Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Discussing the term "False" in opening statement.

{Logic statement, ignoring WIKI policy and sorry for any people pinged}

• Background

So let me drop a quick logic statement. Wikipedia is supposed to remain unbiased in articles. So in the opening statement, the article has "The Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of false allegations". I undid the word false as the FBI still has the computer. Valjean undid my revision with the comment "Follow the RS in the body (IOW, pretty much NEVER revert content with such an editorial note without extensive discussion first). This article isn't just about the last New York Post matter." So I read the body section.

Now let me give some logic. About 90% (maybe 100%) of the sources in the Background section are liberal sources (In general, Go Biden, Boo Trump...Those sources). Logically, they would all say "FALSE!" to any comments about a democrat/liberal, because those are the people they support. For example, CNN just after the allegations (NY post talk) came out, immediately started saying they were false and then never reported it. Fox News (Using Logic, ignoring WIKI RS policies) is running with the story. HOWEVER, Fox News and the majority of non-liberal sources, are leaving the fact in that they might be true. Knowing how Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased, should the body have some conservative sources? {LOGIC Statement: If you want to know why Wikipedia is saying 'False' to the allegations, it is because the article only has liberal sources, which say 'false'.} (Current Event WikiProject Coordinator) Elijahandskip (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback

To keep this from turning into a major edit war, I am proposing a vote to see if the term false should be removed. [Vote up for 30 days (per WP:RFC), or until a clear consensus is reach].

• Remove as the investigation isn't complete. While we may not know if Biden participated in any of the deals outlined in the emails, we certainly don't know it's false either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RumSearcher (talk • contribs) 06:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC) — RumSearcher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Remove as the all (All being a keyword) as the allegations haven't been proven false, this constitutes an opinion and / or assumption rather than verified fact as does the references source. Jonas230 (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC) — Jonas230 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Remove as the all (All being a keyword) the allegations listed in the article have not been proven false. (Current Event WikiProject Coordinator) Elijahandskip (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
• Remove – because editors are not making the distinction between old, debunked information and new, possibly-true information, automatically assuming the new information is "debunked". Aviartm (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
• Remove as the "false" phraseology is in direct violation of WP:VOICE. In the event some allegations have been found completely false on their face by reliable sources, perhaps the top text should be revised to state that Hunter has faced a multitude of allegations, some of which have been debunked or are false. wanderson9 (talk) 11:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that wanderson9 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
• Keep as we use RS, regardless of any partisan bias. If they are reliable, we can use them They have fact-checked the claims and determined they are false. Fox News just backs Trump, no matter what BS or conspiracy theory he pushes, or, as is often the case, has gotten from Fox, Hannity, Limbaugh, or QAnon. Those are not RS. -- Valjean (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
• Remove Wikipedia is generally based on reliable sources and so will follow their opinion, which leads to natural bias. However in this case the entire conspiracy theory/allegation is an ongoing investigation and so it is unsuitable to use false before we know the full detail of events. The reliable sources here described the theory as false the moment it came out (if that is correct English), but more information may yet come. Basileus Manuel Komnenos (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
• Keep We go where the reliable sources lead; and in this case, even if the allegations in the New York Post's first volley were true, they would not substantiate the conspiracy theory. We should stick with "false" unless and until a pendulum swing of historic proportions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Also, Wikipedia operates by consensus, not "votes". XOR'easter (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
• Keep until the sources say otherwise--and then maybe we can have a new, and properly written-up RfC. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: this “liberal” source just added to article: “Trump cited an unsubstantiated news report to revive a widely debunked false narrative about Joe Biden’s work in Ukraine on behalf of the Obama administration.” And then there’s “Trump Was Repeatedly Warned That Ukraine Conspiracy Was Completely Debunked” and “We talked with two dozen leaders and investigators in Ukraine. They all agree the claims against Joe and Hunter Biden are baseless. Yet they persist.” Somebody stop me before I OVERCITE. soibangla (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
• Keep as all of these Biden/Ukraine theories are nonsense, according to all available evidence, and the NY Post allegation is not holding up after a mere 48 hours of scrutiny. No false equivalency for dezinformatsiya. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
• Change to "dubious" or "widely debunked" or something similar. Calling it "false" in the lede makes it look like Wikipedia is biased on a major issue of the election. Mcrsftdog (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

  I don't have any objection to "debunked", but "dubious" is not firm enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Widely debunked is even better! soibangla (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree, 'widely debunked' is the best phrasing, more neutral than the flat 'debunked' or 'false'. —valereee (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

That Trump chooses to manufacture and use conspiracy theories as part of his election strategy (and modus operandi in life) does not affect how we document RS-coverage of those theories. When fact-checkers describe them as false, then we do too. If they weren't false, we'd change the title of this article, because we only use such titles for false conspiracy theories. -- Valjean (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

There is sourcing, such as what was presented by soibangla, that uses the word "debunked", which has the dictionary meaning of expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief). So, that'd be okay I think, if consensus were to develop for "debunked" over "false". The term "dubious" is also being used in sourcing, but is much more equivocal than "debunked" and therefore not as good. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm open to synonyms. -- Valjean (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Keep at some level (false, debunked, whatever). Because it’s false and debunked. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
• Keep something. Prefer "debunked"; as for new "evidence," not until somebody can explain how the only meta-data for an email supposedly written half a decade ago shows it to have really been done in the past year. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
• Keep something I also prefer debunked, but it's completely correct to have something here to indicate that WP knows RS are saying that. FWIW this is a !vote, which here on WP we call a not-vote. This is not about numbers. —valereee (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
• Keep WP:RS characterize it as false.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:RS. Fox News is generally unreliable for me, so i replace that sources with The Daily Telegraph and Canadian Broadcasting Corporation instead because i not found more RS to back Fox News claim, particularly non-US (mainly British) sources. 180.244.144.193 (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
• Strong keep I've been following this article closely for the last few days and my view on this has strengthened. I'm now much more confident that there's unanimity among reliable sources that the underlying narrative is false and an attempt to smear Joe Biden. The confusion comes from a series of other claims 'tacked on' to the main gist of the conspiracy (that Biden murkily acted to protect a corrupt Ukrainian company and his corrupt son in order to enrich himself). Many sources have noted that this fits a pattern of disinformation increasingly seen in US politics, where a large pile of accusations and libellous disinformation is produced with the aim of eventually causing distrust/suspicion of the target and making people lose sight of the crux of the conspiracy, making it seem harder to prove as false. The NYT sums up the latest New York Post laptop affair as: claims of corruption aimed at the former vice president’s son in an effort to damage the Biden campaign. For this reason, I think that it's right to retain the current wording, which is already backed up by plenty of reliable sources in the article. Alternatives such as "debunked" or "purposefully misleading narratives" would be acceptable too, but in my view there is no issue with "false" and watering this down could create a WP:FALSEBALANCE. I don't envy any closer of this RfC, but I urge them (and I'm going to speak bluntly here) to consider the possibility that some of those arguing to remove "false" may be underestimating or under-informed about how a sophisticated disinformation campaign such as this works (and it is disinformation, even if its origin – Russia, right-wing trolls, Giuliani etc. – hasn't yet been conclusively determined). Jr8825 • Talk 07:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC) (original comments: per XOR'easter and JzG/Guy (below). Also, there's no consensus among editors that Fox News is reliable for political coverage (see WP:FOXNEWS), which is why it's isn't and shouldn't be given weight here. I'm not opposed to adjustments such as "debunked" or "widely debunked" that retain the same meaning. Jr8825 • Talk 23:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC))
• Keep, at this point there's a better-than-even chance that we find out the guy who dropped the supposed "hunter biden laptop" at the "repair shop" was actually Jacob Wohl in a trench coat and fake mustache. Every other thing about this supposed "scandal" has been shown false, including just a couple weeks ago. https://www.thedailybeast.com/chinese-billionaires-network-hyped-hunter-biden-dirt-weeks-before-rudy

And of course, "An Eastern European expert in digital forensics who has examined some of the Ukrainian documents leaked to the New York Post told me he found anomalies — such as American-style capitalization of the names of ministries — that suggest fakery." https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-truth-behind-the-hunter-biden-non-scandal/2020/10/16/798210bc-0fd1-11eb-8074-0e943a91bf08_story.html

Remember that per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, "There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable. A tabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication." 2601:2C0:C300:B7:FC53:F984:3F15:4B4C (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Why was an RfC opened for this topic as this vote is underway? Because the vote here was not going someone's desired way for an article that did not have consensus to be created in the first place? soibangla (talk) 22:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Overwhelming weight of RS and repeatedly confirmed WP consensus text. SPECIFICO talk 02:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. Per earlier statements about RS. Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 11:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
• Remove. It is critical that this remains neutral. As of now we have no proof that this is false. The term "unclear" or something along those lines would be appropriate. The tone of this article is critical for anyone coming. The term "false" is absurd to apply to the article at this time. Outspoken users like :Valjean, whose page prominently contain the text "Donald Trump is a lunatic" are hardly users that we should be seeking input from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:48f8:4028:78d:e947:e7af:a6b:19e7 (talk • contribs)
• Cannot really vote on this as there is an assumption that there is a laptop and that FBI "still has it." Rather than have this entire thing in the article, I would remove most of the content and references, and only leave the alleged email that NY Post showed, and discussion of it and its dates and the actual dates of the PDF. Voting on allegations or false allegations is irrelevant if there is no computer. Tero111 (talk) 13:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

  Tero111, no, that would be a spectacularly bad idea, because the email is probably fake; instead we should wait for analytical reporting of the thing in its entirety, including the route by which the laptop arrived at a strip mall computer shop, whether any of the "emails" are verified (the Biden campaign has explicitly refuted at least one claim with backup from official records) and the like.

  WP:NOTNEWS. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• Remove This is a clear example What Wikipedia is not. Using a page of Wikipedia for bias political fighting and turning "allegations" into "conspiracy theory" without being supported by the overwhelming majority of reliable secondary sources would downgrade Wiki reliability and neutrality and therefore should be avoided. This is also not a place to "vote" but to gain consensus. Tritomex (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

  Tritomex, do you have reliable sources that are calling it an allegation rather than a conspiracy theory? Because other editors have said the opposite. —valereee (talk) 20:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

  Tritomex, when we cover allegations as allegations, it's because they are alleged by credible sources such as investigators. What credible sources exits that allege any part of this conspiracy theory to be fact? Guy (help! - typo?) 21:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

  Its not upon editors to prove that something dosent exist, but upon you to prove that RS are calling this allegations a conspiracy theory. I nowhere saw such attribution. This allegations are not named as such by BBC, DW, RT, Reuters, The Jerusalem Post, France international and all other major media outlets. No mention of conspiracy theories anywhere. The title and the artickle itself is against the fiive pillars of Wikipedia and on the level of WP:NEGATIVESPIN Tritomex (talk) 04:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• Remove this post screams of bias. The Steele Dossier has been debunked but its still treated as fact by wikipedia.Guitarguy2323 (talk) 01:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

  If you would like to discuss the Steele dossier, Talk:Steele dossier is thataway. I'm not sure how it's relevant here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

  treated as fact by wikipedia is false, as paragraph 4 of Steele dossier lead makes clear. Just sayin'. soibangla (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• Rewrite to "debunked", per the long list of reliable sources that verify. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

  I did a quick browse of Category:Conspiracy theories in the United States and it seems that most of them use wording like "have rejected these theories" (9/11 conspiracy theories), "debunked" (Clinton Body Count, Pizzagate), "No evidence supports the conspiracy theories" (Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories) and so would prefer wording along those lines. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• Keep per the sources. Bias means adding content that disagrees with mainstream sources often based on an editor's opinion. Bias does not mean that those sources take or explain a position. Sources often take a position. If the sources are reliable, per weight, we can and should add the content they reference. Littleolive oil (talk) 08:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. The 'bias' argument is irrelevant when all the genuinely reliable sources overwhelmingly agree that the substantive allegations against Biden have been comprehensively debunked and disproven; even the heavily biased Republican Senate report came to the same conclusion. The WP:RS similarly agree that NY Post story is based on a deliberate fabrication. Unless that changes, the descriptor ``false" is the correct one to use here. Saying that ``not all" allegations" have been disproven and that's why the word ``false" should be removed, is a red herring argument. The main allegations have been disproven, comprehensively so, and the Republican Senate report said as much, failed to substantiate anything significant, and produced nothing more than painful handwringing. Even if the infamous hard drive contains some occasional true statements such as "Joe Biden's last name is Biden", that would not justify un-labeling the story as "false". Nsk92 (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. The 'false' description appears to be well-supported by the sources. To remove that adjective would be to present a false balance. I would be okay with adding a short sentence to the lead about how the New York Post story has drawn increased attention to the theory since that's why many readers are coming here. – Anne drew 16:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

  Not in Wikipedia's voice. Allegations prior to the New York Post story are false according to numerous reliable sources. I understand Sphilbrick's point that the specific allegations made in the Post story haven't been disproven. So we need to walk this fine line of:

  1. The underlying allegations have been called false by numerous WP:RS
  2. The specific allegations in the New York Post article are yet to be disproven

  I don't think the solution is to remove the 'false' or 'debunked' description entirely, but instead we should follow the guidance in WP:VOICE:

  Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts... Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views...

  Given this guidance, we should change the first sentence to say something this (or similar):

  The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of allegations that are widely considered false...

  And make sure we explain that WP:RS call the New York Post article unreliable and possibly part of a disinformation campaign.

  – Anne drew 14:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  Weak support for this adjustment (changed my mind following Soibangla's point below) in tone, to better adhere to WP:WIKIVOICE, as an improvement. Although I don't agree with your entire rationale, I agree it's better to follow use a neutral voice. I don't think the NYP emails change the falsity of the conspiracy theory (per JzG), as I explain below, so I'm cautious about watering this down. Jr8825 • Talk 15:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  Jr8825, I would go with wording that makes it clear that the allegations about Biden and Burisma are (debunked|false|refuted|generally considered bogus|whatever), but the specifics of the NYP (the emails) could justly be framed as merely implausible - there's not been time for anything definitive on these, and probably won't be before the election because the FBI have learned the lesson from Comey and probably won't say anything either way. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)#

  (superseded by discussion on the opening para below)How about:

  The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of allegations centred on the widely debunked assertion that 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden engaged in corrupt activities while...

  Jr8825 • Talk 16:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Rewrite I think it's fairly well accepted that Wikipedia is not in the business of documenting truth. While Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth is an essay, Wikipedia:Verifiability is policy, and links to the essay. For this reason, it's well established that we should avoid statements such as "X is true". The counterpart should be equally obvious. We ought to avoid (in Wikipedia's voice) statements that "Y is False". In many cases, we might mean that the statement isn't verified, we might mean that the logical opposite does have a citation to a published reliable source. This is so basic, I'm surprised to see many editors including some I highly respect, arguing that this article should retain the word "false". That's not only a high bar that hasn't remotely been reached, but it's inconsistent with the very way that Wikipedia works.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

  Could you provide the policy that says we should avoid statements such as "X is true"... [or] "X is false"? WP:V and the essay you linked do not say that. They say we should follow reliable sources instead of just writing whatever we think is true. In this case, our sources say the theory is false. What is the bar for calling something false in Wikipedia? – Anne drew 23:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

  @Sphilbrick: if the published, reliable sources are unanimous in describing the issue as false disinformation (which editors following the topic closely seem pretty clear about), then there's no issue with Wikipedia saying as much – the relevant policy is WP:DUE (giving due weight to reliable sources) not WP:V. Jr8825 • Talk 04:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  Sphilbrick, why would we avoid saying something is false when all the reliable sources say that, well, it's false? Guy (help! - typo?) 08:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG, Do you really mean "all" or "most"? If you literally mean "all", then you understand that one counterexample disproves the assertion. Let's look at the NBC article. there are a lot of useful quotes, "the serious accusations… are unsupported", "there is no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of either Biden", "Trump… yet to offer evidence of the claims", "building on the baseless claims", and more, each of which support an assertion that the claims are unverified, but not a single instance of the word "false".

JzG Show me which source proves that the allegations are 100% false. (Aka no sign of doubt in the entire RS). I know you will use a extremely liberal source...but I want to see if you can even pull a source that shows 0 doubt that it is false. (Also a RS with facts). Elijahandskip (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Elijahandskip, elsewhere I have cited the "extremely liberal" Financial Times: [1]. Here's a very thorough rundown written earlier this year: [2]. The Washington Post explainer also covers the objective merits (or rather, the lack thereof) of the claims. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG, How about the Vox article? "he[Trump] insists — despite no apparent evidence to support this", "Trump, repeating a conspiracy theory", "He[Trump] has repeatedly misrepresented facts", "Trump and his allies and asserted — without any evidence". Again, lots of support for an assertion that the claims are unverified, but not a single instance of the word "false". S Philbrick(Talk) 12:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, the "false" part is the claim that Joe Biden intervened to sack Shokin to protect Burisma. I think that no reasonable person could conclude by now that this is anything other than bollocks. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG, Now you are trying to move the goalposts. You started by supporting a statement in Wikipedia's voice that all allegations are false on the basis that all the sources claim they are all false. Finding one aspect of one claim which might (I'm not yet convinced) be false according to one source is not remotely supporting your argument that all sources say all the allegations are false. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: - it's not moving the goalposts, the crux of the conspiracy theory is that Biden acted corruptly by withholding loans to push out Shokin, because Shokin was investigating his son – which has been shown time and time again to be nonsense. In its opening sentence, the New York Post story falsely asserted "the elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating" Burisma": this illustrates quite well how all the assertions surrounding the Bidens and Ukraine ultimately feed into this one, disproved lie (the significance of the leaked emails is that we're supposed to infer from them Biden was meeting Burisma to protect the corrupt company from Skohin). I haven't seen any reputable media suggest that the Bidens may have acted corruptly in one way but legitimately in another, the whole allegation of corruption boils down to one widely debunked (by serious media and government investigations) claim. This is the point JzG has made several times in the discussion, the new, highly questionable emails don't change the fact that the conspiracy as a whole is universally considered false. Jr8825 • Talk 14:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, or "a quick guide to Trump's false claims about Ukraine and the Bidens", and of course "Ex-White House Adviser Rejects False Ukraine Narrative". As I think I've made clear before, I would be happy with "discredited" or "debunked" instead, but there is no need to find the exact word in order to reflect the consensus of reliable sources that was established at least a year ago: the idea that Joe Biden pursued Shokin in order to protect Burisma is absurd on many levels. It would require that the EU, the IMF, the World Bank and the Ukrainian opposition were all in on it, as were the prosecutors who found the extortion of the Russian sand and gravel firm that led to the "diamond prosecutors" and the vote in the Ukrainian Parliament.

Feel free to propose alternative wording that in your view more accurately reflects the status of the underlying claims. Unproven doesn't cut it. Allegations that Giuliani is compromised by Russian intelligence via Derkach are unproven. These allegations are contradicted by every single known relevant fact. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG, Why are you linking examples of sources that use the term "false"? Nobody disputes that there are some such example. the question is whether we can say it Wikipedia is voice that all the allegations are false, and you supported the inclusion on the basis that, as you said, " all the reliable sources say that, well, it's false". it only takes one counterexample to disprove that assertion and I provided several. You can provide 100 examples including the word but it doesn't change the conclusion, that it's incorrect to say all the reliable sources say it's false. my proposed alternative is simple – simply remove the word "false". Let the lead say that there are allegations, and let the body of the text discussed the various allegations and the extent to which they been confirmed, discredited, proven false, or simply unverified. That would be the fair thing to do. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

This is insufficient, "debunked" or "false" belongs there because that's what the reliable sources say about suggestions that Biden acted in a corrupt way by getting Shokin fired. This is the frontline of disinformation and it's important Wikipedia gets the due weight of sources correct here. Jr8825 • Talk 14:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, the main problem is that this article exists at all: it shouldn't. The idea that Joe Biden got Shokin fired to protect Burisma is ridiculous, and has been known to be ridiculous for over a year. But this being Wikipedia I have absolutely no doubt that attempts to delete it because it's obviously bloody silly will be defeated because lots of people want to talk about it.

So: there is no problem with casting the core claim about Joe Biden and Shokin as false, debunked, refuted or whatever other synonym we decide to use. That's how it's been reflected on Wikipedia for a year or more, and that has not changed as a result of what appears to be a Russian disinformation operation. When the Financial Times opens with "Donald Trump’s lawyer has new fixers in Kyiv to help revive claims discredited as conspiracy theory", and says "Prominent Republican senators, including Rob Portman of Ohio and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, were on a similar push at the time, calling for “urgent reforms to the prosecutor-general’s office and judiciary” in an early 2016 letter to Mr Poroshenko", there's not much room for doubt. The conspiracy theory is debunked.

Any residual uncertainty is about the disinformation operation itself, where I agree we can't make any confident statement beyond the fact that no reputable source currently takes any part of it at face value and most frame it as a probable Russian disinformation operation. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG,

appears to be a Russian disinformation operation

You rip your credibility to shreds with comments like that. yes, I am aware that some fringe actors are floating this nonsense, but I've yet to seen any credible support. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Fringe actors like the FBI? [3] GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, I urge you to reread the article. Yes, an anonymous source asserts that the FBI is conducting an investigation. I hope it's true and I hope that investigation includes determining whether or not it is Russian disinformation. However, an alleged investigation is not remotely a statement from the FBI that it is Russian disinformation.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I know what the article says -- I'm mostly questioning your quite harsh comment to JzG ("You rip your credibility to shreds with comments like that") when prominent publications are reporting that the FBI is investigating. It's of course possible they are all being misled and have done a poor job of verifying their sources, but it's a stretch to call it a fringe theory when major publications are reporting it and the FBI appears to be investigating the possibility. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, I did not challenge the possibility that the FBI was investigating it, I was challenging the assertion that it "appears to be a Russian disinformation operation". Had Guy simply said that the FBI was investigating the possibility, I wouldn't have reacted. I trust you have seen that the FBI came out today and said that it is not, so I hope we can drop this fringe conspiracy theory. I stand by my comment that citing claims that aren't backed up by evidence is not good for one's credibility. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Do you have a link for the claim that "the FBI came out today and said it is not"? Because large numbers of credible analysts have said otherwise so far, and the actual FBI (as opposed to Trump stooge Ratcliffe, who is not "the FBI") have remained silent and I can source that to both USA Today and Politico: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/10/17/fbi-probes-possible-russia-link-hunter-biden-data-trump-ally-giuliani/3661895001/ https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/christopher-wray-fbi-trump-430243 76.31.177.30 (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Understood. I actually haven't had a minute to check the news today so I don't think I've seen what you have, but you may wish to start a new section on this page to discuss it. The article still says the FBI is investigating, according to the AP. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, I am sure they are still investigating, but they are no longer investigating Russian disinformation. There are reports they are investigating money laundering. This story is changing every day, which is hardly surprising, but that's what makes it astounding that some support a blanket claim that all the allegations are false. That's not supported.

What money laundering investigation? Money laundering, conspiracy to defraud U.S. reportedly among charges under consideration in investigation related to Rudy Giuliani soibangla (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, um, really? The FBI warned the White House last year that the Russians are using Giuliani as a conduit for disinformation. Most sources report that the FBI is investigating this as a Russian disinformation operation. It's fully consistent with prior GRU operations including the DNC hack that poisoned the 2016 election.

That's not "fringe" at all, I'd say. It might turn out to be wrong, but so far only Trump hack John Ratcliffe has denied it, the FBI deliberately has not. Regardless, the provenance of the laptop is agreed in all reliable sources to be as fishy as you get. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG, How about the Vice article? "a second attempt to tar Biden with allegations of corruption" but not a single instance of the word "false".

I am sure you can find some sources which use the word "false" or a synonym, but I'm not arguing there are no such articles. I'm arguing that the general tenor of the articles is that the claims are unverified. That's what Wikipedia should say. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Remove. Plenty of credible sources have shown evidence for it, and this article reeks of WP:BIAS. Major changes need to happen to clean this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.5.219 (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you please specify which credible sources you are referring to? GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. It's both extraordinary and notable when journalistic entities from across the spectrum come together to dismiss a breaking story as nonsense. Separately, I learned today that when you use all caps for "LOGIC", apparently that turns the definition of the word into "opinion". Grandpallama (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• Remove. Contested info <> false. --BBird (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• Keep until reliable sources say otherwise. This article is specifically about the conspiracy theory that Joe protected his son which is false because we know the sequence of events do not match that claim, and the reliable sources demonstrate the inherent falsehood by talking about the prosecutor firing at the time it took place prior to the conspiracy being cooked up. The New York Post themselves screenshot one email in particular that confirms the sequence of events (i.e. that Burisma was under investigation prior to his arrival) and in particular emphasises the idea that these investigations were improper, and a follow up to attempts to extort the company and owner which failed. While the NYP and co have focused on the element where Biden is asked to do something with his influence, it does not say who to or with or how and it doesn't gel with any other reliable source (particularly the exceptionally strong ones used). It is therefore a fringe view at best. Koncorde (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Remove - Using the term 'unsubstantiated' rather than 'false' conveys the same information, is slightly more precise, and will go along way towards dispelling allegations of bias --DrCruse (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @DrCruse: Prefer "debunked." How about that? Hyperbolick (talk) 04:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Remove This is highly contested information and has not yet got substantial evidence proving it wrong or right, Dubious is the best description In my opinion, outright describing it as false is uncharacteristic of Wikipedia's mission 150.107.172.172 (talk) 04:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Checkuser note: vote struck. You don't get to vote twice by logging out. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
• Remove per Aviartm. RandomGnome (talk) 04:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Hard to believe this is even a question. On the one side we have these sources that have been indulging baseless conspiracies for many years, on the other side we have journalism. If Wikipedia can't discriminate between them, it deserves to crash. This is Freshman Comp level source distinction stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C6:4300:6EE0:10A3:59CB:3FE4:D1BE (talk) 05:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
• Remove as long as any of the allegations are still contested calling the whole thing false is overreach.OrdinaryDecent (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

What allegation is contested? Koncorde (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• Remove this is still a developing and intensely disputed issue, we should wait until all aspects of the theory have been COMPLETELY discredited referring to them as unverified allegations would be far better imo LandLoveLiberty (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC) — LandLoveLiberty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Remove The FBI has reported that the laptop is part of an investigation into money laundering, which will presumably continue. Until we get the results, we won't know if these allegations are false or not. The word "allegations" sums this up well enough. Pkeets (talk) 18:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

What money laundering investigation? Money laundering, conspiracy to defraud U.S. reportedly among charges under consideration in investigation related to Rudy Giuliani soibangla (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

More specifically related, this brand new source says Documents obtained by Fox News show the subpoena was linked to a money laundering investigation in late 2019, though it is unknown whether the investigation is still open or if it directly involves Hunter Biden. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• Remove - if the emails are not authentic emails wouldn't Hunter/Joe Biden/Biden's campaign come out and state they are forged/false emails? Yodabyte (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Not necessarily (see Muboshgu's reply in the section you opened below). Jr8825 • Talk 19:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Just did, I replied in that section below. Yodabyte (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• Remove - There has been much development of the story which factually makes false an incorrect statement, but more than that, until proven in a court of law simply having the word alleged or allegations suffices. Unless one wants to go thru many articles/pages that by the same token do not have false as it relates to other individuals, the word false here is NPOV violating. WP should merely present the facts and have with alleged, and then let the reader decide by going thru additional reading. WP should not get in the game of deciding what's true and not true until some official action is taken and then it should present those facts. Let's not let wp become twitter or facebook. SailedtheSeas (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Name one thing that proves Biden pressured the Ukrainian government to fire their prosecutor. Point at one single reliable source that says emphatically "Biden definitely pressured the Ukrainian government" because we can point at explicit sources that say to the contrary. Koncorde (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you serious. Biden said it on tape. BTW I like the note below that suggests to use unproven vs false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SailedtheSeas (talk • contribs) 00:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• Use the word "unproven" or similar. That's a better description of the sources -- as others note, they generally don't say "false". Adoring nanny (talk) 04:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny: Can you (or others) provide some links showing sources avoiding the term false, regarding Joe Biden acting corruptly? I spent several hours scouring through media coverage, and found that RS generally do say "false", or very similar terms. There's an awful lot of comments here saying that coverage is contested/not decisive, but I'm just not convinced by this. Jr8825 • Talk 14:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Until actual reliable sources say otherwise. The New York Post is not of that calibre. NonReproBlue (talk) 09:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
• Remove: The bit about Joe Biden using his position to benefit Hunter Biden's employer is completely unproven and is without a shred of evidence, but that is not the same thing as being proven to be false. For example, the conspiracy theory that the US government is kidnapping children to work as slaves on Mars hasn't actually been proven to be false; space flight is possible, slavery is possible, and nobody has gone to Mars and searched every inch for carefully hidden mine entrances. See Russell's teapot.

The bit about the Ukrainians only hiring Hunter Biden because of who his father is is completely plausible and most likely accurate. So is the theory that the media would be treating this completely differently if the Ukranians had hired a child of Trump or Pence. None of this supports the completely unproven conspiracy theory that Joe Biden was in on it or even aware of it before Hunter Biden was hired.

We should only use "false" for things that have been actually proven to be false. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence -- but that's the way to bet. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Apologies in advance for the lengthy response, Guy Macon. I disagree. It's not just that there's no evidence supporting the key claim that Joe Biden forced out Shokin for the benefit of Burisma/his son, when you look at the RS they clearly go much further than this. They report the "conspiracy theory" (a term ubiquitous among press coverage) that Joe Biden engaged in corruption in Ukraine to be "false/fake" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7, "baseless" 8 9, "debunked" 9 10 11, "invented" 11 12, "fantasy" 13 14 and "bogus" 15. There are plenty more sources, but I think this is enough to make my point. Like any good conspiracy theory, it's developed out of facts which are then twisted to become "half-true" (i.e. Biden did withold funds, but not for the suggested reason). A point I made above is that the many murky allegations, some of which do have a basis, related to Hunter Biden's privileged incompetence can make it seem like the claim Joe Biden acted inappropriately hasn't been proven false, when in reality it has, as the sources above attest. You can extend the logic of burden of proof awfully far, and, like most other conspiracy theories, you can look at the pieces of supposed evidence that add up into myth and conclude that it is possible. It could be argued this is WP:SYN as multiple RS are clearly saying it's false. It's also contrary to WP:FALSEBALANCE "conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship ... include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world". The only media sources that have seriously speculated that the base claim of Joe Biden's corruption might be true are partisan and not RS. On what basis should we avoid calling this conspiracy theory, relating to living persons with political ramifications and clearly pushed by partisan groups with a motive, false, other than original thought and unreliable sources, when we have a weight of RS clearly saying it is false? Personally, I think the current wording (which has been revised and improved since the start of this RfC) is spot-on: the conspiracy theory consists of a number of unevidenced, dubious and often irrelevant claims, orbiting around and feeding into a central narrative that has itself been repeatedly proven false. Jr8825 • Talk 13:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon that's basically what the article says now. I can't say whether it would be different if this were Don Jr., or whether that difference would be justified because Trump's adult children and their partners have played a prominent role in his campaign, including notable mentions in the Mueller report, and have profited personally and through direct nepotism. But that's not the point. The point is that the base claim that Joe Biden intervened to protect Burisma is, as you say, false, and the rest is somewhere between wildly implausible and unproven, depending on which iteration you're talking about. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Certainly we cover it. The very first paragraph of "background" says "As he had no prior experience in the energy sector, this is viewed as a likely attempt to buy influence via his father, and was considered awkward by advisors to the Obama administration".

That being said, we have fifty six citations and paragraph after paragraph talking about the conspiracy theory and one sentence with one citation talking about the appearance of a conflict of interest.

It isn't as if there are no sources that discuss the latter:

• Hunter Biden’s Perfectly Legal, Socially Acceptable Corruption --The Atlantic
• Will Hunter Biden Jeopardize His Father’s Campaign? --The New Yorker
• Hunter Biden uses silver spoon to eat crow --The Boston Herald
• Hunter Biden, the black sheep who got Trump impeached, explained --Vox
• The Bidens are not like us --Chicago Tribune
• Hunter Biden: What was he doing in Ukraine and China? --BBC
• The Hunter Biden story is a troubling tale of privilege --The Washington Post
• Being Biden's son has its privileges --Aiken Standard

(Note that most of the above sources also say that there is no evidence that Joe Biden did anything wrong. The conspiracy theory associated with Hunter Biden's family privilege really is just that -- a consiracy thory with no evidence backing it up)) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Surely it makes sense to have paragraph after paragraph talking about the conspiracy theory in an article about... the conspiracy theory? I'm not sure what your suggestion would be – include more information about Hunter Biden cashing in on his name? Or cut down extraneous detail in the rest of the article? (Which I wouldn't be against.) The article is about the conspiracy theory that Joe Biden was corrupt in relation to Ukraine, discussing Hunter Biden's 'socially acceptable corruption' (great quote btw) beyond the first paragraph dedicated to it just doesn't seem relevant to me. If anywhere, it belongs over at Hunter Biden (I say this reluctantly as I'm aware there's a chaotic situation over at that talk page too). And, sadly, I have to ask how notable individual cases of elite social/business cronyism and nepotism are to an encyclopedia, much as I find it all abhorrent. (I don't think any of this changes the fact that the conspiracy theory is false.) Jr8825 • Talk 17:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Include more information about Hunter Biden cashing in on his name. It is extremely closely related to the conspiracy theory. A proper coverage of the conspiracy theory details that part that is likely to be true as well as that part which is likely to be false. What we were doing here would be like writing the 9/11 conspiracy theories page while barely mentioning the actual reason why the towers fell, or like writing the Vaccine hesitancy page while barely mentioning what we know about the actual causes of Autism. Many of the sources on this agree, and include analysis in the form of "here is the part that is true, here is the part that is a lie". --Guy Macon (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Make sure that whatever is said is accurate. And make sure that the false claims are noted clearly as false, such as the completely discredited and debunked stuff Trump was ranting about at the 3rd debate. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Make sure this idea of "cashing in" is attributed properly. Hunter did not hire himself. It was the corrupt oligarch and owner of Burisma, Mykola Zlochevsky, who hired Hunter Biden for the purpose of "cashing in" on him as a possible bargaining chip with Joe Biden. Whether Hunter "allowed himself" to be used is another matter. Any corrupt motives belong to Zlochevsky. -- Valjean (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• Remove per discussion below. --Flying Lambs (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Most of the newspapers of record like the New York Times are skeptical of the allegations to say the least. Maybe future developments could justify removing the "false" qualifier, but for now we have sufficient reliable sources to keep it. Challenger.rebecca (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. Let's go with what actually-reliable sources say, shall we? Oh, and when your introduction begins with Now let me give some logic... followed by some standard-issue "LEFT-WING MEDIA BIAS!1!!" non-logic, you're misusing words. --Calton | Talk 00:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Fully agreed. That "LOGIC STATEMENT" rant about "liberal sources" is more of a WP:NOTFORUM violation. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

That "LOGIC statement" clearly violates the rules for creating an RfC, so the RfC template should be removed. -- Valjean (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The Rfc should still be there. If it really becomes an issue, I could replace a few sentence paragraph with all the "research" from the article...aka listing each source and the sources that say that specific source is liberal or conservative or neutral. IMO a few sentences is better than a giant list like that. Just saying that if it becomes a problem, I can spend an hour or two and fix the issue. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

No, I was thinking more about this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Statement_should_be_neutral_and_brief. I suggest you read it, and that page, before doing more. Then write a neutral RfC above the current opening. Then maybe hat your current opening. -- Valjean (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. First, it has been over 10 days now, and no well-known reliable sources have taken it up. Next, it should be judged by the standard of conspiracy theories. The whole idea of a conspiracy theory is to make something look true without any evidence. And finally, the statement is question says a series of false allegations, which doesn't exclude any possibly true allegations that might happen to appear. Gah4 (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
• Remove - we can say "alleged" in the lead, and include the "false allegations" in an attributed statement in the body text where more detail is given. The cited source, FactCheck.org, is editorializing their opinions - they even admitted to "unsubstantiated", referred to Trump attacking Biden, referred to Trump's impeachment but fail to say he was acquitted on those charges, and they stated "As we’ve written, there’s no evidence Hunter Biden was being investigated." There is no evidence that he was not being investigated, either. What we do know is that a subpoena was issued for the laptop and there are ongoing investigations. None of the Bidens have denied that the laptop belongs to Hunter, but the clencher for me is the statement in the cited article: We asked the Biden campaign about the authenticity of the emails and the claim that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden, and it referred us to Hunter Biden’s attorney. We will update this story if we get a response. That sent FactCheck.org's credibility right out the window. Until the allegations are proven false, we don't use garnishments in WikiVoice - it is noncompliant with NPOV. If/when the allegations have been proven false, then we can include it as allegations were proven false. We would not say "the FBI is investigating false allegations" or "the police charged an innocent suspect with false allegations of corruption", unless we are stating it retrospectively and such statements are supported by an innocent verdict. WP is not a court. We can say, "arrested a suspect charged with corruption" but we do not assume media's position in WikiVoice since it is an opinion not a statement of fact. We use media for verifiability, but we don't mirror media's opinion. Present only the facts from a NPOV - separate the wheat from the chaff. Atsme 💬 📧 12:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Is your argument REALLY "well prove he isn't being investigated or he's guilty"??? That would be an outrageous violation of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. IHateAccounts (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Atsme: your issue seems to be about a particular source, but what about the other 7 sources cited there? They may not be the best collection of sources possible, but there's a clear weight of the RS on this – did you see the large collection of sources I gathered a little further up this conversation? Also, the ongoing investigation is not about Joe Biden acting corruptly in Ukraine and it would be very misleading to include this in the lead. It's irrelevant and doesn't bring the falsity of the conspiracy into question. NBC/CNN have reported that it's an investigation into foreign interference, while Fox News, in its characteristically disingenuous way, has tried to link it to a money laundering probe, while reluctantly acknowledging there's no basis to link this probe with Hunter Biden. Even the partisan non-RS sources aren't saying the investigation is related to Joe Biden or him acting improperly. We'd be doing Fox's job for them by presenting it in a way that it appeared to challenge the weight of sources describing the conspiracy as false. Jr8825 • Talk 16:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Jr8825 - in response to your ping, I understand your perspective, but the other 7 sources are pack journalism, or echo chamber, whichever you prefer. We have to be cautious about today's political media because they tend to publish "opinion journalism" which is void of objectivity, but it's great for clickbait. Media can and does effect political campaigns but long story short, in this case, the media doesn't know anything for certain about what the FBI is investigating or if there is money laundering or any other wrong-doing involved, if any. According to CNN, we are now aware that the FBI "had 'nothing to add' to comments this week by the Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe" relative to Russian disinformation efforts. It's possible that there was some influence peddling by Hunter Biden but we don't know for certain, and we certainly don't know the veracity of the allegations against the Bidens so we cannot say in WikiVoice that the allegations are either true or false; it's just that simple. Until we know for certain, it's all just speculation. We include only the material facts; i.e., there are allegations, and we provide a pragmatic NPOV description of those allegations for our readers. Let the readers decide for themselves. See To say it in WikiVoice, or not??, and another good read is Lumen. Atsme 💬 📧 18:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

the media doesn't know anything for certain about what the FBI is investigating or if there is money laundering or any other wrong-doing involved

Fox News: “Laptop connected to Hunter Biden linked to FBI money laundering probe... It is unclear, at this point, whether the investigation is ongoing or if it was directly related to Hunter Biden”

USA Today: “Rudy Giuliani turns over alleged Hunter Biden laptop to authorities in Delaware”

WSJ: “Federal Subpoenas Seek Information on Giuliani’s Consulting Business...federal investigation into possible money laundering”

WSJ: “Federal Prosecutors Scrutinize Rudy Giuliani’s Ukraine Business Dealings, Finances”

WSJ: “Two Giuliani Associates Who Helped Him on Ukraine Charged With Campaign-Finance Violations... Prosecutors say Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman were part of a conspiracy to funnel foreign money into U.S. elections”

soibangla (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Remove Different sources offer conflicting reports about the matter, so it’s not Wikipedia’s job to tell readers what to believe. Greenknight dv (talk) 06:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia's job to tell readers what reliable sources say. Which reliable sources conflict with our description? We don't present the New York Post, OANN, Breitbart, etc. as having the same weight, or journalistic integrity, as respected mainstream publications. NonReproBlue (talk) 07:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Remove. That word is a conspicuous sign of editorialization (and not the only one by the way. this article looks like democratic propaganda). - Daveout(talk) 07:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I rather doubt that Democratic propaganda would stand up for the integrity of the Wall Street Journal news desk. XOR'easter (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• Remove Any such allegation is only a tiny part of the material covered in this article.North8000 (talk) 11:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• Remove as the investigation isn't complete.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• Keep As per The New York Times, which is a realiable source at WP:RS/P, which has this to say: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/18/business/media/new-york-post-hunter-biden.html Samboy (talk) 05:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

It's important to understand that even if the purported emails were real (which is not at all certain, since the evidence points extremely strongly to a Russian disinformation operation coordinated with Giuliani), the claim would still be false and debunked.

All this was explored in excruciating detail during the impeachment hearings. The facts are clear:

• Viktor Shokin was corrupt. The first bipartisan motion to remove him was filed shortly after his appointment, and when he was finally removed by an overwhelming majority vote of the Ukrainian Parliament in March 2016 his associates were found with bags of jewels and multiple passports of his.
• Viktor Shokin was not threatening to prosecute Burisma (unless perhaps he was making extortion threats, which is the clear implication in the events leading to Shokin's ouster [4]).
• Investigation of Burisma was dormant. Replacing Shokin made it more likely that the investigation would be reactivated, as indeed it was in 2019.
• The investigation of Burisma relates to events prior to 2014, when Hunter Biden was hired as an adviser on corporate ethics policies in what appears to have been an attempt to at least give the appearance of cleaning up the company's former image, as attention focused on Mykola Zlochevsky, its owner since 2011 and a crony of Yanukovych.
• Removing Shokin was official policy of the United States, the EU, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. He was not alone: the office of Prosecutor General had been held to be corrupt under numerous previous holders. The pressure was not to remove Shokin, specifically, but to remove corruption and hire instead a prosecutor who would enforce the law and deliver a business environment free from corruption, so that Western companies, who have to comply with laws forbidding foreign bribery, could to business.

Nothing about the timeline stacks up. Nothing about the emails stacks up. And the idea that an unencrypted MacBook belonging to a man who has been under intense scrutiny for years, whose father is the Presidential candidate for the Democratic Party, would be left at a strip mall computer shop rather than taken to an Apple store or simply trashed and rebuilt from iCloud is so very implausible that you have to wonder who would even think of it. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Not to mention, dropping a laptop to a guy who just so happens to be legally blind and can't identify who actually dropped it, who just so happens to somehow connect to Rudy Giuliani, who worked with Steve Bannon to pass a copy of the hard drive to the NYPost because the legally blind guy decided that he wanted to give Giuliani a copy in addition to supposedly handing it to the FBI? That's an awful lot of "coincidences" there. It has all the hallmarks of a plot to disseminate something fake while laundering the source... 2601:2C0:C300:B7:FC53:F984:3F15:4B4C (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Remove the word 'false' and add a second paragraph detailing the dubious nature of the emails. It looks very bad as it is, a conservative hitpiece waiting to happen. Pietrus69 (talk) 17:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

We shouldn't be worrying whether conservatives or liberals are unhappy, the important thing is we maintain a neutral point of view and reflect reliable sources, that in itself will do more for readers' trust. Jr8825 • Talk 15:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

How would hiring a sitting US vice president's son (and one in charge of Ukraine policy, on that - Obama's "point man") be "cleaning up" Burisma's image? It has all the appearance of a bribe, even if it's unclear what, if anything, Burisma received in return. 209.6.169.178 (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

He was hired to advise on corporate governance. He was qualified to do so, but doubtless would not have got the job if his name had been Smith. But he was hired at a time when Burisma (and several other Ukrainian businesses owned by oligarchs) were trying to clean up their image. US and European businesses have pretty strict rules about bribery, and foreign companies that engage in corrupt practices are on blacklists and greylists with the financial conduct authorities, with heightened scrutiny. It's charmingly naive to think that the SEC would be swayed by the name Biden on a company's prospectus, but this is a Ukrainian company, and they work in a world where connections are paramount - you can see how they could make an error there. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Corporate boards are rarely filled exclusively with operating professionals from the relevant industry. Biden's educational and professional histories are typical of tens of thousands of corporate board members worldwide. SPECIFICO talk 01:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Elijahandskip, I am concerned by the recent blog post you made. In it, you have a link to this discussion with an invitation to vote on this RfC, which I believe constitutes canvassing. I would ask that you remove the link until this RfC has concluded. For any of your readers coming here, please note that decisions are made through reaching consensus through policy-based arguments, not a simple tally of votes. – Anne drew 15:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Anne drew Andrew and Drew, this is inappropriate. We should probably bring this activity to the administrators noticeboard. Thanks for finding this. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the user was transparent and notified us about the blog post. But yeah, not appropriate. – Anne drew 15:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I have undone my post above about the blog. It wasn't canvassing but in the faith of notification to the users I took quotes from. Also I am not removing the link in the blog to the Rfc as I am in America and have free speech. If an admin on Wikipedia tells me to remove it, I will at that time. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Elijahandskip, I am an admin, and I'm telling you that you should remove it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

It's most important to remove or modify the blog post. Don't canvass and don't expose named editors. Keep on- and off-Wikipedia activities separate. This isn't actual doxing or harassment, but it sure gives me uneasy deja vu feelings. I hate the real world harassment and threats I get nearly every time my activities here are mentioned off-wiki. I'm sure Elijah doesn't intend for that to happen, but it does. -- Valjean (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I took your name out of the blog. If the other people I used quotes from ask, I will remove their names. I also amended the blog. I kept the link to the discussion, but I took out the reference for people to vote there. (Taking the link out won't do much other than delay people finding it. I won't mention about voting in the blog post. Hope that works.) Elijahandskip (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip: You're still paraphrasing another editor's words, off-wiki, to describe them as "shocking" and showing "complete bias", can you see how this is a problem? I encourage you to remove the link given the advice of the editors above. Jr8825 • Talk 17:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jr8825: the link to the Rfc was removed. Also the names of the editors I quotes was removed. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC) UTC)

Elijahandskip: I find your assertions of “LOGIC” and “liberal sources” to be...fascinating. Not to mention the dubious “consensus” you claimed to create this article in the first place, followed by an effort to canvas for a vote that evidently was not going your way. soibangla (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

For the second time...The blog wasn't to canvas. I made the blog to state my opinion. I only mentioned it to begin with only as an alert to the editors I had used quotes from. 18:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

LOL! soibangla (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I am only going to say free speech to that. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• Requesting a close on the section about the blog. Issues taken care of. (I hope...) Elijahandskip (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

As one of the quoted editors, this got an eyebrow raise from me, since I'm not sure how calling out the fact that RS across the political spectrum disavowed this reporting qualified as bias, but then I don't get LOGIC, apparently. I do think this is an alarming red flag regarding readiness to edit here, especially given the blog's implications about the editor's relative youth. Grandpallama (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

How old I am means nothing. On my user page, I have stated that I am a senior in High school. That has been up there for months. I also assumed the lead coordinator role of the Current events WikiProject back in April. Opinions are opinions, lets leave it at that and move on. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• To end discussion, I have deleted the post about Wikipedia from my blog. End discussion and we will move on. I need to work on the current event WikiProject...not be arguing about a stupid blog. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

New content at Russian interference article

The following content seems to be on-topic for this article, but it's poorly written, because, as I suspect, of a Chinese-to-English translation problem:

In 30 October 2020, the NBC news released an investigative report, claiming that the source of the information and the author are purely fictitious in Hunter Biden emails. The scandal seems to be fabricated by Apple Daily. NBC News pointed out that a self-identified Swiss security analyst named Martin Aspen, is a fabricated identity, and the Aspen's profile picture was created with an artificial intelligence face generator. The "Typhoon Investigation" for the source of the information is also a fake intelligence company, and the the logo for Typhoon Investigations was lifted from the Taiwan Fact-Checking Center. One of the original publishers of the document, Christopher Balding said that he participated in writing part of the document, and admitted that Aspen does not exist. Bard also stated that the document was commissioned by Apple Daily. Mark Simon, who was assistant of Apple Daily founder Jimmy Lai, is accused of being highly connected to the fraud case, he was resigned after the scandal was exposed.

Valjean (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I added something about this to Hunter Biden the other day, but it was removed for due weight concerns; see Talk:Hunter Biden#Martin Aspen. Since the trend seems to be to broaden the scope of this article at least slightly beyond the strict focus on Ukraine, it may be suitable here. XOR'easter (talk) 15:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I fully agree. The full scope of this smear campaign belongs here, hence the need for tweaking the title. -- Valjean (talk) 15:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Propose splitting the laptop scandal information into its own article

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.

---

Propose split, under the reasoning that material involved also deals with corruption allegations related to China, not Ukraine. -- Kendrick7^talk 14:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Kendrick7, for now this is more suited at #RfC: Article scope Asartea ^{Trick | Treat} 14:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, good point. Someone really should have tagged the article that there was a scope discussion ongoing. Rescoping this would also solve the problem, I suppose, although I think there's enough here to stand as it's own article just about the Burisma stuff. -- Kendrick7^talk 14:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

That proposal certainly LOOKS like it would be a WP:POVFORK problem. IHateAccounts (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

How so? Splits are a pretty normal thing to do per WP:SS. -- Kendrick7^talk 14:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Summary_style#When_to_avoid_splits IHateAccounts (talk) 14:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

By my rough count, there are currently 30 references dealing with the non-laptop Burisma stuff, and there are 45 refs dealing with just the laptop and related fall out. Surely, both articles on their own would pass WP:GNG, if that's what you are getting at. -- Kendrick7^talk 15:00, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I concur with IHateAccounts, this would result in a redundant/conflicting fork, and WP:SS isn't relevant as there's no issue with prose size here. Also, @Kendrick7: the term "scandal" has been discussed elsewhere on this talk page and a number of editors expressed their view that it's a loaded, non-neutral term. As the claims around Hunter Biden's alleged laptop are either fringe or bordering on fringe, I don't think it's possible to equivocally say it would pass GNG, and I think it would almost certainly run afoul of DUE/VALID. Jr8825 • Talk 15:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, as Asartea has pointed out, I think your concerns will be addressed by the scope RfC. Jr8825 • Talk 15:31, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support Split Reaper7 (talk) 23:39, 1 November 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.

Second laptop

OMG! You can't make this stuff up. The York Post (not a source we can use) is alleging that "A second laptop belonging to Hunter Biden was taken by the feds back in February.

"The computer was found in the Massachusetts offices of celebrity psychiatrist Dr. Keith Ablow during a raid and seized by Drug Enforcement Administration agents, according to a new report from NBC." (NBC is a source we can use.) So Hunter Biden has a habit of leaving laptops in different places? Really? Can't these people get more creative and realistic? -- Valjean (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Is this the source you are on about? [5] -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

It looks like New York Post took down their link and now redirected it to a URL talking about ducks. That's hilarious. https://nypost.com/2014/01/09/slain-slumlords-business-partner-ducks-family-wedding-to-stay-hidden/new/ IHateAccounts (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I guess this is the second laptop that Derkach claimed to have a fortnight ago? [6]

re: "you can't make this stuff up": well, someone is. Jr8825 • Talk 15:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The Daily Beast had a preview of this story on the 25th [7]. Ablow, per our own article about him, is a Fox News pundit whose medical license was suspended for sexual misconduct with patients. At this point, who doesn't have a Hunter Biden laptop? XOR'easter (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Hunter? PackMecEng (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Valjean, clearly you can make this stuff up, as we see fromt he determination of certain right-wing media to do so. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

From a RS we have mention of a "second laptop" (maybe this is a third?). This one is from Derkach, an actual Russian intelligence agent for over a decade: Rudy’s ‘Russian Agent’ Pal Teases ‘Second Laptop’ With Hunter Biden Kompromat.

"Now, with Derkach jumping in with claims of a “second laptop,” that would mean private computer contents allegedly connected to Hunter Biden have somehow found their way into the hands of three separate parties: A media empire controlled by a Chinese billionaire who’s tight with Steve Bannon; a random Delaware shop owner who is outspoken in his support of Trump; and Derkach, a Ukrainian conspiracy theory peddler who studied at Moscow’s FSB academy."

So the Russians hacked Burisma, supposedly stole emails, shopped them around in Ukraine for a long time, and now they find ways to push them out as if they are on multiple laptops that Hunter Biden just happens to forget in different places? This has all the earmarks of shoddy work by people like Giuliani, Bannon, etc. They can't even create a believable conspiracy theory. -- Valjean (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

And yet there are how many people constantly demanding the wikipedia articles "cover" this total BS. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe 50 out of 6 billion humans? Not many. SPECIFICO talk 16:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Trump’s Campaign Backs Off Hunter Biden Attacks

Tucker Carlson has backed off, and now the Trump campaign does it too. If they had evidence for their charges, they wouldn't do this.

• Tucker Carlson Suddenly Says It’s Time to Leave Hunter Biden Alone
• Trump’s Campaign Backs Off Hunter Biden Attacks
• Senator Ron Johnson joins Ross Kaminsky to discus the New York Post Hunter Biden laptop story. I am not proposing we use this video, but the text in the RS which quotes it can be used. It's quoted in the story immediately above this bullet: "Part of the problem for the Trump reelect is that, for all the material that’s been released from Hunter Biden’s computers, none of it has actually implicated his father in any corrupt dealings. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), who is leading a Senate Republican investigation into the Bidens, conceded as much during a radio interview on Monday.

  "Asked whether he’s seen “any evidence...proving that Joe Biden made any money off of his son’s foreign entanglements,” Johnson admitted that he had not. “No, I don’t have hard proof that Joe Biden profited,” he said. “But I do have proof he lied boldfaced about never talking to his son Hunter in terms of overseas businesses.”"

I'm not sure how to include this, but it's pretty significant when an attacker decides to stop doing it. -- Valjean (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, even when Carlson and Bob* were in full bloom, their stories related to 2017, when Joe was out of office. SPECIFICO talk 15:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Valjean, and how does this one purported lie compare to the 22,000 lies and counting told by Trump? Asking for 225,000 friends... Guy (help! - typo?) 14:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

On Carlson's part that's some world-class moving the goalposts going on... and he STILL can't prove the new thing he's claiming he has proof of. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

If they really had anything, they'd use it. So far they have one email, some drug picture(s), and apparently some type of sexy home video content, all about Hunter, and nothing about misdeeds by Joe Biden, and he's the candidate. Hunter comes off as a man with problems, and that is no secret, so this doesn't even come as a surprise to anyone, much less an "October surprise". Joe has defended his son, admitting he has had drug problems, and that he stands by his much loved-son in his battles with addiction, so Joe comes off as a loving father who is not lying about his son having the exact same problems as so many celebrities. That shows Joe as the good guy, the kind one would want in the WH.

All this just creates a Streisand effect for Trump and the GOP by making Joe Biden look good. So yes, their October surprise backfired, so it makes sense they would try to distance themselves from it, but it's too late; the cat is out of the bag; myriad RS have now documented Trump's bungled and embarrassing attempt to smear a good man, and our mandate at Wikipedia (to document "the sum of all human knowledge") requires that we document what RS have said. We are not allowed to neuter or censor this. -- Valjean (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Aaron Parnas book

Recent Law School Graduate, Who Happens To Be Son Of Lev Parnas, Writes Tell-All Book About Trump-Ukraine Scandal. He's got quite the story to tell after witnessing many of the meetings that led to Trump's impeachment.

"It was clear to me that everything the Mayor and my father did through the summer months of 2019 related to Ukraine and the Bidens was done at the direction and with the consent of President Trump."

Valjean (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like it will be mostly hearsay. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Choose a more neutral title?

Hi editors,

I feel like calling the news incidence a "conspiracy theory" is a pretty strong word with preference in one-side's narrative, and calling them "scandal" is favoring the opposite side. I wonder if there are other editors who also feel the page needs a more neutral title. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 22:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Xinbenlv: This has been done to death. It's a conspiracy theory. See the FAQ at the top of the page. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Then at least call the article "Joe-Biden-Ukraine-corruption conspiracy theory". The current title is very ambiguous and could mean any of a number of conspiracy theories, some of which involve Joe Biden, some of which only involve Hunter Biden. --Distelfinck (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The problem there is that inevitably, the people pushing the conspiracy theory will move the goalposts. "Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth"... we're seeing this now in action, the attempt by the NY Post tabloid, Bannon & Giuliani landed with a sound reminiscent of a poo hitting the bottom of the outhouse tank, so now they're trying "but what about china" with more nonsense that isn't substantiated in the slightest. At this point the goalposts may as well be on teflon furniture sliders. IHateAccounts

Distelfinck, that is to fall for the fallacy of guilt by association, which of course is the entire point of this farrago. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

(talk) 23:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: There are other sources that are considered RS per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources claiming it e.g. WSJ report, WashingtonPost report at least an active contested incident. I'd suggest something like "speculation / allegation" / "investigation". xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 23:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Xinbenlv: If you're going to misrepresent sources this is not going to be a good discussion.

1. Your Wall Street Journal link starts out "corporate records reviewed by The Wall Street Journal show no role for Joe Biden".
2. The Washington Post article you linked, compared the contents of the (apparently false/misleading) column by right-wing pundit Kimberley Strassel to the actual news coverage, which showed that her column was false and misleading: "“The venture . . . never received proposed funds from the Chinese company or completed any deals, according to people familiar with the matter,” Journal reporters Andrew Duehren and James Areddy wrote. “Corporate records reviewed by the Wall Street Journal show no role for Joe Biden.” The reporters also quoted another partner in the venture, James Gilliar, who said he was “unaware of any involvement at anytime of the former vice president.”"

Now, who are you saying claims it, and which "it", precisely, are you referring to? IHateAccounts (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Also @Xinbenlv:, what do you mean by "the news incidence"? Do you mean the various non-reliable sources desperately trying to make this into a "news story"? Or do you mean something else? IHateAccounts (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Xinbenlv: In your opening statement, you said: I feel like calling the news incidence a "conspiracy theory" is a pretty strong word. Where in the article do we actually do that? --Distelfinck (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

There's a defined means to request page moves. Far as I can tell anybody who wishes can put the proper template on this page to start that. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hyperbolick: It was already requested just last week Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory/Archive 1#Requested move 15 October 2020. It closed with a Wikipedia:Snowball clause result of NO. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Last week's was whether conspiracy theory should be changed, not whether to add Joe. It's a fair question for a new request. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I see two directions we could go with a new article title: Either make the title more specific (add "Joe", etc). Or make the title broader ("Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theories"). Which direction would you guys prefer? --Distelfinck (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Giuliani's Biden conspiracy theory SPECIFICO talk 12:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Theories plural would probably be fine. As much as I like SPECIFICO's suggestion, far more right-wing pundits and conspiracy theorists have been involved in purveying this utter nonsense and adding to it, moving the goalposts or rewriting it every time something is proven false. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I would support "theories", but I'm not sure I see why we would adjust the title to specify Joe Biden. The conspiracy theories involve both Joe and Hunter Biden, and furthermore it fits the convention at Trump–Ukraine scandal. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I suspect that they want to specify "Joe Biden" because if they can get that change, plus change the article to "allegations", they can post links that nobody will read and portray the article title as supporting their false claims of nefarious activity. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

but wouldn’t it be Joe and Hunter Biden Ukraine conspiracy theory anyway? Not as if we’re distinguishing from something not invoking the name of the son. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with xinbenlv. Calling it a "conspiracy theory" is unduly biased at this juncture. It's not the best work we Wikipedia editors can do. MainePatriot (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose I oppose changing the title as per The New York Times, a reliable source at WP:RS/P. See https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/18/business/media/new-york-post-hunter-biden.html Samboy (talk) 05:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

A lot has been newly reported since 10/18 however. SPECIFICO talk 23:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose changing the title on the grounds of neutrality. As I wrote in the focus section below, logically, theories - including conspiracy theories - may ultimately be proved correct, despite the connotations of the phrase.ElGazWellwood (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald Article on Hunter-Biden Emails

So there's a new article by Glenn Greenwald who has quit from the Intercept, disputing that the emails are debunked, instead saying there is an ongoing media cabal attempting to silence facts and get Biden elected.

Article: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-biden-censored 185.124.28.198 (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

A self-published post of an article that a reliable source refused to publish is not a reliable source. If you're hoping to include Greenwald's resignation and accusations against The Intercept as a topic in this article, there are some reliable sources, but I'm not sure this is the article for it (at least not at any length). But if you want to use the article itself as a RS, we cannot—in fact, The Intercept has explicitly said that Greenwald balked after being "asked to support his claims and innuendo about corrupt actions by Joe Biden with evidence". GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare is correct. Greenwald leaving The Intercept because he refused editorial oversight makes his self-published post almost the definition of unsuitable for a BLP. XOR'easter (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

This is not a biographic article per se, but yes, the information needs to be very sober. Some will hold that certain other people are currently smeared by Wikipedia's claim that this is a "conspiracy theory" (which is why the "conspiracy theory" claim is unsuitable for the current scope of the article and must be changed). As for rules, please refer to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, which "describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow". It seems that a mention of the uncontroversial essence of Greenwald's opinion piece, which can easily be verified to have been written by Greenwald, will provide some broader context and therefore improve the article. Greenwald also seems to comment on the media coverage, not on individuals. And, to make it clear, I suggest that we could make the objective observation that a world-famous journalist has written something related to the topic, not that we should embrace and celebrate his comments. Please remember that Wikipedia was never intended to be a tool for amplifying the views of the news media and, as a consequence, suppressing criticism of said media. That was not, and is not, the intention of the policies you mention. I will not edit the article once again, though, so someone else will have to write it. Narssarssuaq (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I would argue that Wikipedia's policies actually explicitly lay out that the primary intention of said policies are in fact amplifying the views of reliable sources, a classification to which actual news media belongs. Disgruntled former employees of said news organizations, not so much. The Intercept has earned its stripes when it comes to its reputation for reliability, and Greenwald's expulsion is a good example of how they manage to maintain that reputation. When a journalist is forced out of a reliable publication due to concerns over his reliability, we should be extra careful to not amplify that journalist's fringe opinions. Are his opinions worth briefly summarizing on his page? Sure. Should they be placed into other articles so that he gets the same amount of text and exposure as he would have had when he was actually linked to a reliable source? Absolutely not. NonReproBlue (talk) 05:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Amen to that! His career is a sad story. He used to be good. -- Valjean (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Same old same old. Reliable sources will not report any of this as fact. Unreliable sources will, and then reliable sources report on the fact that it's bollocks. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's the pattern. It's also the proscribed route we are supposed to follow when documenting those parts of the "sum of ALL human knowledge" that are bollocks. We are supposed to try to include them at Wikipedia, and that's how. If secondary RS cover nonsense, then it might be eligible for mention here. If not, it doesn't have enough due weight for mention. -- Valjean (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

WaPo coverage of how Glenn Greenwald loses job over this smear operation:

• Glenn Greenwald resigns from the Intercept following dispute over Biden story. While the crusading journalist claimed censorship, his former editors accused him of trying to publish unsupported innuendo.
  • "Apparently, Glenn Greenwald was colluding with Tucker Carlson to help Trump by smearing Joe Biden — and editors at The Intercept told him to fuck off."[8]

Valjean (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

So an example of he said, they said. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

According to The Intercept editor Betsy Klein, "The narrative he presents about his departure is teeming with distortions and inaccuracies—all of them designed to make him appear a victim, rather than a grown person throwing a tantrum. It would take too long to point them all out here, but we intend to correct the record in time. For now, it is important to make clear that our goal in editing his work was to ensure that it would be accurate and fair. While he accuses us of political bias, it was he who was attempting to recycle a political campaign’s—the Trump campaign’s—dubious claims and launder them as journalism." ([9]) They don't mince words at The Intercept, it would seem... GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I hope this will save us from the perennial attempts to use Greenwald and his reporting as sources for politics-related articles. SPECIFICO talk 23:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Daveout: While the sources were better in your edit, there are still major NPOV issues with that text. We can't present Greenwald's allegations uncritically without mentioning that it is really only Greenwald who appears to believe his interpretation of what happened. Furthermore, I'm still unconvinced the incident is worth even mentioning here. Maybe at Glenn Greenwald or The Intercept. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

his claims weren't "uncritically" reproduced here. there's the words "claims" and "allegedly" in the text. plenty of news media published this story, how is it irrelevant? and it is also directly related to this article! - Daveout(talk) 23:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

It is uncritical to present one side (Greenwald's) of a dispute without describing the other side's position, when all RS I've seen have included substantial coverage of The Intercept's rebuttal as well as some mention of Greenwald's own somewhat recent shift towards right-wingish talking points about mainstream media and "Russiagate" coverage. Yes, plenty of news media have published the story—that doesn't necessarily make it noteworthy to this article, perhaps unless there is some RS that finds legitimacy in Greenwald's accusations. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I share GorillaWarfare's concern that this incident might be below the threshold of significance for mentioning here. The reporting I have seen on it seems to be mostly quoting public statements with only a little analysis, background, or context. Anyone who follows Journalist Twitter could have written the Daily Beast item linked above, for example. XOR'easter (talk) 03:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Glenn is the lead-off guest on Tucker Carlson's show right now. So there's that. soibangla (talk) 00:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• And the response: [10]. Well, that about wraps it up for Glenn Greenwald. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Having read Greenwalds full piece I can see why The Intercept pulled it. The term "meandering" springs to mind. If someone wrote it on wikipedia you'd be giving it the big OR and SYNTH heave-ho. Koncorde (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

    Koncorde, well yes. I think that the fundamental problem here is that the conservative media are working to an electoral deadline, not maturity of the sources. A responsible editor would have kept this under their hat and carried on digging until the kinda-sorta-maybe innuendo was resolved into something more definite - but that would take time. It's obvious that once proper journalistic resources are mobilised, genuine facts can be established, as we've seen in news reports from the WSJ and other heavyweights, but these are consistently at odds with editorials and opinion pieces.

    It's not even clear to me what the point of this story is supposed to be. Hunter Biden engaged in influence peddling so vote for the guy who gave senior jobs to his family and whose adult children are flying the world with US taxpayer protection drumming up business for his personal company? It seems much more designed to just give conservatives talking points to resist the obvious in internet comment threads in stories reporting on Trump's taxes and other shadiness. Even the outrage here is well below the level you'd expect if this was genuinely intended to move the noodle.

    Also, of course, they keep scoring own goals. "But China!" "Yeah, about that...". Guy (help! - typo?) 08:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)a

    • There's a disturbing picture emerging tonight of the terrifying presence always rumoured to lurk beneath the sidewalks of Donald Trump's America, as shoddy upkeep gives way to an innocent civilian's 15-foot plunge into a ravine of grim reality and stark raving rats. Global News now projects Leonard Shoulders, 33, will have "nightmare fuel to last him a lifetime", likely small consolation for a family man just trying to stand by...in Donald Trump's America. Guy. Koncorde. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

This is clearly an inappropriate summary (it takes Greenwald's portrayal of events as fact, when most reliable sources are extremely skeptical.) "Desire to censor" in particular (without attribution, even!) is extremely WP:POV wording - most sources say that his article simply failed verification and was not up to the Intercept's editorial standards. It's also inappropriate to focus so heavily on even attributed statements by Greenwald without giving further context; RSes covering it are not reporting his opinions on the subject so uncritically. --Aquillion (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

That is a shocking addition. At most the Greenwald article gets "on 29th October Greenwald resigned in protest from The Intercept after it was alleged by editors he tried to publish an article containing unfounded allegations about Joe Biden. Greenwald declared he was being censored which was denied by The Intercept in an official statement." And I still don't think that is really of any weight here until there is significant coverage to suggest it should be. Koncorde (talk) 09:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• A new section on Greenwald has been added to the article. I'm pinging Czar to make them aware that this discussion is still ongoing. I haven't been involved in this conversation so don't know whether there's a consensus here or not. Jr8825 • Talk 20:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The Daily Beast has some actual reporting (not just quoting public statements): Tani, Maxwell (October 31, 2020). "Intercept Staffers Roll Their Eyes Over Glenn Greenwald's Censorship Claim". The Daily Beast. Retrieved October 31, 2020. It seems that Greenwald spent years souring his relationships with Intercept staff, some of whom went so far as to call his departure a publicity stunt. I remain unconvinced that it's worth writing about in this article; the more that's said about it, the less it appears to be about the Hunter Biden allegations specifically. XOR'easter (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I reverted the addition since the discussion is still ongoing here and it doesn't look like a consensus has emerged. I don't object absolutely or unconditionally to addressing the incident here, but I'm still leaning against finding it sufficiently relevant. Moreover, while I think the phrasing of this addition is an improvement upon earlier suggestions, language like saying that Greenwald blamed its editors for violating his editorial freedom by censoring his article related to Hunter Biden's laptop still takes Greenwald's own take as fact. He got editorial notes and then declared that they constituted censorship. Per the Daily Beast report linked above,

Greenwald initially agreed with Reed to have his Hunter Biden column edited. He and Reed had discussions about the piece on the phone and via Slack, and the piece was filed to Maass, a veteran chronicler of global conflict who was the regular editor for Greenwald’s more in-depth reported pieces. Maass was taken aback when after seeming to at first simply disagree with edits, Greenwald later declared the piece was being censored and suppressed.

“Glenn’s response that evening was not surprising, but it was constructive,” Maass said of Greenwald’s initial email after receiving edits, which did not include any accusations of censorship. “He was engaged in the process. The note that he sent Wednesday morning—that was him blowing up the process. And that was really surprising given when he said Tuesday evening.”

So, I don't think we've yet arrived at a good description, even if the incident merits mention here. XOR'easter (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Given the volume of reporting on Greenwald's departure and the vociferousness of his contention, I think this warrants a brief, proportionate mention (phrase/attribute however you want) to the extent that Greenwald cried foul and everyone else refuted him. As for it being less about the laptop allegations, specifically, this article's core is the conspiracy theories, not allegations. For readers, our explanatory focus is how the conspiracy theory is playing out. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 20:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Czar: There was a lot of dust kicked up, but (IMO) most of the reporting has been rather superficial. Echoing public statements isn't really the kind of in-depth coverage that implies the incident is a significant part of the overall story. The New York Magazine and Daily Beast items are closer to what I'd like to see, and they have the kind of legwork that makes arguing for inclusion easier. But I'll wait for someone else to chime in. XOR'easter (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

It occurs to me that all this is irrelevant. We deal with each article on its own, and if there are allegations of political saignificance reported in news sources, we have to cover them--regardless of what we may personally think of their accuracy. We report what is said, and the reader will judge. DGG ( talk ) 10:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The news is about Greenwald, and very little about the content - which is largely refried beans. Trying to parse it as being relevant beyond "Glenn Greenwald quit his job because his editors believed he was repeating unsubstantiated talking points and conspiracy theories" is problematic as it lends weight to what has been already plainly contradicted by journalists that haven't yet rage quit their jobs because they're stopped from publishing unsubstantiated talking points and conspiracy theories. Koncorde (talk) 13:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

DGG is right. We have a reactions section, which can logically include this "consequence". Serious journalists have treated this with caution, but Greenwald went whole hog in for pushing unconfirmed smears (we should say that, but with more neutral wording, as the POV of the other journalists, and not Greenwald, gets more due weight), and he paid a price. That is certainly worth reporting without giving him a bully pulpit here (IOW we don't give his defensive words much weight). 1-2 sentences and no more. -- Valjean (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Koncorde, we write articles using weight proportional to what is published, not to what we think of the material, or what we imagine its significance to be. This is the very basis of WP:NPOV. DGG ( talk ) 17:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

You say that like I made some argument otherwise? If I search for stuff about the Biden conspiracy theory is Glens unpublished article of paramount importance? No. Is his resignation of paramount importance to this article? No. Does he introduce anything in his unpublished article that any other reliable source is pointing at and saying "wow, dudes got a point"? No. Is the focus of every RS on how he has made an arse of himself? Yes. Does Greenwald making an arse of himself warrant inclusion in this article? Not particularly. I mean, I guess we could mention the fact he resigned and made an arse of himself but to what end? Koncorde (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a particularly strong opinion on this, and wouldn't particularly mind if this was included. However, I do share Koncorde's view that it's not significant. I think that there a quite a few sections of this article which run afoul of WP:NOTNEWS, and in my view this would also. Once the dust has settled, will Greenwald have any lasting significance to readers in a year's time, reading this article to learn about the conspiracy theory/smear campaign against the Bidens ahead of the 2020 election? Per NOTNEWS, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". Jr8825 • Talk 20:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

DKIM email verification

Apparently one email was verified in https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/hunter-dkim by security expert Robert Graham, there seem to be some newspapers reporting on it as well. 62.1.144.91 (talk) 06:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources that support this statement Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 14:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

If we can find RS to confirm this, they can and should be used, but the broader context should not be forgotten, and Graham provides it:

"Remember that while the email is validated, the context isn't. It's possible this reflects a secret meeting to conspire with Vice President Biden. Or, it's possible the guy attended one of the many Washington D.C. social functions whereby people shake hands with politicians and exchange pleasantries. As Richelieu is claimed to have said "Give me six words by the most honest of men and I'll find something to hang him by". Give me an email dump from the most honest of persons, and I'll pull one out of context to hang them in the court of social media."

The whole purpose of this smear, true or false, is embodied in that last sentence. -- Valjean (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Asartea, who TF is "Robert Graham" anyway? Guy (help! - typo?) 18:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

JzG, Either a luxury clothes designer or a sculptor according to Google. Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 18:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

But speaking nonjokingly someone who has no presence outside github and github related stuff apparently ([11]) Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 19:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Asartea This guy: https://www.rsaconference.com/experts/robert-graham one of his projects was on hackernews recently https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24728123 and his blog posts have been there a few times too https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=erratasec.com. He was mentioned by schneier once: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/07/attorney_genera_1.html - This is his blog by the way: https://blog.erratasec.com/ he has been intervewed a few times as well: https://blog.rapid7.com/2019/10/15/podcast-blackice-creator-rob-graham-turns-security-textbook-author/ and https://dale-peterson.com/2019/02/27/an-interview-with-robert-graham/ he was also mentioned by the register in https://www.theregister.com/2001/06/30/network_ice_cto_responds/. Considering all that I would say that he certainly does have presence outside github. Regardless though does it really matter who he is if his findings can be independently verified by anyone? 62.1.144.91 (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

If they can be independently verified by anyone, then journalists and other commentators will undoubtedly do so in due time—and the journalists will report on whether it actually has any relevance, and we'll have something better than an appeal to authority of a guy who doesn't seem to have a very comprehensive handle on all the ways something of this sort could be faked (see my comment below.) --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 19:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I did not appeal to authority in this thread, not only is this accusation unnecessarily rude but it is also plainly false. I would like to request that you please retract that statement. I contest that anyone being able to verify a certain piece of information implies that journalists will eventually post about it, especially when the topic is technical in nature. We were lucky this time however, after all as you said yourself in your post bellow journalists did end up writing an article about it. 62.1.144.91 (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

So come back when they do. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Re-read what I said please. I already said that they did. 62.1.144.91 (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

But you forgot to provide any links to them doing so. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I did not see any point in doing so when user:Struthious Bandersnatch already posted them. BTW, weren't you supposed to report me for sock-puppetry or was this an intimidation tactic? 62.1.144.91 (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

That would of course only be intimidating if you're actually a WP:SOCK... --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 05:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

IP: It would be the journalists and the not-so-journalistic media personalities who I was referring to as appealing to authority, because rather than directly confirm the findings [that] can be independently verified by anyone themselves or through a tech journalist colleague they decided to just quote this Graham guy or rest their reporting solely on his statements. Oops. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 21:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

His name pops up in hundreds of news articles over the years. He founded a security firm and is a Biden supporter. --Distelfinck (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

This was discussed at some length in Talk:Hunter Biden § Conspiracy Theories. The Daily Caller article provided as a RS there (Archived 2020-10-30 at the Wayback Machine) claims Graham said the only way the email could have been faked is if someone hacked into Google’s servers, found the private key and used it to reverse engineer the email’s DKIM signature but it's trivially obvious that anyone at Google with access to the private key could also have faked the email, so beyond the questionable sourcing in general that seems like a rather glaring error to me and a self-indictment of this Graham guy's “cybersecurity expert” street cred. And there's also the general involvement of Trump “cyber czar” Giuliani, who Sacha Baron-Cohen probably has on tape doing who-knows-what with computers. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 19:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

It is certainly possible that someone could hack google or that a rogue employee conspired with trump to leak the key but it still is a conspiracy theory. A solution would be however to simply talk objectively and mention that as long as the private key wasn't leaked (to a rogue employee, a hacker, etc) and as long as google is not a secret trump supporter then we can be sure that the email is authentic. As for your attack on Robert I would say that it is unjustified. His explanation at https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/hunter-dkim/blob/main/README.md#so-the-email-is-real-but-the-account-could-be-fake-by-someone-claiming-to-be-pozharskyi "Like the theory of them hacking into GMail to obtain the private-key, if the conspiracy was this sophisticated, they could do better emails. This one is lame." can be also applied for the case of a rogue employee. I presume that you disagree with it which is fine but it is not a reason to attack his credentials as a security expert.

To be honest I would consider the leak of gmail's private DKIM key as a more newsworthy and important issue. 62.1.144.91 (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Great job answering an objection no one here made by cutting and pasting from GitHub, I guess? Nothing you say above resuscitates Graham's credibility after overlooking something so obvious. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 21:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Chill please, there is no need to be so toxic. If I indeed answered something that nobody objected to then please assume incompetence rather than malice. Anyway, the quote which I copy-pasted from github (is this so weird by the way? he posted something there and so I am quoting him. It is not that different from your own use of quotes in this very section) was meant to address your concern regarding "anyone at Google with access to the private key" being able to fake the email, why do you think that I am strawmanning? 62.1.144.91 (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah... that's the whole point. Based on that erroneous statement I'm assuming that Graham is incompetent, malicious is an entirely separate question.

If you and Graham are saying something like "the content of the email is super lame, ergo no one would ever try to fake it" in this most recent quote, not only is that also poor logic that is further self-condemnation on both of you, but valid or not as a supposition it has nothing to do with whether Graham overlooking the possibility that it's trivially obvious that anyone at Google with access to the private key could also have faked the email while categorically laying out the only way the email could have been faked is indicative of incompetence in his supposed specific realm of expertise.

Again, if it's really true that anyone can reproduce his results and see the same significance in them as him then so be it: let a journalist reproduce them and report on their relevance in a reliable source. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 05:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Struthious Bandersnatch, more to the point, so what? Maybe this one email was genuine. It contains no obviously incriminating content. Maybe the claim is that Joe Biden lied about talking to Hunter about work, in which case, fine, your choice is now between the guy who told one lie and the guy who told 22,000 and counting. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Good point, I'd meant to imply this by saying journalists will report on whether it actually has any relevance above. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 21:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Struthious Bandersnatch Google sure have the know-how to e.g. make it necessary to have 10 people provide their passwords before the door with the servers containing the private keys opens. And to have logs saying who entered the room and security cameras. --Distelfinck (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Distelfinck: Yes... all of that makes it more glaring that Graham didn't investigate that and even excluded the possibility, logically, in his TDC-reported statement above. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 21:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

JzG, Please stay on topic. I did not make this section to talk about which candidate is more honest. 62.1.144.91 (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Newsflash: You do not get to control what happens in a thread just because you started it. You also don't get to lecture people on how Wikipedia works when Special:Contributions/62.1.128.0/17 shows a close to 100% probability that you are a registered editor logged out to discuss a controversial topic, which is not permitted per WP:SOCK. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I will make sure to talk about balkan dances next time you make any topic regarding US politics then. If you suspect me of sockpuppeting then feel free to report me. 62.1.144.91 (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Choice? What do you mean by choice, Guy? Atsme 💬 📧 20:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. There are none that matter at this point. All who have been persuadable on some point have now either been persuaded, or not. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Everybody remember NOTFORUM. The issue of Hunter Biden's emails is not tied to the presidential election. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, not true. Everything about the incident shows the exact opposite: it's a failed attempt to smear Joe Biden as an election spoiler. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: I was also going to say this. The whole problem is that the emails are tied to the presidential election. The RS say that the conspiracy theories and allegations have been spread to undermine the Biden campaign. If you were inclined to believe the theories and disbelieve the newspapers/journalists on this, the emails would be relevant as a presidential candidate is supposedly associated with them. Jr8825 • Talk 21:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I know very well that this was the Derkach/Giuliani attempt to influence the election. But, it's Election Day, and the Hunter Biden issue remains, separate from the election, as any investigation continues. My point is to stay on topic. This thread is about the email verification. It's not about the election. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, and, on point, in the absence of RS, we ignore this. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Reading WP:RS and WP:V it seems that even if there weren't any journalists reporting on it (which there are) it would still be acceptable as it is published "by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". In addition I consider it a huge positive as it explains how you can independently validate the results yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.144.91 (talk) 23:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

First, it's still not established that he's a "subject-matter expert", second, the idea that one email might have been verified fails the WP:UNDUE challenge since events like the 2017 Macron e-mail leaks showed that nefarious individuals are more than capable of salting fraudulent and forged materials in alongside legitimate, but stolen, materials to cause problems. If this has relevance, or when there is actual verification of something that matters, then the Wikipedia:Reliable sources will be available to reflect that in the article. Trying to shove nonsense 100% connected to politics into an article on the day of an election is ridiculous. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2020

Change presidential nominee to president-elect Joe Biden. Roid'internaute (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done: I removed "2020 presidential nominee" entirely, since all of the alleged activity occurred while Biden was VP, not while he was a nominee (or president-elect, or president), making the modifier misleading as to the timeline. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Hares Youssef

Paywalled, but probably of use:

• Rana, Manveen (November 9, 2020). "I was asked to lie about Hunter Biden, admits Ukrainian businessman: Hares Youssef claims he was promised a US visa in return for information that would damage Joe Biden's presidential campaign". The Times.

XOR'easter (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Note for future reference

-Current Event WikiProject no longer has interest in the article. (1 edit in 4 days)

-I have put a request in at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors to help format the article. (Average wait is about 20 days).

(Lead Coordinator of WikiProject Current Events) Elijahandskip (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)