Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Not all content is "conspiracy theory"; title and content need changing

This is an umbrella article for "allegations that Joe Biden, while he was vice president of the United States, engaged in corrupt activities relating to the employment of his son, Hunter Biden, by the Ukrainian gas company Burisma."

Under that umbrella, is the work of the United States House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family, an article mentioned in the lead, and an investigation which is also exploring bribery, Biden and Ukraine.

The Oversight Committee's investigation is ongoing, and is currently receiving significant media coverage. Moreover, reliable sources describing that committees work use the term "allegations", not "conspiracy theories":

• Axios, on June 14, 2023, refers to "unproven bribery allegations involving the Bidens and Ukraine."
• The Independent, on June 15, 2023, refers to "allegations of bribery from his time as vice president".

Because the Oversight Committee's investigation is included briefly in this article, the title of the article, and some descriptions within the article, does not accurately reflect all of the content, and certainly violates WP:POVTITLE. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The only thing that has changed is that Republicans won the House and decided to use their majority to make another Hillary/Benghazi committee to smear their opponent. The "allegations" are a slightly morphed version of the same conspiracy theory. Its just changed from having the focus of "Biden fired Ehokin" to "the big guy" getting money. No evidence had been produced, so how is this not the same conspiracy theory? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I have removed nor did a Republican House Oversight Committee investigation by May 2023 and its reference to fully constrain the article to the Ukraine conspiracy theory. Readers can refer to the Comer investigation article for as yet unproven allegations. Hope that suffices. soibangla (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

First, Muboshgu, please leave your personal opinions out of this discussion. Reliable sources have been provided. The name and some content needs to be changed. Second, Soibangla, removing pertinent content which has been appropriately placed into an article is disruptive. Please revert your edit. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

That's not my opinion. McCarthy himself noted that House Republicans set up the Benghazi committee to hurt Hillary politically. This is the same. Two recent sources don't undo the past elements of conspiracy theorizing. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe my edit adequately addressed your concern about distinguishing unproven allegations from conspiracy theories. Did it not? soibangla (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Soibangla: You removed pertinent content and a link which had been appropriately placed into an article. Please revert your edit. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

From what I can tell, this thread you opened made a distinction between the Biden-Shokin-Ukraine conspiracy theory and the ongoing Comer investigation which includes that but is also broader than that, including China and Romania and such. By removing the content about the Comer investigation, I believe I drew the clear distinction you requested. soibangla (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Soibangla: In the article United States House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family, the word "Ukraine" or "Ukrainian" is mentioned 11 times, in ten different paragraphs. That article also contains a link to this article. Removing a link and discussion about that article--in response to my concerns above--was not appropriate. Please revert your edit. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused, you want to change the title of this article because of the link to the other article, but now that the link is gone you want it back as to keep pushing for consensus to change the title? Please correct me if that's not accurate. DN (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Darknipples:A previous version of this article said, "A joint investigation by two Republican Senate committees released in September 2020 did not find wrongdoing by Joe Biden, nor did a Republican House Oversight Committee investigation by May 2023." After I wrote my comment above, User:Soibangla simply removed the link to the Republican House Oversight Committee investigation. I guess that editor believed that was the easiest way to avoid having to discuss changing the name of this article. You are welcome to revert the edit, so we can begin this discussion. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I've seen multiple RS that use the term "Conspiracy theory" on this topic, throughout this article, and in the article you mentioned. While both articles have similar topics, they aren't the same. If you want to build a consensus to change the title here there are better ways of doing so. While Soibangla's edit may not address your issue with the title, using a separate article to sway consensus over another is not necessarily admirable either, if that was your point. DN (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

As a discrete unit, this article remains about a conspiracy theory, not merely unproven allegations. The Comer article is broader in scope and may include parts of this conspiracy. That's why I removed the Comer content here to draw the distinction you requested. I don't know how else to clarify this to you. I gave you what you wanted, but if what you really want is to change the title of this article to "allegations" based on Comer's feeble results thus far, including bribery which is not pertinent to this article, I will resist that. Please stop pinging me, it's a nuisance. soibangla (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Magnolia677, we have two different articles that are tangentially related, this one and United States House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family. When the Oversight Committee's investigation finds clear evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden in direct connection to Ukraine and his son, then, and only then, will this article be retitled and change its focus. So far, the conspiracy theory has been based on false and misleading allegations. We need proof that they are true before we need to change the focus and title of this article. We are not there yet. Be patient, your wish may end up being fulfilled. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Valjean: Should a link and information about the United States House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family be included in this article? Magnolia677 (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Now they both link to each other in their See also sections. The idea of a section about each other isn't totally off-limits. What would you propose? Done properly, both articles could have sections about each other, as long as they are minimal (like a short paragraph) and do not violate WP:COATRACK. Since the idea is controversial, I suggest you propose such content on the respective talk pages. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me)

@Valjean: Great idea. Instead of all that though, let's just reverting this edit that was made about an hour ago? That content had been in for over a month. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I would not object to you restoring the removal I made to accommodate your request here, as I originally added that content. soibangla (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I have an idea. Maybe it will work...or maybe not. What about creating a section to deal with investigations of the claims, and then put that content there? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

sure, as long as it's constrained to what Comer has specifically said about the subject of this article, but not wander off into unrelated stuff like bribery. that's all in the Comer investigation article. soibangla (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Either way, if the intent here is to change the title, then that needs to be addressed in a more genuine and explicit manner. If the issue has now turned into a means of making each article less contentious with the other, I will support. DN (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, yes, that is why I started this discussion. Now that information about the House Committee has been added back, and because media reports about Biden, Ukraine and bribery are not being presented as "conspiratorial", with even left-wing media are calling them "allegations"; and because the first line of this article states that it is about "allegations that Joe Biden, while he was vice president of the United States, engaged in corrupt activities relating to the employment of his son, Hunter Biden, by the Ukrainian gas company Burisma", continuing to name this article using "conspiracy" would certainly violate WP:POVTITLE and be misleading for readers. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

How about calling it "Biden–Ukraine corruption allegations". This would dovetail into the first line of the article, and would support both the conspiracy content, and the unproven allegations currently being investigated. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Comer is investigating a broad array of allegations. This article is about a discrete and established conspiracy theory. Anything beyond a brief paragraph linking to directly related aspects in the Comer investigation would be confusing at the least, and actually misleading by blurring what we know with what we don't know. And that's exactly how conspiracy theories grow and spread. soibangla (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I removed the line about the Comer committee to make the distinction between a discrete conspiracy theory and a broader set of allegations, as you requested. If your intent of restoring that line was to leverage it as means of changing the title of this article to merely "allegations," I will oppose that. soibangla (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the intent here bares too much resemblance to an attempt at a Trojan Horse for me to support a title change. It has less to do with addressing context and more to do with a perceived POV issue. I will let others weigh in on this tactic as well. DN (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Hell no. A section, not a title change. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no valid reason to change the article title, the source of all of this, as it has always been, is unhinged conservative talking about alleging various and sundry dealings by the Biden family. All without evidence. Zaathras (talk) 03:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

"unhinged conservative talking about alleging various and sundry dealings by the Biden family" It is good old-fashioned mudslinging. And the old proverbial saying remains accurate in the 21st century: Give a dog a bad name and hang him. The slanderers have done a good job of destroying Biden's reputation. Dimadick (talk) 07:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Magnolia677 Did you make a false claim in your edit summary that there was a consensus to re-add this just so you can claim the title needs to be changed? DN (talk) 03:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose change, title is attested in RS. Andre🚐 03:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  Oppose change If anything a new section on FD-1023 Conspiracy or Alleged FBI Informant conspiracy Jgmac1106 (talk) 12:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Clearly this "name change" proposal was premature. Comer plans to subpoena more people and records in order to unravel the family's complex web of financial dealings, and probe the alleged bribery scheme involving Biden when he was vice president. So let's revisit this "conspiracy" stuff when that's done. Thanks for your time. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Please be sure to avoid WP:PROCEDURALLYFLAWEDCONSENSUS if you decide to return. DN (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure Darknipples, I'll be sure to take your advice on how to edit. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that it's premature. The article is not about a hypothetical influential secret organization. Also, an allegation not having been proven true doesn't justify labeling it as false, so the way that the article is written currently was premature. If the allegations are proven to be untrue, then and only then will it be proper to state as fact that they're false. OckRaz ^talk 06:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

• Approve Change For the reasons listed above. The various rationalizations above merely highlight the increasingly blatant POV pushing from ideologues. Lexlex (talk)

  "The various rationalizations above merely highlight the increasingly blatant POV pushing from ideologues." This sounds like you are attacking editors personally instead discussing the argument. DN (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  That is not what it sounds like. OckRaz ^talk 06:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

  What does it sound like to you? DN (talk) 06:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• Approve Changefor the reasons cited by Magnolia677. --Loltardo (talk) 02:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Change Magnolia677 is clearly violating POV by suggestingf that the House Oversight Committee is actually investigating anything, rather than just wasting time and taxpayers' money. I see no reason to legitimize its propaganda. Dimadick (talk) 08:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
• Approve Change This article is about an unproven allegation of some sort of misconduct (what laws may have been broken would depend on elements of the accusation which aren't defined), and the allegation might qualify as a "criminal conspiracy but that is unclear." Even if it were entirely clear that every version of the allegation concerns a criminal conspiracy, the combination of "conspiracy" and "theory" together would still be misleading. The phrase refers to "a belief that some secret but influential organization is responsible for an event or phenomenon." An unproven allegation about a bribery scheme definitely does not fit that definition. "Biden–Ukraine corruption allegations" is a far better title. There was never any justification for using the word conspiracy in the title in the first place. OckRaz ^talk 05:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

OckRaz: This article is about a specific allegation made years ago that has been shown by multiple reliable sources to be false. The article does not encompass other allegations made in recent months, including bribery. For that, see Comer investigation of Biden family. soibangla (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe that I understand your position. You claim there's justification for the article declaring that the Biden-Ukraine allegations are false rather than unproven. As I understand it, that justification is merely that this "article is about a specific allegation... shown... to be false." That's effectively a circular argument for justification and would require a further justification for why we should take such an approach to defining the subject matter of the article. There's no reason to accept the premise that the subject matter for the article ought to be circumscribed so that it doesn't focus on theories about Biden engaging in corrupt activity involving Ukraine, but only the particular versions of this theory that include falsified details (eg, motive to protect your family vs to enrich family or prosecutor investigating family member vs prosecutor potentially hindering foreign business deal).

I don't think that approach makes sense if your goal is to create a reference work that will be as useful as possible for the typical reader. If someone just wants to get up to speed on what "Biden-Ukraine corruption" refers to (and depending on your perspective it could be a controversy or political scandal or partisan accusations made without proof), then your preference regarding how to divide the information into different articles will be most unhelpful. Instead of finding an article designed to give an overview of Biden-Ukraine corruption allegations, they'd have to sort through two separate articles for no good reason that I can discern.

What is the justification for dividing the allegations into two categories, as you propose we should do? Why does it make sense to take just the set of allegations that can be definitively ruled out and give them their own article, but then put the Biden-Ukraine allegations which remain an open question into the same basket with completely different allegations and the activities of a congressional committee. It has the appearance of editorial gerrymandering. If anything, the accusations that are an open question ought to be treated as of greater importance and being more noteworthy than discarded allegations. Your approach gets that relationship reversed. OckRaz ^talk 14:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I hasten to add that while information from the recently released 1023 form has generated significant heat in certain circles, it remains raw and uncorroborated intelligence that originated from a dubious source, Mykola Zlochevsky, and remains unconfirmed by reliable sources. At this point, it's somewhat akin to relying on the Steele dossier. soibangla (talk) 07:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

re: "generated significant heat in certain circles" - I'd say it's generated heat everywhere, depending on your definition of heat. It's certainly raised the temperature politically. However, the recent news isn't relevant to the claim I'm making: this article is wrongly titled because there's no conspiracy theory, merely an accusation about a crime. I don't think that it's reasonable to say that every allegation of a crime with multiple participants (ie, a basic criminal conspiracy) will meet the ordinary definition of conspiracy theory. You seem to disagree with me. Where do you see a shadowy cabal in this scenario to justify the use of the term, "conspiracy theory?" OckRaz ^talk 14:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

re: "relying on the Steele dossier" - I'm not relying on the 1023. I would need evidence if I were claiming that the corruption allegations are true, but I am just pointing out they've not been shown to be false. However, the comparison was interesting because I looked at the article for the dossier, and I found that the lede contained this link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officials_and_spies

"Since Donald Trump was a 2016 candidate for the office of President of the United States, myriad suspicious links between Trump associates and Russian officials and spies have been discovered by the FBI, Special counsel, and several United States congressional committees"

If you oppose changing the article title from the current "Biden–Ukraine conspiracy" then would you support renaming this other article, "Trump-Russia Conspiracy?" After all, the allegations of collusion between a political campaign and intelligence agencies of a foreign power to install a Manchurian candidate, would meet the definition of a conspiracy theory and not merely the definition of a criminal conspiracy. OckRaz ^talk 14:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I've never liked the term "conspiracy theory" and I wish the world could adopt a better one to describe phenomena like this. Maybe "stupid crazy rumor?" But in my experience here we categorize articles like this on a scale of significance: incident → allegations → controversy → scandal → conspiracy theory. This article is not about mere allegations, it's about "a series of false allegations" that have been repeated by many for years, including now by Comer, with a new bribery twist from a dubious source. So "conspiracy theory" is the only bucket this topic reasonably falls in, though I'd prefer "stupid crazy rumor." At some point it's possible we may need to merge the article with the Comer investigation article, but I don't see we're anywhere near that. We have lots of folks who have come here, and likely will continue coming here, asserting that new evidence proves it's not a conspiracy theory anymore, the 1023 and the IRS guys and what Comer said on Hannity prove it's all true, and we need to rewrite the article, and the title should be "Biden massive bribery and money laundering scandal." We're not there. We're not even at a point to creep in that direction. soibangla (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

"This article is not about mere allegations, it's about a series of false allegations" - That's a problem since that the accusations about Biden and Ukraine haven't all been disproven. You've just demonstrated why this article needs to be re-titled and the lead paragraph rewritten. If there were only disproven allegations we could leave it as is, but we're not there. We're not even at a point to creep in that direction. SalClements (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The specific allegation in this article has been shown to be false. More recent allegations are pending in Comer investigation of Biden family. Please read that. soibangla (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose change Concur with Valjean. We'd need to see some conclusive evidence and reliable sources change the status quo consensus. I don't see it. BirdValiant (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  Why do you need conclusive evidence that an unproven set of allegations is true before you can change an article saying the accusations are false? That sounds pretty unreasonable to me. SalClements (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• This isn't an RfC If it was, it would be malformed at best. DN (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
• The appropriate thing to do is to narrow the description of the article to the specific conspiracy theory that the sources focus on (like this edit, which I approve of.) An article about "allegations that Joe Biden, while he was vice president of the United States, engaged in corrupt activities relating to the employment of his son, Hunter Biden, by the Ukrainian gas company Burisma." isn't really workable because the topic is too vague; what does "corrupt" mean? It's a campaign slogan, rather than a specific description for events that sources can discuss (and, indeed, a lot of the campaign-trail table-pounding related to it doesn't specify what accusations are being discussed, just a vague sense of "corruptness".) We should nail down the specific accusations in the lead so that we can focus on sources that discuss those accusations. --Aquillion (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  Problem is, even a few years in, I don't think there are any specific accusations. Just the idea that the Bidens got rich off Burisma somehow. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I think that there was a specific allegation (most of the sources in the article discuss it), it was just easily proven wrong - the false allegations that Joe Biden, while he was vice president of the United States, withheld a loan guarantee to pressure Ukraine into firing a prosecutor to prevent a corruption investigation of Ukrainian gas company Burisma and to protect his son, Hunter Biden, who was on the Burisma board. That's specific, narrow, and something the sources discussed in-depth, with far more than enough sustained coverage to support an article on it alone. When sources talk about the Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory, that's more-or-less what they mean. I think the issue that people are having above is that there's also this overlapping much more vague perception of corruption, which often aren't specific enough to falsify, which lack the same level of coverage, or which are a random dumping ground for unrelated theories connected to Biden and Ukraine - but I don't think that that's what most of the sources here are focused on and I don't think it's workable as an article. --Aquillion (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there was that specific allegation, but I thought they've moved on from that to the "Bidens directly profiting" allegation. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Allegation of Editorial Overreach

WP:AE or WP:ANI are the venues to discuss editor behavior, not article talk pages. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have a rather serious allegation against a regular editor of this page, soibangla. I hope we can discuss it in a professional manner. This editor has been deleting edits, and there are complaints about it here on the Talk page. Last week, I requested on the Talk page that payments made by Burisma to Hunter Biden's firm should be included in the Article (see Burisma Payments topic above). I received no feedback for a week, so today I included in the article a single sentence to that effect. Eighteen minutes later, my edit was deleted by the editor named above on the stated basis that it was irrelevant. This article was created to describe the "Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory," clearly defined in the original Article version: The conspiracy theory asserts that Hunter Biden was paid a large sum of money by a Ukrainian firm, Burisma Holdings, to take a job for which he was unqualified, as a means for Burisma to influence then-vice president Joe Biden, who then extorted Ukraine for $1 billion to fire a prosecutor so as to prevent Hunter Biden from being investigated for corruption. The amount of the "large sum of money," which has now been given more clarity by an IRS investigation and sworn to in Congressional testimony by a Federal agent, is certainly relevant. Based on an overview of other such deletions, I believe there is a pattern of editorial political bias in this Article which is in contravention of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View principle. Fx6893 (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC) If you have a misconduct concern, here is not the place to bring it up. I was about to revert your addition. It's rarely appropriate to add something to the lead first. In an article subject covered as heavily as this one, going to a YouTube video record of congressional testimony is unnecessary. Are there any secondary sources that covered that moment? That Hunter was paid for his work with Burisma was never in dispute. As best as I can recall, Hunter has said so quite frequently. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC) References

Burisma Payments, 28 July 2023

Please include Hunter Biden's compensation from Burisma in a relevant section. IRS investigator Joseph Ziegler testified to Congress under oath that Biden and his firm Rosemont Seneca received $6.5 million dollars from Burisma. SOURCE Fx6893 (talk) 10:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

No response on this for a week, so I'll try to put it in myself.

To determine appropriate placement of this information, I note that references to four other investigations are included in the first section. (Namely, a "United States intelligence community analysis," "a federal criminal investigation," "a joint investigation by two Republican Senate committees," and a "Republican House committee investigation.") As this relates to an IRS investigation, I'll put a short sentence about the payments uncovered just beneath the references to the other investigations. Fx6893 (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

....and it's deleted. For posterity, I've included my edit below:

"An IRS investigation identified payments of $6.5 million from Burisma to Hunter Biden and his firm Rosemont Seneca, as revealed in Congressional testimony." Fx6893 (talk) 05:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

It's rarely appropriate to add something to the lead first. In an article subject covered as heavily as this one, going to a YouTube video record of congressional testimony is unnecessary. Are there any secondary sources that covered that moment? That Hunter was paid for his work with Burisma was never in dispute. As best as I can recall, Hunter has said so quite frequently. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you're pointing to minor issues, while intentionally ignoring the larger issue of bias. If you don't address the bias, you'll just continue to have slanted articles like this one.

• "It's rarely appropriate to add something to the lead first." You know that here are any number of edits adding information to the lead that don't get deleted, so long as they are on one side - including an edit yesterday by the same editor that deleted mine. That's the problem, which you ignore. It's not a matter of appropriateness; it's bias.
• "any secondary sources..." You know that progressive media sources won't cover the amount of payments. And this site - and you personally - have a history of not accepting established conservative sources like FoxNews and the New York Post. Citing the sworn Congressional testimony of a Federal agent is perfectly reasonable to support the statements made in that testimony. It's not a matter of sourcing; it's bias.
• You know that no matter what hoops I jump though, the edit can just be identified as "irrelevant" and deleted anyway, as mine was - even though the information directly addresses the definition of the subject of the Article. These impediments, applied to one side, result in slanted articles such as we see here, in contravention of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View principle. It's not a matter of procedure; it's bias.
• Fx6893 (talk) 01:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The proper place for that info is the last section about Hunter Biden and/or his article. It has little to no relevance to this article. Board members are often paid exorbitant amounts. This article is about Joe Biden and false allegations that he had a prosecutor fired to protect his son from a corruption investigation. Instead, Biden very publicly got the corrupt prosecutor fired (at the will of the international community) because he was not doing his job. His investigation of Burisma's corrupt owner had stalled, so Joe Biden got him fired, placing Hunter Biden in greater jeopardy (if he was doing anything wrong) because the new prosecutor would investigate Burisma. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

"It has little to no relevance to this article." I disagree; let me show the relevance. This article was created to describe the "Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory," clearly defined in the original Article version:

"The conspiracy theory asserts that Hunter Biden was paid a large sum of money by a Ukrainian firm, Burisma Holdings, to take a job for which he was unqualified, as a means for Burisma to influence then-vice president Joe Biden, who then extorted Ukraine for $1 billion to fire a prosecutor so as to prevent Hunter Biden from being investigated for corruption."

My edit speaks directly to the amount of the "large sum of money" which, in part, defines the subject of this Article. The vague "large sum" has now been given more clarity by an IRS investigation, and should be updated with a monetary figure. I disagree with you; my edit adds clarity to the definition of the subject of the article; it's certainly relevant.Fx6893 (talk) 02:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

My edit speaks directly to the amount of the "large sum of money" which is from the first day of the article nearly three years ago. soibangla (talk) 02:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The edit I made to the lead yesterday is central to the article topic. Your edit was tangential at best and certainly was not leadworthy. The fact you placed there what seems to me a red herring suggests bias, or at least poor judgment. I removed your edit for those stated reasons, plus you used a primary source that was not contextualized by secondary sources. Citing the sworn Congressional testimony of a Federal agent is perfectly reasonable to support the statements made in that testimony except it's a 3:03 snippet that might be contradicted in some way elsewhere in the long testimony, which is why we need secondary sources for contextualization. Rather than the information directly addresses the definition of the subject of the Article, I argue your edit did not belong in this article at all, but rather in Hunter Biden where his income/tax matters are discussed at some length. You know that progressive media sources won't cover the amount of payments Do we? And what does "progressive" sources have to do with this? Are you aware of the WP:RSP status of established conservative sources like FoxNews and the New York Post? It's not a matter of left or right, it's a matter of reliability. It's not a matter of bias; it's policy. soibangla (talk) 01:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Soibangla:, could you find a place in the body of the article to put that new info about Devon Archer? It seems like a body-worthy supplemental detail, not a lead-worthy main fact. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

will do soibangla (talk) 01:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

References

"media organizations" that mention this article

First off, the 1RR restriction does not apply to the talk page, @Miner Editor. Second, I think we should be more judicious about listing media that mention this article. I put "media organizations" in quotes in the subject line because the addition in question is to Glen Greenwald, a truly rare bird that has a Reliable Source Noticeboard RfC discussion specifically about him, and not a source. While that discussion is about using GG in article-space (which is now largely barred), IMO he is enough of a discredited hack that a link to his writing does not belong here, either. Zaathras (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The Template:Press documentation says The purpose of this [template] is to contextualize talk page discussions about ongoing coverage of editorial disputes, and press coverage listed here may come from sources otherwise considered unreliable. RCP is a media organisation. For me, this article is the first hit on google news when I search "biden ukraine conspiracy". There is no valid reason for removing the template. Mottezen (talk) 05:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

the 1RR restriction does not apply to the talk page The "Active Arbitration Remedies" were put in place to address edit warring over contentious topics. I can find nothing which limits that to the article space and I believe it applies to metadata about those contentious topics such as this. Miner Editor (talk) 09:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

This talk page is not covered by any arbitration enforcement restriction. If it were, it'd be logged at WP:AELOG. You can see the log entries from the admin who added both restrictions to the article in the 2020 log, but there is no entry for this talk page in any year. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, now I'm confused, because I'm not finding an entry for the "Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory" article itself in those logs. Miner Editor (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Ctrl-F should get you there in the 2020 log. The restrictions were logged on 29 and 30 October. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

We're aware of what the documentation says, Mottezen, the point raised here is the specific unreliability of frequent Wikipedia critic Glenn Greenwald. Larry Sanger is also a noted crank and Wikipedia critic who has penned articles for various sources, but we wouldn't dream of citing him like this in an article talk page. Zaathras (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

• Honestly for the purpose of that template, I don't think that reliability is required - it's not something we're putting in an article. The purpose of the template, in my view, is to serve as an alert as to possible influxes of editors whose edits may reflect the biases or perspective of the piece ala WP:MEAT. What we want to avoid is a situation where someone writes an article in a major publication implicitly saying an article should be written in a way that goes against our policies, resulting in a flood of editors who rewrites it that way. That is to say, I generally see that list as a warning rather than an honor, especially when it comes to coverage like this. Removing it from the list won't keep people who read the piece from coming here to make edits, but will make it more difficult for us to recognize why eg. there may be a sudden groundswell of people demanding a particular change. If we were to have an RFC in a few days, say, it would be extremely important for the closer to know that the article had recently been in a high-profile publication, regardless of quality or reliability. --Aquillion (talk) 23:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

"he is enough of a discredited hack" So what? Wikipedia:Press coverage 2023 is full of articles by partisan hacks. We are quoting the likes of Robin Washington, J. E. R. Staddon, and Jan Grabowski. Each criticizing Wikipedia for not publishing their fringe views. Grabowski himself has been accused of promoting a "false and wrongful image of Poland and Polish people", but he accuses Wikipedia for publishing propagandistic views. Dimadick (talk) 09:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a stain to have this particular individual cited anywhere in the project, even just like this, but if everyone wants to keep it, objection withdrawn. All good. Zaathras (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Joe Biden had No direct involvement with Burisma

"Then, Rep. Dan Goldman, Democrat of New York, asked Archer if he had any knowledge that Joe Biden had any direct involvement with Burisma, and Archer replied, "No."" Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-republicans-devon-archer-transcript-hunter-biden-joe-biden-calls/

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The allegations being "false" needs to be removed from the introduction.

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.

---

Instead, the word "unproven" or "unsubstantiated" should be used. There was a clear conflict of interest in Joe Biden pushing to fire the prosecutor investigating his son's employer. This is a matter of intent. Therefore, it is impossible to know whether the allegations are true or false. You cannot know someone's intent unless you are omniscient or a mind-reader. Naruto running (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

No, because WP:RS refer to it as "false", not merely "unproven". Testimony from Devon Archer is in line with past evidence suggesting that Shokin was in Burisma's pocket and firing Shokin endangered Burisma, hence no conflict of interest as the firing of Shokin put Hunter in a worse, not better, position. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Here are the facts:

• Shokin was an anti-corruption prosecutor investigating Burisma.

• Hunter Biden worked for Burisma. He was unqualified and said himself that being hired likely had something to do with his family ties.

• Joe Biden (Hunter's Father) pressured Ukraine to fire Shokin. Since then, the investigation has been dropped.

That is a clear conflict of interest. No further information is necessary. No further information could make it not a conflict of interest. When a conflict of interest arises, it is normal for an official to recuse themselves because the intent behind their actions can't be known which opens the door to allegations of corruption, misconduct, abuse of power etc...

Joe Biden did not recuse himself. In fact, he did the exact opposite, bragging about flaunting foreign aid to oust Shokin. Therefore he has opened himself up to allegations of corruption.

If there is any flaw in my reasoning here, kindly point it out to me.

Thanks. Naruto running (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

There's a few holes in what you wrote. Shokin was supposed to be investigating Burisma but wasn't. Shokin was corrupt and when he was fired, prosecution of corruption advanced. The firing of Shokin also did not come from Joe Biden, as the western world had been pushing to oust Shokin for months before they got Biden involved.[2] A new prosecutor cleared Joe and Hunter Biden after investigating.[3] You can allege all the corruption that you want, just not here. Go to any open forum and have a blast, within that site's policies. Our site here has policies to prevent mere "allegations of corruption" from being presented as having merit when they do not. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

indeed, we cannot give credence to these spurious corruption allegations unless RS do so. Andre🚐 19:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

So it's better to lie instead? The allegations have not been proven false. Since it's a question of intent, they can never be proven false unless you can read minds. Naruto running (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Intent is irrelevant. If you were to tell us that the sky is red, we would tell you that is false. It doesn't matter whether or not you believe the sky is red, as it is wrong. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The entire premise of the allegations depends on Joe Biden's intent. How can his intent be known by anyone but himself? Again I will summarize the facts as we know them:

• Shokin was an anti-corruption prosecutor investigating Burisma.

• Hunter Biden worked for Burisma. He was unqualified and said himself that being hired likely had something to do with his family ties.

• Joe Biden (Hunter's Father) pressured Ukraine to fire Shokin. Since then, the investigation has been dropped.

Either his intent here was to protect his son, or it was an impartial pursuit of corruption. Clearly, he stood to benefit from firing the prosecutor investigating his son's employer. This leads to a conflict of interest. In a situation like this, someone would normally recuse themselves because intent is impossible to prove. So the normal thing would have been to remove himself from the situation entirely. Joe Biden did not do this. That is why the allegations cannot be proven false.

If, in the midst of Shokin being pressured out by Western officials, Biden had said "My son works for a firm which is being investigated by Shokin. I believe my son has done nothing wrong, but I cannot involve myself in the situation due to an obvious conflict of interest." Then I would 100% agree that the allegations are false. But as things stand, Joe Biden put himself in an ambiguous situation with a clear conflict of interest.

You've claimed that Shokin wasn't actually investigating Burisma, but haven't substantiated it. The fact that EU officials accused him of corruption doesn't necessarily mean he wasn't investigating Burisma. The two are not mutually exclusive. Both Biden and Shokin could be corrupt, just answering to different players. Naruto running (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Your "sky is red" analogy, that is verifiable and unambiguous. This is not, since again, the allegations are based on intent. Did Biden pressure Shokin out to protect his son or to fight corruption? The act of firing Shokin ostensibly accomplished both goals so it is impossible to know what his intent was. That is why, under normal circumstances, someone would recuse themselves rather than exerting power over someone who was exerting power over their son. Naruto running (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

What source do you have which states Shokin wasn't investigating Burisma?

Please do not link another paywall. Naruto running (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

There are plenty that aren't behind paywalls that show that the EU supported firing Shokin because of his corruption.[4][5] – Muboshgu (talk) 23:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I asked for a source claiming that Shokin wasn't investigating Burisma, not one claiming EU officials believed he was corrupt. Naruto running (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I provided you sources that said that Shokin was not investigating corruption. Burisma was not the only corruption that he was not investigating. I'm sure you've done searching through sources yourself? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Here's one I expect you to accept.[6] – Muboshgu (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Your source says that Shokin wasn't prosecuting Burisma. Something I never made any claims about. I said he was investigating Burisma. Prosecution would come after an investigation is finished. Naruto running (talk) 02:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

That might be the most pedantic comment I've ever seen on Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The distinction is subtle but important. Whether you realize it or not, it seems as if you are escalating my claim in order to dismiss it.

It would be like if I accused you of breaking my wrist. And in court, you provided evidence showing you never broke my arm. By elevating the claim to breaking my entire arm (something not true), you are able to dismiss it easily.

It's the same with the investigation and prosecution. You've turned the investigation into a prosecution so that you can essentially throw the baby out with the bath water. Using these kind of bait and switch tactics, I find it difficult to believe you are arguing in good faith and call into question your credentials as a Wikipedia contributor. Naruto running (talk) 02:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Shokin was an anti-corruption prosecutor investigating Burisma, you say. Yes, he was, for alleged events in 2010-12, before Hunter's engagement with Burisma that began in 2014. Later Shokin stopped investigating Burisma. What did this Republican investigation during the 2020 campaign find about the allegation against Joe?[7]

Republicans set out to scrutinize a specific claim raised by Mr. Trump: that Mr. Biden had corruptly pushed for the ouster of Ukraine’s top prosecutor, who had been investigating Burisma, as a favor to his son ... The senators turned up no evidence to support it. (emphasis mine)

soibangla (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

To quote myself replying to a similar a similar comment about the time frame of the investigation:

: Practically speaking, the time frame of the investigation is irrelevant. Let's say that Burisma committed tax fraud between 2010-2012, and that had nothing to do with the Bidens. As a corrupt firm under investigation, what might you do in order to protect yourself? You might hire someone with political influence over a major provider of foreign aid to the country that is investigating you. This would give you leverage and some degree of protection. This is consistent with Devon Archer saying that Burisma would not have survived without the Biden "brand".

The above scenario is hypothetical but entirely plausible. While the possibility remains open, it is inaccurate to say that the allegations are "false". Rather it is more appropriate to refer to them as "unproven". Naruto running (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

hypothetical but entirely plausible I think you may have misplaced the word "entirely" soibangla (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Why are we humoring an obvious WP:SPA? This is the same tired stuff that similar "users" have groused about. Zaathras (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll answer questions, even the same ones I've answered before, if the questioner is civil and doesn't appear to be WP:SEALIONing. Once we cross that line, I'm out. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Literally just explain how a third party source (in this case USA Today) can dismiss allegations that depend entirely on the intent of a particular individual. Are they all-knowing? Can they read minds?

If you can do this, then I will disappear back into the aether. Naruto running (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Joe Biden's intent is not "verifiable". The allegations against him hinge on his intentions. Therefore it is not appropriate to label them as false. They are unproven. Naruto running (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually, something that I just learned, is that the investigation of Burisma was concerned with the company before Hunter's employment. So Biden's intent clearly had nothing to do with protecting Hunter. Reliable sources call this Biden/Burisma conspiracy theory false, we will as well. I won't waste any more of my time on this discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Practically speaking, the time frame of what's being investigated is irrelevant. Let's say that Burisma committed tax fraud between 2010-2012, and that had nothing to do with the Bidens. As a corrupt firm under investigation, what might you do in order to protect yourself? You might hire someone with political influence over a major provider of foreign aid to the country that is investigating you. This would give you leverage and some degree of protection. This is consistent with Devon Archer saying that Burisma would not have survived without the Biden "brand".

The above scenario is hypothetical but entirely plausible. While the possibility remains open, it is inaccurate to say that the allegations are "false". Rather it is more appropriate to refer to them as "unproven". Naruto running (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Not a single word you have typed today will alter so much as a punctuation mark in this article, you know that, right? Deep down? Reliable sources characterize the allegations as false, so the Wikipedia article follows the sources. That is the beginning and the end of the discussion. Zaathras (talk) 02:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

How can a source be considered reliable when it claims to know the exact intent of a particular individual facing conflict-of-interest corruption allegations?

Deep down you know that you are baking "1 + 1 = 3" into this article right? It is impossible for a third party source to ascribe intent here unless they are all-knowing. That is why a normal person would have recused themselves to avoid any ambiguity.

Whether the article changes or not, I have pointed out the obvious logical inconsistency with labeling the the allegations as "false" instead of "unproven". Anyone who is interested to read this Talk page will see the willful ignorance on full display. Naruto running (talk) 02:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Look, the bottom line here is: this is not Facebook. This is Wikipedia. We got rules to ensure Wikipedia doesn't become Facebook. Notably, reliable sources, which have consistently said "false" for years. Many, many reliable sources. If a reliable source surfaces to support your arguments, please bring it here. Until then, your speculation (and in some cases misrepresentions) and conclusions derived from it will not be included in this article. That's how it works here. Maybe take it to Facebook. soibangla (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

No reliable sources have said "false". Saying the allegations are false ascribes intent (because the allegations are based on intent) which would automatically make the source unreliable. This is because intent is impossible to know, hence the difficulty of dealing with conflict of interest cases. Stating something that is impossible to know makes a source unreliable in a way that is self-evident.

I reject the notion that I have misrepresented anything in this discussion. Naruto running (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, I am not making speculations. It is a fact that the allegations are unproven. It is speculation that they are false. Naruto running (talk) 03:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

No reliable sources have said "false" is a misrepresentation of fact. I don't see any utility in continuing this discussion and I recommend it be hatted. soibangla (talk) 03:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

1. A reliable source claims the allegations are false.

2. The truthfulness of the allegations depend on Joe Biden's intent.

3. Joe Biden's intent is impossible to know.

4. The reliable source is claiming to know something that is impossible to know.

5. The reliable source is no longer considered reliable.

6. No reliable sources claim the allegations are false.

At what point in my reasoning am I misrepresenting the facts? Naruto running (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

None of that matters because you're just making arguments with your own style of "logic" but without reliable sources, consequently it will never be included in the article, and evidently you don't have adequate knowledge or care of how Wikipedia works. You're just BLUDGEONING now. I recommend you stop. soibangla (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the Wikipedia guidelines on sourcing:

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

My argument is that saying the allegations are false is an opinion, not a fact. So you could saying "According to USA today, the allegations against Biden are false" but you cannot state it outright as fact. Naruto running (talk) 04:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources saying that allegations are false is not an opinion. It is not commentary. It's a falsiable statement about the truth value of an assertion. What we do here is regurgitate those. That, and only that. We do not do the thought experiments to analyze whether it is possible that the source is assuming facts not in evidence: we take their assumptions wholesale if they are stated as facts and unrebutted. Andre🚐 04:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

It is not falsifiable since the allegation hinges on the intent of Joe Biden. Why did he pressure Shokin out? That's something that can only be speculated on. Hence, it is an opinion. Naruto running (talk) 04:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

No, because an allegation is false when no evidence is provided and it's politically motivated and spurious due to the circumstances. Therefore, it is said to be false. For example, if I run out on the street and scream that Tom Hanks hates popcorn, that is a false statement. Because even if I don't know that Tom Hanks loves popcorn, it's reasonable to assume that I am saying something false since it can't be proven with the evidence I've provided. More importantly, even if this is not how facts work in your reality, they do work that way on Wikipedia. Andre🚐 04:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

No, an allegation is unproven or unsubstantiated when no evidence is provided. "True" or "False" are absolute terms that do not change with new evidence. Naruto running (talk) 04:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Check out the WP:BLPCRIME policy. If the allegation is an allegation of a crime, and it is unsubstantiated, it is false until shown otherwise. Andre🚐 04:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no guidance on whether to use the verbiage "false" or "unproven" regarding unproven allegations. Neither contradict the principle of being innocent until proven guilty since neither imply guilt. However, using the verbiage "unproven" is more accurate since that describes the actual, knowable state of the allegation. In our case, the allegation could be true or false, but it is something that can't be known. Naruto running (talk) 04:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

No, because the reliable sources (which are already predetermined to be reliable) state it is false, we do as well. And this is my final reply. Andre🚐 04:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

And they are stating their opinion since it is a question of intent. Naruto running (talk) 04:53, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Naruto, you write: "The allegations have not been proven false. Since it's a question of intent, they can never be proven false unless you can read minds."

1. The allegations have not been proven true, and the one making the allegation has the burden of proof. (Logic 101)
2. There are other ways than reading minds to determine the truth or falsity of an allegation. One can look at the effect of actions. (In some cases "follow the money" is an example of that thinking.)

If Joe Biden wanted to protect Hunter Biden from a corruption investigation, there are many actions that could have noticeable effects:

1. Joe should not have gotten Shokin removed from his position.
2. It would be good to keep Shokin because Shokin was corrupt (a good thing for Hunter, if he was corrupt, as corrupt people tend to protect other corrupt people).
3. Shokin was no longer investigating Burisma's owner, who was alleged to be corrupt. Shokin's investigation of Burisma had stalled, and Burisma believed they controlled Shokin.
4. Joe should have acted very quietly, because openly doing something corrupt exposes the misdeed. (Trump is an exceptional case as he thinks that if he commits a crime openly, then that makes it okay. When anyone else breaks the same law, he condemns them, but when he does it, then he's just a smart businessman/politician.)

So Joe Biden's actions had the EFFECT, and that's the key point here, of placing Hunter Biden in more jeopardy than if Joe Biden had done nothing. Joe's actions drew attention to the fact that his son was on the board of Burisma, something that was probably known only by a few people. Joe also did it very openly and told it (bragged) as an anecdote of how effective he was. He knows how to throw around the weight of the Vice Presidency when necessary. It's sometimes part of the job.

You're welcome to point to anything about Joe Biden's Shokin/Burisma dealing that indicates any intent or effect that protected Hunter. Whether we can read Joe's mind or not, we can read the effect of his actions.

In the end, none of your reasoning can be accepted here. It's original research (OR). It's just your own logic, and it runs contrary to what myriad RS tell us. Now aren't you reassured that Wikipedia operates that way? We follow what RS say, rather than allowing editors to include their own opinions. That would violate the NPOV policy, which forbids editors from creating content by using or including their own "editorial bias". (That's just one of my contributions to the NPOV policy. I've been here since 2003.)

Your harping on this point is very tendentious editing and IDHT behavior. MORE OF THIS FROM YOU COULD EARN YOU A BLOCK. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:50, 6 August 2023 (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.

"False" allegations in the introduction

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.

---

Stating that the allegations are false is a great example of why Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.209.218.176 (talk) 04:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The allegations made long ago described in this article are false. More recent allegations are pending. This is not the "Every allegation made against Joe Biden" article. soibangla (talk) 04:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes of course, because the science is changing and those allegations that were false may have actually always been true. Weve always been at war with eastasia. 97.119.134.32 (talk) 13:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Lol, you've got a point there! 77.32.35.108 (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the characterization of this entire topic as a “false conspiracy theory” is extremely inappropriate as it is ongoing. 68.180.94.165 (talk) 15:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

An allegation is a guess. Nothing implies it is False. The use of left leaning baised media as a source doesn't help either. Many things that where thought of as Qanon theories, Russian misinformation, and right leaning hypocrisy have been proven to be real time and time again. if you need a source I would say use the many you can find on bing and brave search engines (not Google for obvious reasons) Hawksofthewoods (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Counterpoint: false allegations are false, they are not a "guess", and presenting a baseless "guess" as valid as you suggest is an offense, in this case, against Biden. No Qanon theories, Russian misinformation, and right leaning hypocrisy have been proven to be true, or you would provide some reliable sources to back up your claims. Sources that you "perceive" as left leaning baised media are just telling you what you don't want to hear. This is the first time that I've heard someone suggest that Google is biased and Bing is not. @Hawksofthewoods: please back up your claims. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Hunter Biden, Burisma, and Corruption 75.108.55.59 (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

A partisan report authored by Chuck Grassley. Point? Zaathras (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying that Congressional reports are not reliable sources? 75.108.55.59 (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Even the minority on that committee denounced it. – _•Raven  ^.talk 19:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Grassley’s report has specific Suspicious Activity Reports and details whistleblower evidence given to the FBI. What are characterizing as partisan? Salem196027 (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

SARs are very common and most often false positives. Please provide a source for this supposed whistleblower. soibangla (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

"Republican Inquiry Finds No Evidence of Wrongdoing by Biden" soibangla (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of "false" and "bias", the document you cite claims on pp. 8–9: "In 2016, Ukraine’s top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, had an active and ongoing investigation into Burisma and its owner, Mykola Zlochevsky. At the time, Archer and Hunter Biden continued to serve on Burisma’s board of directors." As the article Viktor Shokin notes, "The investigation into Burisma only pertained to events happening before^[54] Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, joined the board of directors of Burisma Holdings in 2014." (54. Ivanova, Polina; Polityuk, Pavel (27 September 2019). "Ukraine agency says allegations against Burisma cover period before Biden joined". Reuters. London: Thomson Reuters. Archived from the original on 3 October 2019. Retrieved 1 October 2019.) ... Also: "Among other issues, he was slow-walking the investigation into Zlochevsky and Burisma and, according to Zlochevsky's allies, using the threat of prosecution to try to solicit bribes from Mr. Zlochevsky and his team....^[40]" (40. Vogel, Kenneth P. (22 September 2019). "Trump, Biden and Ukraine: Sorting Out the Accusations". The New York Times. New York City. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 3 October 2019. Retrieved 23 September 2019. "A version of this article appears in print on Sept. 22, 2019, Section A, Page 19 of the New York edition with the headline: Trump Is Pointing Fingers, but Here’s the Rundown on Biden and Son.") [Boldface added in both cases.] In 2020 (i.e. while Trump was U.S. President), Ukrainian police opened a probe into the allegations Shokin had made of political pressure... and closed it again. (Melkozerova, Veronika. "Ukraine police close Biden probe initiated by ousted prosecutor". NBC News. Kyiv. Retrieved 2021-10-25.) The last source also mentions: "Shokin has alleged that he was forced to resign once he started looking into Hunter Biden’s role at Burisma, but a deputy prosecutor working under Shokin has said the Burisma case had been dormant at the time the U.S. was pushing for Shokin's removal. / Multiple western governments, including the Obama administration, had demanded he be replaced for failing to prosecute corruption cases, and Ukrainian investigators and anti-corruption watchdogs have said that Shokin was fired because he had made no progress in the fight against corruption." – _•Raven  ^.talk 18:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no question that Hunter Biden's substantial financial gain from sitting on the Board of Burisma was problematic for the stated US anti-corruption foreign policy at the time. It doesn't matter when the corrupt dealings happened, what mattered was that nothing could be done about Burisma and it's odious owner while Biden was sitting on the board (the whole motive for asking him to be on the board?). I don't know why you fight so hard NOT to acknowledge this, it's stated directly in the source you cited. Other facts, also not disputed is that Joe Biden, as VP, threatened to withhold financial support to Ukraine if Shokin wasn't removed. (Also in your citations) The interference itself, was the problem, not the motivation behind it. 75.108.55.59 (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

We're still doing this? There is no question that Hunter Biden's substantial financial gain from sitting on the Board of Burisma was problematic for the stated US anti-corruption foreign policy at the time. This appears to be your imagination. also not disputed is that Joe Biden, as VP, threatened to withhold financial support to Ukraine if Shokin wasn't removed This was done at the behest of the entire Western world. Shokin's removal put Hunter at greater, not lesser, risk of prosecution. Facepalm – Muboshgu (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Jon Stewart says Hunter Biden's Burisma role was 'corruption ... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/jon-stewart-hunter-biden-burisma-corruption-b2211376.html?amp 75.108.55.59 (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

And Jon Stewart is an arbiter of these things? Does he say what laws were broken? Please stop reaching, it's a waste of everybody's time. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

But you are you? 2600:8800:6107:4300:48D2:983B:8BD1:DB10 (talk) 23:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The subtitle reads: "The comedian also said the president’s son benefited from 'nepotism'" — which Merriam-Webster defines as "favoritism (as in appointment to a job) based on kinship"... except that no-one at Burisma or involved in hiring him was related to him. By Stewart's usage, Hunter Biden should not have been employed anywhere. (Added to the irony: Stewart made this comment after the Trump Administration had employed Trump's daughter and son-in-law for four years.) – _•Raven  ^.talk 19:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I've posted my concerns with the unabashed bias evident in this wiki article. If you feel like time is being wasted then you can certainly stop responding. Everyone who disagrees with you isn't just imagining things, what an awful and delusional thing to suggest. You have an air of intellectual and moral superiority that is not substantiated by the facts 75.108.55.59 (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I've never really cared what Stewart thinks about anything, but he's just wrong here. Everyone knew Burisma was corrupt, but the company wanted to expand into partnerships with Western companies that wouldn't touch Burisma because it was corrupt. This is why Burisma hired Hunter et al. to clean it up with Western standards of corporate governance and transparency, so prospective business partners would have confidence in working with Burisma. Burisma made a slick video for prospective partners presenting Hunter et al. for that purpose. Of course it's easy to assume that because Hunter joined a corrupt company that he was hired to participate in and further corruption, but the opposite was true. I explained this years ago with sources, but I'm not gonna go find it in the archives. Try some more googling. soibangla (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

BTW I worked as a management consultant for the better part of a decade. Consultants working at the board level of a major corporation make what can seem like an obscene amount of money to outsiders, but the business is a common path to wealth, like investment banking and corporate law. There's really nothing suspicious about Hunter's income, especially if he had analysts working for him that he had to pay from his gross billings. soibangla (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

> "... not substantiated by the facts." — Were my citations above, from the article on Viktor Shokin, now NOT reliable sources of fact? Perhaps you should take that up there, or at WT:RS. – _•Raven  ^.talk 20:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

not if you're using these sources which are also used as citations to this wiki article 75.108.55.59 (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

https://abc7amarillo.com/how-three-major-news-outlets-botched-a-report-about-giuliani-and-russian-disinformation 75.108.55.59 (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Although that appears to come from a reliable source, it actually originates from Sinclair Broadcast Group, which isn't. soibangla (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

What is it that you think this ABC7Amarillo article proves that we haven't taken into account? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/01/media/washington-post-new-york-times-retraction-giuliani/index.html

Is this source better? I'm not going to read it for you. You are not interested in truth or acting in good faith. Did you remove the articles from these sources and all the sources referring to these articles since it's a big circle jerk of authenticity based on what each other report. 75.108.55.59 (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you asserting there is something wrong with reliable sources making an error and dutifully correcting it? The fact that three of them made the same error suggests they all used the same source who got this one wrong, despite a record of reliability. soibangla (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

There is something wrong with using the original articles without corrections posted as authentic citations for your false assertions of conspiracy. Wikipedia isn't a trustworthy source of information. 75.108.55.59 (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Did we miss that correction? Please point it out so I can fix it immediately. Nobody bats 1000, you know. Nobody. soibangla (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, I don't know whether that particular piece of information, and/or its corrected version, actually exists in any article, so unless you can show where it is, I'll have to conclude it's not actually in Wikipedia. soibangla (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

We are not including any errors in this article that have since been corrected, as far as I am aware. That Rudy correction involves a minor bit in this story that I don't think is included in this article at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I denounce this chess piece, by itself and alone, for carrying on a campaign against the opposite side of the board. I choose to ignore the activity of all the other pieces on that side, per the precedent set by the Republican side of the Committee on Homeland Security. – _•Raven  ^.talk 19:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

On what basis do you say SARs are very common and most often false positives? I have worked in banking AML. Unless you are in law enforcement and can provide a source for that statement, please do not make such claims regarding SARS, Soibangla. This is a comment about Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) not anything else.--FeralOink (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Just to wrap up this specious concern: Such reports flag a broad range of incidents, so as to ensure that no actual problems are overlooked. The SAR is not intrinsically noteworthy or significant. SPECIFICO talk 18:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

A BPI study found that, in 2017, a sample of the largest banks reviewed approximately 16 million alerts, filed over 640,000 SARs, and received feedback from law enforcement on a median of 4% of those SARs. Ultimately, this means that 90-95% of the individuals that banks report on were likely innocent ... Our data indicate that about 4 percent of SARs result in any follow-up from law enforcement. A tiny subset of these results in an arrest and ultimately a conviction.[8]

soibangla (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

soibangla, your source is a banking advocacy group; BPI doesn't satisfy WP:NPOV. Secondly, law enforcement does not provide SARs feedback to filing institutions. That's a major challenge in validating SARs for BSA/AML model risk management (MRM) per Fed Reserve Letter SR 11-7 (November 2011). I'll cite my source, about law enforcement not giving feedback, updated Guidance for BSA/AML, see p.4 as of April 2021: "testing and performance monitoring for some BSA/AML models may not include the same techniques as other models because of various factors, such as the lack of information about realized outcomes (e.g., Suspicious Activity Reports)". Banks cannot disclose the existence of SARs to anyone other than regulators or for enforcement purposes. See 12 CFR 21.11(k) Confidentiality of SARs; however you're right about high rates of false positives for sanctions screening! I thank you for pointing that out to me.--FeralOink (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, the "broad range of incidents" associated with SARs are noteworthy and include much more than sanctions, e.g. $10,000 or more in cash transactions in one day or layering/structuring to avoid getting caught; being politically important, i.e. a "politically exposed person" (PEP) or a relative of one; wire transfers to or from tax havens; lots of frequent, large transactions in developing economies; doing business in countries under sanctions. It is not WP:GOODFAITH to describe my concern as specious. I would suggest the following as a response to that editor Salem196027's comment: If Hunter's SARs are significant, then law enforcement such as FinCEN will investigate them. Since we have no WP:RS sources about the SARs, we can't include them in the article.--FeralOink (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The allegations were not false though. Barisma is true and whistleblowers show Joe "Big Guy" was involved. You leftist s are really sick people. 2601:2C3:CD00:2865:D9B7:1:B818:5720 (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

well we're sorry you feel that way, but there's been lots of lying and innuendo about all this for years but there remains no evidence Joe did anything unlawful or unethical, or even that he's lied about any of this. I recommend ignoring what Comer and Hannity say, among many others saying similar things. they're not being straight-up with you.[9] soibangla (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

On the contrary, my advice would be to continue examining the facts being unearthed by the United States House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family, and appreciate that much more is forthcoming. There has been excellent reporting of this in conservative media, such as The Federalist (website), FrontPage Magazine, The Washington Free Beacon, Townhall, The Washington Times, and the Washington Examiner. Miranda Devine has also done an exquisite job outlining the allegations of corruption in the New York Post. Be aware, some conservative media has been deemed "unreliable" for use on Wikipedia, per WP:RSP, so you may have to dig to find reliable sources in order to add this topic to articles. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Lol, those "sources" are dumpster fires of Russian and alt/far-right propaganda. They are not and never will be usable in the Wikipedia. Zaathras (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Your opinion is a small minority one. Wikipedia shows up on Google, itself a bastion of selection bias, as one of the rare places where the Biden's influence peddling scheme is not recognized as well documented. In source after source, the pyramid of 20 bank accounts for Biden money laundering is treated as fact. Not so here. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has made itself into a laughing stock. Credible sources? Get real. You have to do fact checking on gibberish like that portrayed here, the majority opinion of the media and public have no need to do so. 142.165.171.201 (talk) 04:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

no influence peddling scheme has been documented. there's a whole buncha LLCs that are commonly used by many to structure complex financial deals, for various tax and legal reasons, and there's still no evidence Joe was involved in any way. In source after source, the pyramid of 20 bank accounts for Biden money laundering is treated as fact. Not so here because it isn't fact. soibangla (talk) 04:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

"because it isn't fact." It is another item of slander in the increasingly annoying Republican propaganda. I tend to tune out whenever I hear such claims. Dimadick (talk) 08:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

This section has ended up exactly where it started out, ie WP:FORUM...DN (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

"don't use Google!"...(cackles in Alex Jones)... DN (talk) 07:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

How could you label it “false” when it’s still under investigation and both democrats and republicans have confirmed the laptop is real? The truth is none of us know whether it happened or not, but I believe just labeling it false is a bad characterization and looks like bias towards a theory that very well could be true and is under investigation. Just a thought to better educate the readers as to where it stands now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14E:80:46D0:29B4:F206:B42F:2E61 (talk) 06:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I think you mean Hunter Biden laptop controversy. soibangla (talk) 13:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

This might be one of the most pathetic and illogical arguments I've ever witnessed on a talk page, and it has obviously devolved very quickly into a debate about politics and editors arguing over whether or not the allegations are true or false. This website is meant to be completely objective and remain clear from the bias of either side. Something does not have to be proven true for it to be an allegation; however, it must be PROVEN TO BE FALSE and NOT SIMPLY REMAIN UNPROVEN before it can be labeled as such. Why are we debating whether it's true or false? If the debate even exists, it remains a neutral allegation and should not be labeled as false. THAT'S HOW ALLEGATIONS WORK JackSitilides (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

JackSitilides said If the debate even exists which it hasn't for years, but in light of more recent events, many incorrectly believe the debate still exists. People are taking their eyes off the ball, thanks to efforts by people like Comer and Hannity, which explains why this is one of the most pathetic and illogical arguments I've ever witnessed on a talk page soibangla (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Soibangla How did you manage to put words on a page and still say nothing? How do the recent events not reopen the debate as to whether or not the allegations are true? These events are occurring due to the matters of continued investigation and new testimony of witnesses, which means that the debate is very much still open. people like Comer and Hannity are allowed to cover all topics of politics as do the left-leaning media sources which have been covering it just as much. Please explain to me how them reporting or for whatever other reason that people incorrectly believe the debate still exists. JackSitilides (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2023 (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.

An FBI source, a Burisma deal, the Bidens and details that don’t match up

From Glenn Kessler's newsletter:

An FBI source, a Burisma deal and the Bidens

Congressional Republicans recently released an FBI document from 2020 that makes a shocking allegation about President Biden — that he and his son Hunter were involved in a foreign bribery scheme with a Ukrainian business executive. The four-page document that the Republicans released, an FD-1023 form, is the kind used to record information from a person the FBI considers a “confidential human source.” The claim is fueling GOP demands for an impeachment inquiry, though there is no evidence the bribery claim is true.

While the document recounts conversations that cannot be independently verified, The Fact Checker can shed light on a business transaction described in those conversations, comparing the document’s account with publicly available information. The transaction concerned the alleged desire of Mykola Zlochevsky, the chief executive of the Ukrainian gas firm Burisma, to purchase a U.S.-based company. Hunter Biden at the time was on the board of Burisma.

It’s a complicated tale but what we found is that the deal — the subject of speculation by conservative news organizations — does not match up with the account provided in the document.

You can read our full report by clicking this link.

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Newsletters do not meet WP:RS and should not be cited as secondary sources. They violate WP:NOR. Jgmac1106 (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Framing

This article is clearly not in line with NPOV and I think the main problem is how the issue is framing. You could say, for example, that because there is no evidence Joe Biden withheld the loan and pressured Ukraine into removing the prosecutor general for the explicit purpose of protecting his son from investigation, then any claims to the contrary are "conspiracy theories". Indeed, this is narrative that is peddled in the article. But you could also say that this is an egregious confict of interest on the part of Biden, if not legally, then ethically. And in fact, much of the media coverage about the affair focuses on exactly that. For example: [10]https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/us/politics/biden-son-ukraine.html

The problem with the article is that the former narrative is being pushed a lot harder than the latter, even though both of them are valid points of view. The article is framed in such a way as to convince the reader that the entire issue revolves around the "conspiracy theory" of Biden having the prosecutor fired to protect his son. The term "conflict of interest" is mentioned only once and this side of the story is not given anything resembling the appropriate amount of weight in the article. In essence, a frame has been place around the former narrative to the exclusion of the latter narrative despite it's validity.

My suggestion going forward would be to rename the article "Biden-Ukraine controversy" and to provide an appropriate level of balance for both viewpoints. This has to be among the most politically biased articles I've ever seen on Wikipedia and at the moment it's not even close to being fair, neutral or balanced. 78.16.187.226 (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Fringe theories. We do not give equal weight to conspiracy theories. We don't do "narratives" either. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not asking you for equal weight to be given to conspiracy theories. I'm asking for balance to be given to very real concerns about Biden's conflict of interest here. As I already stated, a significant amount of the media coverage surrounding the controversy has been to do with the conflict of interest issue. Here's another example of a reliable source covering the conflict of interest perspective that is almost entirely ignored in this article: [11]https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/joe-biden-ukraine-burisma-holdings/

There's nothing "fringe" about this. This is a prominent viewpoint in many reliable sources. It's an entire side of the story that is framed off in favour of giving vastly more weight to the "conspiracy theory" perspective. It's just unbalanced, plain and simple. 78.16.187.226 (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you propose some specific language and its placement in the article. soibangla (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

did you discuss this here the other day? just wonderin' soibangla (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

No, it's my first time bringing up the issue here although the state of the page has been bothering me for a while. 78.16.187.226 (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree! I can't believe I read this on Wikipedia. This is a total departure from NPOV; is a totally partisan piece masking opinions and assertions as facts. How do we know why Biden pressured the Ukrainians to fire Shokin? Can we read his mind? The accusation against Biden may be true or false -- we're not in court here -- but it is certainly a serious accusation, and not a bloody "conspiracy theory". Unbelievable! This piece should be left up -- it is a huge discredit to Wikipedia, which exists and thrives only because of its noble principles and discipline. 194.204.13.221 (talk) 11:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

And there is even evidence that Shokin was fired to protect Burisma. For example, Hunter Biden's business associate Devon Archer has stated that this was so, and has cited a lot of facts. https://nypost.com/2023/08/04/devon-archer-biden-claim-he-never-talked-hunter-biz-categorically-false/ He could be lying, and it would take a court case and a lot of investigation to get to the bottom of it, but the accusations are plausible and have certainly not been disproved as stated in this egregious article. 194.204.13.221 (talk) 11:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

We have a section involving the subjects of the false conspiracy. If you feel it belongs and does not create WP:UNDUE based on fringe theories please ask for consensus here before editing articles. Jgmac1106 (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

No Longer false claims

Devon Archer said Joe was on the phone with Bursima officials.

please change. 2600:8805:C980:9400:968:C044:3FD0:2ABE (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

False claims are still false. The false conspiracy theory was that Joe Biden had Viktor Shokin fired to benefit Burisma, not that Joe Biden said hi to Burisma people over the phone. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Everything you said was wrong 2600:8805:C980:9400:A84A:8722:5E95:EFDA (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

READ: Devon Archer interview transcript released by House Oversight panel: Archer agreed that Hunter Biden was selling the “illusion of access” to his father. ... Archer also testified the younger Biden “occasionally” put his father on speakerphone with business partners and others. Goldman emphasized afterward that “they never once spoke about any business dealings.” – Muboshgu (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

You are Reaching, and clearly did not read his testimony. latching on to media talking points like “they never once spoke about any business dealings.” is not helpful. The testimony said they (Devon and Hunter) were at Dinner with the Burisma guys. The Burisma guys were asking for help because they were under pressure from Shokin. They asked can Hunter get some help from DC. Hunter calls his dad and steps away from table, 5 days later Joe is in Ukraine and withholds funding unless Shokin is fired. That is what happened. The fact Devon didnt hear Joe and Burisma guys converse is moot. We also have a phone recording where the President of Ukraine says he has no evidence of Shokin being corrupt. It is incredible to me the back breaking going on to keep this article a "Conspiracy Theory" 136.34.222.227 (talk) 11:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

do you have reliable sources for that? if not, it's moot, WP:NOTFORUM soibangla (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, Devon Archer testimony listed above and the evidence presenting in the hearing that show the phone logs and the travel logs that they were with Burisma guys and Called Joe 5 days before he withheld the money. But by all means keep ignoring it. 136.34.222.227 (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I asked you for reliable sources soibangla (talk) 18:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Is congressional sworn testimony not reliable? Is news footage not reliable? Here is the link to testimony https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Devon-Archer-Transcript.pdf

Mr. Archer. Then -- then Hunter went to the Four Seasons. That was -- and he met his -- you know, one of his friends was a manager and used to be in Georgetown. And then we -- you know, later in the evening, we went over there, you know, not, like -- whatever. I don't know the time. And then Vadym, Zlochevsky, and myself wentSo that's when we met up. And they were -- you know, they were -- it was this, you know, specifically under -- you know, they were feeling the heat or whatever. And they were like, okay, can we -- can we call D.C. And, again, I can't -- on that particular -- you know, there were conference calls where we talked around the table. On that call, I was not in the earshot of that -- of that. But I know that there was -- you know, there was a call made

Q. And that call that was made, that was on December 4th of 2015?

On or around.

And then just 5 days later, Vice President Biden has a trip to the Ukraine, and he makes a statement: "It's not enough to set up a new anti-corruption bureau and establish a special prosecutor fighting corruption. The Office of the General Prosecutor desperately needs reform." I know you've talked about these different pressures, but when VP Biden comes on December 9th of 2015, he talks about the specific pressure of the Office of the General Prosecutor. 136.34.222.227 (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources that interpret that primary source? soibangla (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Lol, I need someone you deem reliable to interpret the primary source of sworn congressional testimony? Ok dude, whatever. Why don't you just require a full confession of Hunter and Joe? Unreal how you guys move the goal post of what you will use to post facts of an issue. 136.34.222.227 (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Your interpretation is that this was nefarious, and that is not reliable. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The interpretation is logical and Occam's razor approach. No one in their right mind believes that the VPOTUS cares about a prosecutor in Ukraine, especially after we know for a fact his son was on the board of a company being investigated. Your Interpretation is non sensical and you are not being asked to say he is guilty, you are being asked to just state the different views and for gods sake to stop pretending like it is a conspiracy theory. 136.34.222.227 (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The U.S. obviously cares about Ukraine, as is being proven now. Biden represented the western world in pushing for Shokin's firing. What you call occam's razor is just your own personal bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

This is not Facebook. It's Wikipedia. soibangla (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Talk about your strawman argument, I gave you sworn testimony from a congressional hearing and you reject it. So you result to trying to act like I am making FB arguments. If this is the way you guys handle controversial issues, then you might as well call it WikiLiberalbias. 136.34.222.227 (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

We rely on reliable secondary sources, not "it's right there in the transcript, dude!" Bye. soibangla (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

What kind of stupid reasoning is that, so if you had a videotape of hunter biden admitting this. You would need the NYT to confirm first. This is all very comical. 136.34.222.227 (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources, which lay this out. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

And it says primary sources can be used if no special need of interpretation is needed. Which in this case it is not. You guys have a real problem on your hands. You have decided how to decide what is facts and then set up who is supposedly reliable. The issue is the sources you call reliable have a bias. So now your articles are reflecting that. 136.34.222.227 (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

"What kind of stupid reasoning is that"? You seem to be the only one with the problem here, at least, as it relates to WP:CIV DN (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Since you're alleging something that is contrary to what Archer said in his testimony, yes, we need secondary sourcing. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Phone recording of which president of Ukraine? Poroshenko, who was corrupt too? “Neither Shokin nor Poroshenko wanted to investigate [Burisma owner Mykola​] Zlochevsky,” says Sakvarelidze. “They simply began a criminal case, arrested a few assets, and began negotiating with the corruptioneer for a bribe.”[12] Everything you say about that dinner is circumstantial. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I find it funny that you call Shokin and Proshenko corrupt without any evidence, and only hearse. yet ignore sworn testimony of Devon Archer, and then you call the dinner, Phone call, and Biden visit to Ukraine over a 5 days span circumstantial (which one can be convicted for) I so look forward to the day this all comes out and this article has to be edited. You really think that is reasonable to assume that the VP of United States cared about the Prosecutor in Ukraine because he is altruistic? Or is it more reasonable to assume that he cared because his son was being paid by a company under investigation? I am as left leaning moderate that hates Trump, but this article is an example of why people dont trust media at all. There is not even an attempt here to be neutral and state basic facts. 136.34.222.227 (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

It has been demonstrated that Shokin was not investigating Burisma, though he was supposed to. Then Biden, at the behest of the EU, pushed to get Shokin fired, and the new prosecutor started investigating Burisma, putting Hunter in greater risk. Also, no evidence has been presented to connect Joe Biden to Burisma. All you've posted is hearsay. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, then prove he wasnt investigating Burisma. You can not because all you have is hearsay. The Behest of the EU line came out AFTER the issue came up that the narrative turned to Hunter working for Burisma. If Hunter was in greater risk, then explain how no one was prosecuted from Burisma after Shokin was fired?. Explain how only after Shokin was fired did the UK unfreeze 23 million of Burisma funds. They were all so concerned that nothing was done afterwards no one was convicted. At least try and make it make sense. You are just vomiting opinion pieces 136.34.222.227 (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The Behest of the EU line came out AFTER the issue came up that the narrative turned to Hunter working for Burisma. Herbst and Nuland testified to Senate Foreign Relations committee in March 2016 that it was American policy to get rid of Shokin soibangla (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Herbst and Nuland testified to Senate Foreign Relations committee in March 2016

You mean two Democrats said after the fact that It was the policy? 136.34.222.227 (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Under oath in front of Congress. Herbst and Nuland were appointed to ambassadorships by noted Democrat George W. Bush. If you dismiss facts you don't like, there's not much room for building a consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

But you don't accept Devon Archer sworn testimony? And their testimony should be discounted since 1 it came after the fact and 2 Joe had an obvious conflict of interest. 136.34.222.227 (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I accept Archer's sworn testimony that he has no knowledge connecting Joe Biden to Burisma's business. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

But yet you dont accept him saying a call was made when a favor was asked, so you admit you are deciding which parts to accept and reject. 136.34.222.227 (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The problem here is that you are asserting what happened on that phone call when the testimony does not include the content of the phone call. There is no proof for what you are asserting. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Bump SPECIFICO talk 16:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Please do not use the talk page as a forum. We do not bump @ mentions. This "thread" was about removing the words "falsehood."

It is not to debate, discuss the edits you proposse and the use of secondary, not primary sources, to support that evidence Jgmac1106 (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of this page

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

---

The phrase conspiracy is used frequently and incorrectly on this page including the title. Biden’s business dealings in Ukraine while his father was overseeing Ukraine policy as vice president are proven fact. My question is why is this disinformation remaining in the site? Mav214 (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Biden’s business dealings in Ukraine while his father was overseeing Ukraine policy as vice president are indeed proven fact. Beyond that, there is no evidence they are connected. None. soibangla (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you willing to stand by that statement still? 2603:7081:2339:86E8:5496:5D4B:78B3:5504 (talk) 22:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, because the unverified claims made in the document released on 20 July 2023 by Sen. Chuck Grassley were previously investigated by the DOJ during the Trump Administration, and they found insufficient evidence to warrant further investigation. Put simply, accusations are not evidence, and no evidence has been found to support the accusations. EricTN (talk) 03:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

"The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of false allegations" versus "the unverified claims made in the document" - Put simply, unproven accusations are not false allegations, and copious evidence has been found to support the accusations, but not proof of guilt - which are different standards. If you don't agree to delete the article then it must be rewritten so that it's no longer wrongly calling accusations false just because they're unproven. SalClements (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

multiple reliable sources say false, not merely unproven[[13]]

have you taken a look at Comer investigation of Biden family where allegations of bribery, money laundering and cover-up remain pending? soibangla (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The false allegations are about Joe Biden, not his son. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree. This should not be labeled as a "conspiracy " as many facts and credible news sources are now showing that the sated alligations could be valid. Labeling a subject a "conspiracy theory" leads the viewer to disbelieve statments herein as untrue and or false, which can persuade the said viewer to come to a conclusion that is not fully factulal. Disinformation hurts everyone. Thank you. 72.28.4.89 (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Labeling this as a conspiracy theory should lead the reader to disbelieve it, because the idea that Joe Biden personally benefited from Hunter's Burisma dealings has no evidence to support it, as James Comer's nothingburger press conference today demonstrates. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

James Comer, the obscure politician from Kentucky? Who pays attention to his rambling? Dimadick (talk) 04:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

What is all the money for? What are all the shell companies for?

What is the biden family business?

This page is as corrupt as the Biden administration and should be removed. 72.142.65.10 (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Conjecture and hearsay is unbecoming. This thread should be archived as it is not a serious attempt to improve the article, but rather an attempt to push a biased narrative. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

No evidence? https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-allegedly-paid-5-million-by-burisma-executive 2601:48:8101:4720:6859:E2:8BEA:634E (talk) 03:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

That article is incorrect, the 1023 did not say that soibangla (talk) 03:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to correct my statement. The article is not incorrect. It is a huge lie of epic proportions. soibangla (talk) 03:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you point to something specific that is incorrect in the article? SalClements (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:FOXNEWS is not a reliable source on this subject. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

"Labeling this as a conspiracy theory should lead the reader to disbelieve it." - That would be letting your personal prejudices improperly bias the editing of wikipedia. The article should not lead the reader to disbelieve something just because the evidence has yet to prove an accusations is true. Disbelief would be appropriate if and only evidence disproved an accusation. The reader should be led to have skepticism about unproven allegations, but not disbelief. The article needs to be rewritten accordingly. SalClements (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I second this.

To title the article 'allegations' would be much more fitting as, in reality, that's what they are. There's nothing definitively proving or disproving them. The reader should be able to formulate their own opinion based on the facts verified by reliable sources rather than a Wikipedia article's title using biased language MarkJames1989 (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

MarkJames1989 There is continuing confusion about the subject of this article. It is about a specific allegation that many reliable sources refuted as flatly false years ago, and it it remains flatly false despite efforts by some to resuscitate it in the midst of a swirl of new allegations against the Bidens that arose this year. Now some are saying, "oh, and remember that Joe got that prosecutor fired to protect Hunter!" But it wasn't true then and it still isn't true now. All the recent allegations that remain pending are at Comer investigation of Biden family. Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory is not the Every allegation against Joe Biden article. soibangla (talk) 01:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

"swirl of new allegations against the Bidens that arose this year" You mean the largely irrelevant bullshit by Republican propagandists? At this point, who is going to believe the Boy Who Cried Wolf? Dimadick (talk) 08:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

A reasonable conclusion is that centrist wording is needed. "Falsehoods" is a clearly biased claim that at this moment has not been proven. It will be tough to definitively prove in either direction, therefore I have made the changes to reflect the lack of conclusion in the case and removed assumptions. Mav214 (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Please do not make edits like this one that edit war against consensus. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. Calling it centrist is an issue False Balance. WP:FRINGE are not given equal weight as multiple reliable secondary sources have established the allegations of the conspiracy to be false.

Do you have reliable secondary sources to suggest falsehoods were not proven? Jgmac1106 (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2023 (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.

Are you ignoring $5 million?

WP:NOTFORUM TarnishedPathtalk
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What about the $5 million transferred into foreign LLC bank accounts and then 25 hours later transferred to Biden Family members? They got paid because … let’s see maybe Joe fired the prosecutor? That’s evidence? Is it enough to convict? Maybe especially when to add the Form 1023, Joe Biden bragging about firing him, what Viktor Shokin said about the situation and what others have mentioned in the topics. You can’t say they are false claims. The facts don’t support that statement. False means it didn’t happen. Right now the weight of the evidence would point to more likely than not we took a bribe. 2600:4040:265E:E800:6C95:3CEF:59D0:70EC (talk) 00:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC) Please show us a source that says that and isn't WP:FOXNEWS or a worse conspiracy site. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC) Is CNN a better source than Fox News? I’m beginning to think any source that doesn’t support your believe is a bad source. 2600:4040:265E:E800:6C95:3CEF:59D0:70EC (talk) 02:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC) See WP:RSP, a list of sources that have been routinely discussed and rated as reliable or unreliable. CNN is fine. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC) "Is CNN a better source than Fox News?" Just about any source is better than the notoriously unreliable Fox News. Even the Daily Fail has has had less scandals. Dimadick (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC) Still waiting for a source on that alleged $5 million to the Bidens. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Dishonest article

WP:NOTFORUM TarnishedPathtalk
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There's video proof of Biden admitting to withholding money until the investigation into Barisma was halted and Shokin fired. Biden didn't want the investigation into hunter's corruption to continue. It's no conspiracy, it's fact. This article is untruthful and needs to be taken down and an article with the truth added. 98.16.29.82 (talk) 11:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC) From the article: In January 2018, a videotaping by the Council on Foreign Relations shows Biden taking credit for withholding the loan guarantees to have the prosecutor fired. His actions were implementations of bipartisan US policy rather than done for any of the reasons alleged in the conspiracy theory. soibangla (talk) 12:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Steaming Pile of Horse Sh*t

WP:NOTFORUM TarnishedPathtalk
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The content of the summary is too narrow to fit the name of the article. Originally, the Biden-Ukraine Ukraine conspiracy theory might referred to Biden pressuring Ukraine to fire its prosecutor. Now, the suggestion has been made that Biden may have received money from Burisma through his son to pressure Ukraine into firing the prosecutor. These separate accusations should both be discussed if this article is to remain a relevant source of information about the firing of Shokin. To say that that the Republican's house's investigation "found no evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden" is absurd. When did wikipedia become such a potent judge of facts. Just say the house's investigation purports to have evidence of wrongdoing, but this is contradicted by [insert leftist institution here]. 174.75.30.204 (talk) 05:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC) Talk pages are for discussing concrete changes to the article, not soapboxing and complaining aimlessly. Andre🚐 06:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Clean Up Warning

Hey everyone,

I noticed the reogranization clean up warning. I could not find when it was assigned in the history. Do people know the editor who added the warning?

Have recommended changes for the text structure? Jgmac1106 (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what "reorganization" means here, unless it is an oblique reference to "it's not a conspiracy theory anymore," as some now assert based on what they saw on Hannity. I think it should be removed. soibangla (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

It wasn’t from Hannity. It was an article containing statements about Wikipedia’s bias by its co-founder Larry Sanger and comments specially about the bias the Biden Ukraine “conspiracy” specifically denying evidence supporting that Ukraine could very well have bribed Biden. Definitely should take it out of the “conspiracy” realm. It should only be removed if you are biased. Your decision. 2600:1004:B188:58AD:A555:BFA6:4891:8C0E (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

there is no reason to believe that Sanger or Joseph Mercola possess any special expertise that warrants their views being elevated over what reliable sources report. there is evidence to the contrary, in fact. soibangla (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Sanger is not an expert in any field, much less medicine. His status as "co-founder" is largely only a self-claim as well. Zaathras (talk) 03:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I believe that particular template is complaining about the section headers and the slightly unorthodox naming of the section headers. It doesn't mean anything close to what this IP has said, nor is that statement reasonable. Andre🚐 23:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the tag as it helps nothing. Whoever has concerns about the organization and layout should describe them here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

It seems to be bringing in fresh eyes so obviously the tag helps. It was originally placed here by Ca with the note of The current layout gives too much focus on individuals. I restored the unaddressed tag. PackMecEng (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Does that "concern" have any legitimacy? Has anyone proposed how to "fix" this "problem"? Has anyone demonstrated it is a problem?

My point is that the weird concerns of one editor are not normally allowed to be broadcast to the public with a badge of shame on the article. We do not allow editorial comments to be displayed there. They should explain their concerns here and convince other editors to help them fix the "problem". If they won't do that, their tag should be removed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with removing the tag, unless PackMecEng has a proposal for how to address the concern. Andre🚐 01:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

It was placed over a month ago and the editor that placed it didn't seem to bother starting any discussion on the subject, as far as I can see. So, what "fresh eyes" are you attributing to the tag, and what evidence leads you to believe the tag is even related? DN (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

It seems like someone is protecting Biden here

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

---

The editor will not allow posting if articles which refute the wiki entry. I have attempted to post an article by Dr. Mercola which sums up Wikipedia’s bias and the evidence that supports this “conspiracy”. He wants to keep this out because it blows their narrative. This has to stop. 2600:4040:265E:E800:6C95:3CEF:59D0:70EC (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Who is Dr. Mercola? We only include reliable sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

It has become clear that you don't understand how Wikipedia works. It is not Facebook, we don't debate every piece of trash that comes from every trash source. We rely on reliable secondary sources. Your efforts are futile and a waste of everyone's time. It's not because anyone is blocking you or blocking the truth, it's because what you're trying to do does not comply with Wikipedia policy. Please stop. soibangla (talk) 01:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

The co-founder of Wikipedia is a trash source? He is what the article is about. 2600:4040:265E:E800:6C95:3CEF:59D0:70EC (talk) 02:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Sanger hasn't had anything to do with Wikipedia and has not been notable for anything for 20+ years and a man can go through a major transformation over that kind of time. He has a clear POV that his twitter feed reveals. His original essay about alleged POV contains flat falsehoods that are espoused by conspiracy theorists. He is not credible on this topic. Drop it. soibangla (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't know that there's anything you can do. Wikipedia is a democracy, majority rules. And the majority here are not neutral; they lean left. The editors who have responded to you are the same ones who pushed to deem "unreliable" any media organizations they perceive as right-leaning. They then post and allow left-leaning comments from "reliable" liberal sources while blocking any other comments based on the RS Policy - which they themselves effected. There used to be a Neutral Point of View Principle here, but with one side blocked that's impossible now. [14][15] Fx6893 (talk) 04:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2023 (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.

Move to "Biden Family Corruption Accusations in Ukrainian Business Dealings

Clearly there are accusations, the words "controversy" or "conspiracy" does not belong here. AND, for those of you without a PhD, I do not think "theory" means what you think it means.

The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 08:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Accusations which are a conspiracy theory. Move along. TarnishedPath^talk 09:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

See: Comer investigation of Biden family. It's all there. This article is about a single, discrete allegation that was false three years ago and remains false today. soibangla (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources suggest these are "unproven" allegations, not "false" allegations. As for a conspiracy theory, we're not talking about aliens at Area 51, or the earth being flat. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Not like Area 51, definitely like flat earth. SPECIFICO talk 22:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

In order to label it a conspiracy theory, you need a preponderance of reliable sources to characterize it as such. Unless I'm missing something, this is not generally referred to as a conspiracy theory. Will make an RfD for moving it to an NPOV title. TheMissingMuse (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Lol, no, "preponderance" is not the threshold. As long as multiple reliable sources refer to it as such, that is sufficient. Zaathras (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

No, the majority or the mainstream view of reliable sources is correct. So preponderance is accurate, it does not matter if you find multiple source, it matters if that is the majority view of reliable sources. PackMecEng (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Magnolia677: Reliable sources suggest these are "unproven" allegations, not "false" allegations is incorrect. soibangla (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@Soibangla: I allege that you do all your editing from a little island in the Bering Sea, inhabited only by you and a bunch of polar bears. Is this a "false" allegation, or an "unproven" allegation? Magnolia677 (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

It's a lie, also known as a false allegation. It is not a conspiracy theory unless you think the Chukchi Sea subpopulation are also Wikipedia editors and there is some sort of collusion. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

That kind of collusion to knowingly spread a lie is called Russian disinformation. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what we editors personally call something. We rely on RS. Even USA Today, considered about as neutral as you can get, uses the term.[16] O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

you know the headline of that article does not reflect what the body says, right? haven't your excellent and exquisite sources like The Federalist (website), FrontPage Magazine, The Washington Free Beacon, Townhall, The Washington Times, and the Washington Examiner and Miranda Devine of the New York Post told you that yet? soibangla (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Don't forget RT and its lies about Hunter paying to sanitize his Wikipedia article. Anyway, we're having too much fun for a talk page. The wagons are circling and it won't be long. I do agree that an RfC about the name of this article is long overdue. Open it up to a wider community. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

There is already an RfM a few inches down. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Biden-Ukraine perennial falsehoods works for me soibangla (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you plan on making the change, if you're so inclined? 69.113.233.201 (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

1023

Magnolia677 the 1023 released by Grassley is not relevant to this article, which has a very narrow scope. it belongs in the Comer investigation of Biden family, which has a much broader scope, and where the 1023 is extensively discussed. soibangla (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence of this article says:

• "The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of false allegations that Joe Biden, while he was vice president of the United States, withheld a loan guarantee to pressure Ukraine into firing prosecutor general Viktor Shokin to prevent a corruption investigation of Ukrainian gas company Burisma and to protect his son, Hunter Biden, who was on the Burisma board."

My addition to this article stated that the Republicans are pursuing an impeachment in part because:

• "a trusted intelligence source had passed along allegations that the Biden family had received two $5 million payments from a Ukrainian energy company after then Vice-President Biden pressured Ukraine to remove a senior government official in charge of investigating corruption."

Seems pretty related to this "conspiracy theory". Magnolia677 (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

this article does not contain any variation of the word bribe. it did not contain any reference to $5 million until you just added it. your addition is not relevant to this article. it is relevant only to Comer investigation of Biden family. the "in part" you refer to is not in this article. soibangla (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Magnolia677 do you still believe your contribution belongs in this article? soibangla (talk) 02:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

^ Objections, soibangla? 69.113.233.201 (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

yes, and more than what I touched upon here [17] soibangla (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Mags, your statements in this thread come close to being disqualifying. I am very disappointed to see this seriously proposed as if it were complying with our PAGs for article content. SPECIFICO talk 16:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

$10 million bribe allegation

closing soibangla (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Does the $10 million bribe allegation by Mykola Zlochevsky belong in this article, as it is here?[18] Republican Senator Chuck Grassley released a Federal Bureau of Investigation document in July 2023, which detailed "how a trusted intelligence source had passed along allegations that the Biden family had received two $5 million payments from a Ukrainian energy company after then Vice-President Biden pressured Ukraine to remove a senior government official in charge of investigating corruption." A previous discussion is here soibangla (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC) Comment - Soibangla, there were only two editors involved in that discussion/dialogue. Do you think you could have started with a less nuclear form of dispute resolution than an RfC? Magnolia677 (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC) I don't see you were willing to address the points I made to you. Will you address them now? soibangla (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC) I agree. No RfC. Just discuss it here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC) soibangla, please remove the RfC. Make this just an ordinary discussion. That section in the article should be eliminated, leaving just a link in the See also section. This article must remain focused on the false allegations. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)