine says that everything ever alleged about Ukraine is debunked right-wing propaganda. The two China-related sections are, of course, BHR Partners and CEFC China Energy. If anyone wants to take a stab at it, that would be great. At a minimum, it seems to me that to make the lede more balanced, some mention of Hunter flying to China on Air Force 2 with the former Vice President should be made. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I mean, with everything that is being reported by media sources reliable and unreliable, this characterization of the criticisms from the right is now very dated.

"[Hunter Biden] and his father have been the subjects of debunked right-wing conspiracy theories pushed by Donald Trump and his allies concerning Biden business dealings and anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine."

This is so January 2020. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you tell us what the conspiracy theories are today? Koncorde (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Not as well as the New York Post can. If you don't tell anyone, I won't tell anyone if you go and read the latest summary article. They're feeling pretty vindicated at this point. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The New York Post is a tabloid. The Onion has a better record for factual accuracy. And... by "the latest summary article" I'm assuming you mean the nonsensical, ridiculous opinion column by a Breitbart hack and his secretary? IHateAccounts (talk) 04:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Millions of people in the United States believe that the email messages are real. The email messages, if true, are very damning. The picture of Hunter with a meth pipe, if not a photoshopped creation, is damning. The picture of Joe Biden with Devon Archer is damning. The picture of Joe and Hunter Biden with two oligarchs in the very corrupt country of Kazakhstan is damning. That picture has been on a Kazakhstani anti-corruption website, apparently since 2018 but has only recently come to the attention of the US news media. But those millions will get no satisfaction from Wikipedia when it comes to reporting on the Bidens. Rather, they will conclude that Wikipedia, whatever that is, is just as in the tank to cover up for the Biden's as Twitter and Facebook and the entire cabal of sources deemed "reliable" by the Ministry of Truth. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 11:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree, the lede should refer to the China allegations and also to the recent claims by Bobulinski. Pakbelang (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The perpetual rejoinder that the New York Post is a tabloid hardly establishes that what the New York Post is reporting is untrue. It certainly doesn't establish that the emails and photos that the Post is publishing are fictitious creations. You have to be pretty biased to be able to claim out of hand after taking no time personally to investigate their claims that it is not only false but debunked. Anyone who makes such a claim has zero credibility when they simultaneously claim to be an "objective" Wikipedia editor, a claim I would never make. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 11:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

It isn't about being an "objective wikipedia editor", it's about following our guidelines objectively. What people want us to do is abandon the rules to force some WP:FALSEBALANCE into an article and / or fundamentally tread into the area of duplicating uncorroborated claims in a biography that can do material harm to a persom in the current day. Wikipedia is not here to provide some up-to-the-minute profile on every person mentioned on the TV, or rumours about such a person. We are WP:NOTNEWS. Koncorde (talk) 03:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Michael-Ridgway, what delusional editor "claim[ed] to be an 'objective' Wikipedia editor"? (I actually know of one very experienced editor who claimed to be "neutral". I wouldn't normally describe her as delusional, but on that point she is.) I have written an essay related to this that you might find interesting: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. No one is completely neutral or objective, but we should strive to edit as neutrally as possible by not changing/censoring/neutering the bias of a source when we use it. -- Valjean (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Debunk

People were coming at me earlier and saying it's stupid to call the "right-wing conspiracy theories" "debunked", but are we still so sure after Tony Bobulinski's reading of several of the damning emails, which was covered by several major news sources, including Newsweek, The New York Post, and FOX News? Captainjackster (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Captainjackster, so why don't you link to them so we can see what exactly is so "damning"? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiiSq7toqlQ Captainjackster (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Tony Bobulinski says he has been asked to appear at two Senate Committees and will be giving them documents. Why don't we wait until he is on the record or his documentation has been reviewed before giving credence to his claims? Right now, it's just his word. I don't think that Newsweek has examined his emails. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Once again, I'm not asking that we add information that Hunter is guilty of wrongdoing. My only point is that it's not very encyclopedic and it's definitely biased to say that any allegations have been debunked, as there's currently no more proof for them being invalid than there is for them being valid. Captainjackster (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

That's literally not how this works. "Well nobody's proven he isn't a murderer" types of accusations are meaningless and definitely violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. There has to be proof of the accusations being valid and on the balance of evidence, they're either completely debunked or ridiculously implausible. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I am assuming this a new conspiracy theory then? Can anyone outline what this conspiracy theory is meant to entail? Koncorde (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

So you linked to a YouTube video, which I'm not going to watch. (I was requesting written word articles, though I acknowledge I didn't specifically state that.) The title of the Fox News video you linked to is about Bobulinski's "claims" about the Bidens, which remains unverified. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Captainjackster: 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by IHateAccounts (talk • contribs)

I agree that the wording is no longer accurate, given that the so-called conspiracy theories have been thoroughly un-debunked in recent weeks. I think we should remove the words "conspiracy theories" and write them in a more neutral and accurate manner. Skb7 (talk) 11:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article is a disservice to encylocpaedias. In no way shape or form has this story been debunked, and nor is it being pushed by the right wing alone. This absolutely must be presented with weight to the possibility that it is NOT a conspiracy theory. Alexandre8 (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Replaced "debunked" with "alleged" The "debunked" language dates back a year, before any attention was paid to the HB allegations. Renewed allegations are drawing focus to the story again, and no investigation has been reported as "debunking" the unsubstantiated allegations. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Speculation about stuff being "alleged" is not how WP:BLP works. We are meant to conservative in our writing of articles, that includes WP:BLPGOSSIP, particularly around what is functionally just a political smear campaign by any other name. Duplicating speculative reporting from unreliable sources is a major no-no. Koncorde (talk) 03:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Koncorde: If that's the case, then leave it out, but don't contrive language not used by the sources. "Unsubstantiated," "unverified," and "unproven" are consonant with the reliable sources that have reported on it. "Debunked" is not. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree, the term "debunked" goes beyond the language used by reliable sources. Pakbelang (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Hunter Biden is the subject of debunked right wing conspiracies. This is an objective fact. That does not mean someone somewhere does not have some otherwise crazy conspiracy that they will not accept has been debunked, is implausibl3, or no reliable source will tackle because it is unfounded.

What is being asked here is for the statement to be replaced with the equivalent of "there is no evidence these new allegations have been disproved". That is pretty much the dictionary definition of "When did you stop beating your wife?". It's utterly inappropriate for a BLP subject. Koncorde (talk) 04:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The sources are not calling them "debunked." It's appropriate to document allegations, even if unproven, in a BLP. WP:PUBLICFIGURE. It's not consistent with WP:V to use language not reflected in the sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The sources about what? That Hunter Biden and Jim Biden, two businessmen, have business dealings? What are you asking to be described as "debunked"? Because I think you are asking us to insert unfounded allegations made in tabloid press in breach of WP:BLP's core principles. We are not tackling subjects not covered by reliable sources. We should certainly not be speculating on a smear campaign without calling it what it is - a smear campaign - and that would still not change the debunked right wing conspiracies unless someone can tell us, in reliable sources, what the new conspiracy theories are.

Seperately WP:V does not say we can't call a spade a spade just because reliable sources call it "unfounded allegations unsupported by objective facts or reality" or words to that affect. Koncorde (talk) 12:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Koncorde: The sources [41] describe allegations that Hunter Biden and Jim Biden were engaged in influence peddling,'' not "doing business." The story may or may not be dubious, and it doesn't appear to be proven, but it is simply not described as "debunked" and it is a stretch beyond what the sources have said to describe it as such. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

My search of that article comes up blank for anything approximating the words you just used, or allegations thereof. The only reference to any allegations about either Biden are a vague reference to an email that (with their emphasis) is "said to" have been sent to Hunter. So the WSJ aren't touching that story with a 10 foot barge pole. Koncorde (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I provided a citation to Snopes, one example. Where is the "debunked" language coming from? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The link you provided is to a WSJ article. If you are talking about the Snopes article you put in as a citation to overturn all other reliable sources then this is the one you meant. If we take, I don't know, about 15 seconds to read the first few sentences we immediately run into a big red flag, to quote: Trump and his supporters, meanwhile, have advanced a widely discredited theory that Biden pushed for the firing of Ukraine’s top prosecutor to protect his son and Burisma from investigation. Biden did indeed press for the prosecutor’s firing, but that’s because he was reflecting the official position of not only the Obama administration but many Western countries and because the prosecutor was perceived as soft on corruption. meanwhile at the end of the article it states Biden’s campaign, meanwhile, pointed to the recent Republican-led Senate investigation that found no evidence of wrongdoing on Biden’s part with regard to Ukraine. It also pointedly noted the involvement of Giuliani, saying his “discredited conspiracy theories and alliance with figures connected to Russian intelligence have been widely reported.” who was the source of this laptop and emails btw? Rudy something? Best mates with a couple of blokes, Lev and Igor that have admitted being involved in something? Another good friend an agent of Russia? Also claims to have a laptop. Strange world. Wonder if they are related. Koncorde (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

James Rosen of Sinclair Broadcasting reports

Hunter Biden and associates under investigation for money laundering since 2019.

Why to be skeptical, from Sinclair Broadcast Group:

Sinclair's stations have been known for featuring news content and programming that promote conservative political positions, and have been involved in various controversies surrounding politically-motivated programming decisions, such as news coverage and specials during the lead-ups to elections that were in support of the Republican Party

Oh, and an anonymous source, of course. soibangla (talk) 01:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

BHR details

Reference 15, the "about us" page for BHR Partners, is a dead link, and neither the Wayback Machine copy of it nor the New Yorker article that's reference 16 seem to mention Thornton Group LLC. Reference 18 gives a 404 as well. Anyone feel like tidying up the dull corporate stuff? XOR'easter (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, XOR'easter. We can remove both these dead-link references. Thornton Group LLC is referenced by the Financial Times article. It's behind a paywall but there are free mirrors online.--Pakbelang (talk) 01:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)