Talk:Burisma

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Burisma Holdings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140513132005/http://burisma.com/hunter-biden-joins-the-team-of-burisma-holdings/ to http://burisma.com/hunter-biden-joins-the-team-of-burisma-holdings/

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Hunter Biden's company received $3.4 million from Burisma

Here's my suggestion for how to improve the article.[1]

Burisma is the largest private natural gas producer in Ukraine.

Burisma Group was founded in 2002 by Ukrainian businessman Mykola Zlochevsky and Nikolay Lysin. Now it is owned by Mykola Zlochevskyi, who was minister of natural resources under Viktor Yanukovych. Zlochevsky returned to Ukraine in February 2018 after the corruption investigations into his Burisma Holdings had been completed in December 2017 with no charges filed against him.

Hunter Biden's company Rosemont Seneca received $3.4 million from Burisma Holdings.

References

User:SPECIFICO obviously disagrees.[2] SPECIFICO's edit summary: "synth undue BLP smear." -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Does BHR Partners belong to Hunter Biden as implied by your WP:EGG link? Why drag Biden into this article, immediately after a paragraph about corruption? It's hard not to view some of these recent edits as POV pushing. I hope I'm wrong.- MrX 🖋 19:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

In June 2009, Hunter Biden, Christopher Heinz—Senator John Kerry’s stepson—and Devon Archer co-founded Rosemont Seneca Partners. In 2012, Archer and Biden talked to Jonathan Li, who ran a Chinese private-equity fund, Bohai Capital, about becoming partners in a new company that would invest Chinese capital in companies outside China. In 2013, Archer, Biden and Li created the fund, which they named BHR Partners. — The New Yorker.

According to The New York Times:

Hunter Biden’s work in Ukraine appears to have been well compensated. Burisma paid $3.4 million to a company called Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC from mid-April 2014, when Hunter Biden and Mr. Archer joined the board, to late 2015, according to the financial data provided by the Ukrainian deputy prosecutor. The payments continued after that, according to people familiar with the arrangement. Rosemont Seneca Bohai was controlled by Mr. Archer, who left Burisma’s board after he was charged in connection with a scheme to defraud pension funds and an Indian tribe of tens of millions of dollars. Bank records submitted in that case — which resulted in a conviction for Mr. Archer that was overturned in November — show that Rosemont Seneca Bohai made regular payments to Mr. Biden that totaled as much as $50,000 in some months.

-- Tobby72 (talk) 08:59, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I oppose adding this material. As encyclopedia article about a company should not contain detailed transactional information loosely associated with one former director. - MrX 🖋 09:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

We report what reliable sources say. The New York Times also reports that Hunter Biden was "paid as much as $50,000 per month in some months for his work for the company, Burisma Holdings." I think it is relevant and should be included. -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

It may be relevant for the Hunter Biden article but not here. There is no salaries of any other board or management member salaries, so it is totally out of context. And yes, we report what reliable sources say if it is significant for the subject WP:DUE and if it is the right article. Beagel (talk) 10:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

It's UNDUE and off-topic for this article and it insinuates a vague SYNTH BLP smear. These edits have been examined and editors have repeatedly rejected them. It's a waste of everyone's time to keep bringing the same ones up. SPECIFICO talk 16:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Hunter Biden was on the Board of Directors and was paid $50,000 a month. It is very relevant to this article. Most of this article is a whitewash and mostly fiction. Jose Lipton (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Almost all of the news coverage of Burisma Holdings relates to Hunter Biden and to corruption investigations into the company. WP:DUE requires those topics to be covered here. Including such information is not a "BLP smear." Hunter Biden's role in Burisma has been the subject of intense coverage and scrutiny, and mentioning that widespread coverage, especially in a neutral manner, does not in any way violate WP:BLP. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Problem is, the overwhelming consensus rejects that view, which is replete with equivocation, deflection, and misrepresentation. Please drop the stick promoting Trump's pro-Russia conspiracy theories. SPECIFICO talk 14:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Reject what view? There's no POV being pushed here. It's just that the most notable aspect, by far, of Burisma Holdings has to be somehow covered in the article. Also, please remember to assume good faith and strike the above aspersions. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you give a careful read to the article history and talk page threads on this and related articles over the past 2 weeks. Your views have been widely and solidly rejected. Fortunately, with the benefit of all our experience with this kind of stuff in the Trump/Russia articles in 2016-7, editors are making sure not to waste time on edits that are poorly sourced, off-topic, undue, POV, or BLP smears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 22:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I haven't presented any views here, so what views of mine have been rejected? Please strike your repeated aspersions against me, and then respond to my actual point: the corruption investigations and connection with Hunter Biden are the most notable elements of Burisma Holdings, going by news coverage. They have to be somehow covered in the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Your view is that this inappropriate content should be added to the article. That view has been rejected. SPECIFICO talk 13:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Which specific "inappropriate content"? I've just said that the issues that have received massive press coverage in the past few weeks need to be somehow covered in the article. It would be wrong to blanket exclude that material, as you appear to be demanding. You keep insisting that any mention of Hunter Biden is a "BLP smear," but he's a public figure who's received massive press coverage in relation to Burisma Holdings. There is definitely a way to explain his relation to the company and the accusations of corruption that is not a BLP violation. You're showing zero willingness to compromise and develop a reasonable, neutral text. You're just rejecting any mention of issues that have received a huge amount of press coverage, and attacking anyone who suggests those issues should be mentioned.

"That view has been rejected" - by whom? -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

There are Fox articles, New Yorker articles etc. listed, various holding companies, a person named Archer et al. There is no clear "follow the money" trail in any of that. The only fact that comes out of this mess is that Hunter Biden was paid 50 000 a month as a board member, which we already knew. Tero111 (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

History -- excessive detail primary sourced

There has recently been added a blow-by-blow of some history the upshot of which seems to be that Burisma acquired interests in a couple of small energy companies. The detail is primary-sourced, so there's no indication it is significant. I think this detail is UNDUE and should be removed. Also, "Deleware corporation" seems particularly gratuitous. "American company" carries the same information. The state of incorporation is irrelevant and could be misinterpreted as some kind of reference to the Bidens. SPECIFICO talk 20:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Esko-Pivnich and Pari are main producing subsidiaries of Burisma. Also, Burisma Group itself on their website toots their history back to 2002 when these companies got exploration licences which was before Burisma itself was founded. So, it is significant for the Burisma history and certainly not UNDUE. As for sources, if you think that SEC is not enough there is no problem to add Susan Webber or John Helmer. As for Delaware Corporation, this is a certain type of corporation and this specification is commonly used for financial reporting. It has nothing to do with Bidens, it all happened years before Hunter Biden joined the board of Burisma. Beagel (talk) 05:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Possible change of owner

In 2012, the Ukrainian Anti Corruption Action Centre concluded that the actual owner of Burisma is Ihor Kolomoyskyi's Privat Group. In 2014, Deutsche Welle reporated that in 2013, Burisma was sold to Ihor Kolomoyskyi or Viktor Pinchuk. However, these claims are not confirmed. Should we inlcude this information as important views or not? This information was removed by MrX with an edit summary 'This is an encyclopedia, not a place for speculation' and was added again by Lorenzo2525 with edit summary 'Added to indicate change of ownership as concluded in the already referenced article in footnote #32'. Beagel (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

This would need much better sourcing than the vague "... have been named as the possible new owners.". WP:BLPGOSSIP applies. - MrX 🖋 13:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Checkyourfact content addition

@Davidgarcia84: Please discuss your proposed content addition here per WP:BRD. Checkyourfact.com is a publication of The Daily Caller, which is a deprecated source. Do you have another source of information for the content you want to add here? Sam Walton (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @MastCell and Beagel: who also reverted this addition. Sam Walton (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

"Check Your Fact" is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Daily Caller, which is a patently unreliable source known to publish false or fabricated information for partisan ends (per consensus documented at WP:RSP). "Check Your Fact" is therefore entirely inappropriate for use in WP:BLP content (or anywhere on Wikipedia, really), and its use—and continued reinsertion—constitutes a clear WP:BLP violation. It should be obvious that an unreliable source cannot magically become reliable by setting up a wholly owned shell company and publishing content under a different name. It would be preferable to resolve this issue via discussion, but a block is clearly warranted for continuing to edit-war BLP-violating sources into an article.

The most recent iteration of this material now includes a New York Times source as well. The Times is clearly a reliable source and supports some of the info in the text, but my concern is that the source is being cherry-picked and misused. The thrust of the Times article is that the allegations have a distinct partisan cast, but we cite it only to support details about payments without context, creating a misleading insinuation of wrong-doing. Moreover, I question why we are citing a Times article from 18 months ago, when the Times (and other reliable sources) have much more recent and ongoing coverage of the allegations related to Burisma. It feels a little like an effort by an editor to push a partisan point, where the sourcing is an afterthought to be dug up to support an editorial agenda. Wikipedia articles are best written by first looking for the best, most up-to-date sources, and then following where they lead.

I'll remove the unreliable source - note that this is a WP:BLP enforcement action and therefore exempt from revert restrictions - and take a shot at rewriting the section using more recent high-quality sources. MastCell ^Talk 18:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

When it hurts Democrats, it's "partisan". 2601:547:500:E930:95F:97EB:19B7:BC81 (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

There's more to a source's unreliability than partisanship. X-Editor (talk) 06:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

LIES!!

Theirs video proof of Joe biden admitting to bribing the Ukrainian government to fire the prosecutor of his son hunter biden!! In fact he was bragging about it! 74.70.26.232 (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

nope soibangla (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

"Senate" investigation

I feel it is relevant - and quite possibly increasingly important - to reference the United States Senate’s corruption investigation of Burisma and the Biden family. More specifically, the Senate investigated corruption claims brought after then-Vice President Biden was tasked to lead anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine, while, his son, Hunter Biden, became financially involved with Burisma. Additional claims of financial incentives are also mentioned in the investigation. The timing and financial benefits of such involvement brought about concerns of perceived conflicts of interest, as stated in the final investigation report from the United States Senate, which I have linked to below. P.S. - Please note, I am not stating an opinion or claiming wrongdoing by any party. I am simply pointing out the omission of this relevant investigation by presenting an official, public government report. Hunter Biden, Burisma, and Corruption: The Impact on U.S. Government Policy and Related Concerns U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs U.S. Senate Committee on Finance Majority Staff Report https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Ukraine%20Report_FINAL.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:B102:7EDA:E16D:F1FA:F897:43DE (talk) 2:20 pm, Today (UTC+2)

This was not a "Senate" investigation. It was a politically-motivated investigation led by Ron Johnson, with Trump's encouragement, and its two main findings were: 1) no evidence of corruption by Joe Biden; and 2) Hunter Biden likely traded on his father's name to get business opportunities, as if that's never happened before. soibangla (talk) 12:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

“Hunter Biden likely traded on his father's name to get business opportunities, as if that's never happened before” touché, but probably best to avoid companies in the country your dad is leading “anti-corruption” efforts within. But, over the last few years, I’ve learned there are many gray areas, to which I assume this too is subject. CuriousHuman7 (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Sure, the Obama administration expressed concern about Hunter's Ukraine activities, and Joe said "I hope you know what you're doing," and one might conclude Hunter was a troubled man with poor judgment, but there still remains no evidence of corruption by Joe. I have yet to meet a parent who believes they're responsible for dumb stuff their middle-age kids do, but evidently some people with political motivations believe there should be an exception made here. soibangla (talk) 13:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)