Revision as of 14:21, 3 April 2021 editKenosha Forever (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users713 edits →Twitter and reliable sources← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:33, 27 December 2024 edit undo2603:3015:1ce9:100:846e:b618:7ff4:5f59 (talk) →Seems there was and is wrong doing according to report: new sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ |
{{Talk header}} | ||
{{talk header}} | |||
{{American politics AE|Consensus required=yes|BRD=no}} | {{American politics AE|Consensus required=yes|BRD=no}} | ||
{{FAQ}} | |||
{{Ds/talk notice|topic=b|style=long}} | |||
{{American English|date=October 2020}} | {{American English|date=October 2020}} | ||
{{Old moves|date=14 September 2023|destination=Joe Biden–Viktor Shokin–Burisma conspiracy theory|result=not moved|link=Special:Permalink/1176692005#Requested move 14 September 2023}} | |||
{{WikiProject banner shell|blpo=yes|collapsed=yes|1= | |||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=other|class=B|collapsed=yes|1= | ||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Ukraine|importance=Low}} | ||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Low|American=yes|American-importance=mid}} | ||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=Low}} | ||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Alternative views|importance=Low}} | ||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low|USGov=yes|USGov-importance=low|USPresidents=yes|USPresidents-importance=low}} | ||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=Low}} | ||
{{WikiProject United States|class=C|importance=Low|USGov=yes|USGov-importance=}} | |||
{{WikiProject International relations|class=C|importance=Low}} | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Warning RS and OR}} | |||
{{Annual readership|days=180}} | |||
{{Annual readership}} | |||
{{GOCE|user=Twofingered Typist|date= December 16, 2020}} | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| algo=old(30d) | |||
| algo=old(5d) | |||
| archive=Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory/Archive %(counter)d | | archive=Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| maxarchivesize=150K | | maxarchivesize=150K | ||
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}} | | archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}} | ||
| counter |
| counter=10 | ||
| minthreadsleft=3 | | minthreadsleft=3 | ||
| minthreadstoarchive=1 | | minthreadstoarchive=1 | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{faq|collapsed=no}} | |||
__TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
== Clear bias in language == | |||
== NIC confirms Ukraine as a Russian intelligence op. == | |||
Several portions of this article have very clear bias in word usage, it’s clear this is not neutral and clearly propaganda. | |||
example: John Solomon portion is only consists of cheap attacks that fit the narrative to dismiss his work. Why did the people working in this page fail to include his work that provides evidence that Ukraine indeed was facing extortion from Biden, in relation to his son, and falsely attributed this to Shokin being corrupt. Actual documents and fact prove Solomon’s reporting accurate I will be adding this to the article if no credible objections | |||
source: https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/eu-memo-directly-undercuts-joe-bidens-narrative-about ] (]) 15:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Well there's your problem: you believe John Solomon. He lied to all of us, but you still believe him. – ] (]) 15:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Reality has a well-known liberal bias. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 18:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Meeting an accusation of bias with an admission of it - even if flippant - is not appropriate. ] (]) 20:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== The Bidens’ Influence Peddling Timeline == | |||
“Committee’s subpoenas to date reveal that the Bidens and their associates have received over $20 million in payments from foreign entities.” | |||
https://oversight.house.gov/the-bidens-influence-peddling-timeline/ <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
== 11 year pardon == | |||
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c99x07ny8lro | |||
I think it's worth highlighting that the pardon provided was for 11 years when it's covered by mainstream sources as well as a point of debate. ] (]) 16:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== There’s literally video of Joe saying it == | |||
https://youtube.com/X3A4qPMS8R4?si=r8J7odow1trLhdpr | |||
the first sentence of the article is false, he literally admits to the exact accusation on video using almost the same words as the article’s first sentence | |||
Article should be changed to reflect this ] (]) 03:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:You have misinterpreted that video without the proper context. See the FAQ at the top of this page. – ] (]) 03:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:: Those FAQs show clear editorial bias, both in the framing of the questions and the construction of the answers. Look at the second FAQ, which supposedly addresses the commenter's question: | |||
::1. **Framing of the Question:** | |||
::The questions are written in a way that inherently conveys skepticism toward the premise. For example, instead of neutrally asking, *"Did Joe Biden withhold US aid to get Ukrainian President Poroshenko to fire the Prosecutor General?"*, the editors use the negatively framed *"Didn't Joe Biden withhold..."*. This rhetorical structure dismisses the question before engaging with it, creating an impression of bias. | |||
::2. **Failure to Answer Directly:** | |||
::The yes-or-no question is not answered in a yes-or-no manner. A direct and factual response would begin with, *"Yes, Joe Biden did withhold US aid..."*. Instead, the answer redirects attention elsewhere, potentially obscuring the central point. | |||
::3. **Misrepresentation of Shokin’s Reputation:** | |||
::Instead of answering the FAQ, it launches into the claim that Viktor Shokin was "widely regarded as corrupt". This narrative only emerged *after* the controversy surfaced, with anonymous actors within the Obama/Biden administration accusing Shokin of corruption. Were one to look at actual contemporaneous evidence, they'd see a very different picture. For instance, the **2015 European Commission Report** evaluated Ukraine's progress on anti-corruption reforms, specifically citing that the "anti-corruption benchmark is deemed to have been achieved" during Shokin's tenure. Here is the full report for reference: https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2023-09/EU-SixthReportUkraineVisaLiberalization.pdf | |||
::] (]) 00:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::You used AI to write that. | |||
:::Justthenews.com is ], who's work on this has been discredited. I'm not further rehashing what we have rehashed here for years. It's in the archives. – ] (]) 00:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Oh and one of just pled guilty to . – ] (]) 01:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== The lead and the section on Smirnov need to be updated. == | |||
Currently the lead, referring to the allegations of Alexander Smirnov, includes this passage: "A confidential informant told the FBI that Burisma's owner said he was coerced to pay bribes to both Bidens to ensure Shokin was fired, though the informant was indicted in 2024 on charges he had fabricated the account." | |||
That informant, Smirnov, has now (Dec. 2024) pleaded guilty. The lead and the "Bribery allegation" section should be updated accordingly. Here's one relevant link: | |||
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgnl7qdvjno | |||
I also think the lead should include the note about Smirnov getting his false information from Russian intelligence officials (which is mentioned in the "Bribery allegation" section). That seems like a very important point. ] (]) 05:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Yes, this page needs to be updated with Smirov's plea. If someone doesn't get to it before I do, I'll add it. – ] (]) 17:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:FYI, here's the AP News report about the guilty plea: | |||
:https://apnews.com/article/alexander-smirnov-guilty-plea-biden-informant-fbi-62a3b7acce0345303f812ca6d0206b10 | |||
:which is also archived here: | |||
:https://web.archive.org/web/20241219205823/https://apnews.com/article/alexander-smirnov-guilty-plea-biden-informant-fbi-62a3b7acce0345303f812ca6d0206b10 ] (]) 22:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Fake News from Misplaced Pages == | |||
{{atopy | |||
| result = ] '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
}} | |||
Even with video of POTUS Biden bragging about his bribery. He shows he is above the law. Further illustrated by cleansing his son's last 11 years of any laws broken or that would have been found to be broken. I hope this can be challenged in court. | |||
In a declass today: . | |||
This must be corrected: | |||
:'''We assess that Russia's intelligence services, Ukraine-linked individuals with ties to Russian intelligence and their networks, and Russian state media, trolls, and online proxies engaged in activities targeting the 2020 US presidential election.''' The primary effort the IC uncovered revolved around a narrative-that Russian actors began spreading as early as 2014-alleging corrupt ties between President Biden, his family, and other US officials and Ukraine. Russian intelligence services relied on Ukraine-linked proxies and these proxies' networks-including their US contacts-to spread this narrative to give Moscow plausible deniability of their involvement. We assess that the goals of this effort went beyond the US presidential campaign to include reducing the Trump administration's support for Ukraine. As the US presidential election neared, Moscow placed increasing emphasis on undermining the candidate it saw as most detrimental to its global interests. We have no evidence suggesting the Ukrainian Government was involved in any of these efforts. | |||
"The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a '''series of false allegations that Joe Biden''', while he was vice president of the United States, improperly withheld a loan guarantee and took a bribe 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. | |||
:* A network of Ukraine-linked individuals including Russian influence agent Konstantin Kilimnik-who were also connected to the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) took steps throughout the election cycle to damage US ties to Ukraine, denigrate President Biden and his candidacy, and benefit former President Trump's prospects for reelection. We assess this network also sought to discredit the Obama administration by emphasizing accusations of corruption by US officials, and to falsely blame Ukraine for interfering in the 2016 US presidential election. | |||
:* Derkach, Kilimnik, and their associates sought to use prominent US persons and media conduits to launder their narratives to US officials and audiences. These Russian proxies met with and provided materials to Trump administration-linked US persons to advocate for formal investigations; hired a US firm to petition US officials; and attempted to make contact with several senior US officials. They also made contact with established US media figures and helped produce a documentary that aired on a US television network in late January 2020. | |||
:* As part of his plan to secure the reelection of former President Trump, Derkach publicly released audio recordings four times in 2020 in attempts to implicate President Biden and other current or former US Government officials in allegedly corrupt activities related to Ukraine. Derkach also worked to initiate legal proceedings in Ukraine and the US related to these allegations. Former Ukrainian officials associated with Derkach sought to promote similar claims throughout late 2019 and 2020, including through direct outreach to senior US Government officials. | |||
Plenty more in there but this is the stuff directly relevant to the Giuliani narrative. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 21:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
Video link (CSPAN): https://www.c-span.org/clip/campaign-2018/user-clip-biden-tells-story-of-getting-the-ukraine-prosecutor-fired/4820105 ] (]) 15:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Misleading laptop claims in FAQ == | |||
:The rest of this very article explains why what you've written here is a misreading of what Joe Biden said. For example, right in the second paragraph of this article, there's this: | |||
I removed the bit about Hunter Biden's laptop from the FAQ, as I have concerns that we aren't getting it exactly right. Can we revisit the sourcing for these claims: | |||
:"Joe Biden followed State Department intentions when he withheld the loan guarantee to pressure Ukraine into removing the prosecutor who was seen as corrupt and failing to clean up Ukrainian corruption, in accordance with the official and bipartisan policy of the United States, the European Union, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. A confidential informant told the FBI that Burisma's owner said he was coerced to pay bribes to both Bidens to ensure Shokin was fired, though the informant was indicted in 2024 on charges he had fabricated the account." | |||
*The provenance of the laptop is considered dubious by all reliable media sources | |||
:(And as noted above, that confidential informant, Alexander Smirnov, has now pleaded guilty.) ] (]) 16:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*The situation has parallels with the Russian ] operation ] | |||
::The article's premise has been changed multiple times by the editors in an shell game to obscure the Bidens' corruption. This article, as originally written, clearly stated: "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." All of this has since been shown to be true. | |||
*The idea that Hunter Biden, a California resident under intense public scrutiny, would drop off an unencrypted laptop at a Delaware computer shop run by a Trump supporter, rather than use an Apple store or a local trusted repairer, is considered dubious by mainstream sources | |||
::However, the editors don't like it when their pet "conspiracy theory" turns out to be factual, so they've gone back multiple times to alter the definition of the theory to something that they feel they *can* disprove, such as claiming it involves bribes from the Ukrainians directly to Joe Biden - which were never suggested in the original. It's revisionist propaganda, like erasing political enemies from historical photographs. And sadly, that's what Misplaced Pages has been reduced to, and I wish we were better than that. ] (]) 02:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*At this time, no serious sources take the laptop at face value. (which time is "At this time?") | |||
:::Nothing of what you wrote is true, except that a previous edit from four years ago says what you say it says. – ] (]) 02:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{abot}} | |||
== Seems there was and is wrong doing according to report == | |||
From what I can tell, most of these claims come from the October 2020 timeframe, when the unfounded claim that the Biden laptop was Russian disinformation was first spread. I haven't seen any real evidence yet that the laptop was a Russian scam, so we shouldn't present it as a factual answer to a FAQ. ] (]) 16:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
:{{u|Mr Ernie}}, I'm somewhat surprised that you'd choose to remove this right after the NIC confirmed it to be true. Yes, every reliable source thought the provenance was as fishy as hell. Yes numerous sources drew parallels with Fancy Bear's Macron operation, tot he point of crediting Fancy Bear as a likely source. Every reliable source that addressed the plausibility of using Mac Isaac concluded that it was implausible (Mac Isaac has since shut up shop and moved state). So the only comment that's not clearly current and factuial is "at this time", and that can be removed, since it's no longer a developing story. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 17:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
::Great can you link some RS explaining how the Biden laptop was Russian disinformation? I’m not interested in what people thought or opined, but what the actual evidence is. ] (]) 18:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::{{u|Mr Ernie}}, one section up. Any more questions? ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 21:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
::::I closely checked that section for any references to the Hunter Biden laptop topic, which is the subject of this discussion, and wasn’t able to find anything. Several commentators on twitter posted something similar in the past few days, and to their credit, many amended or deleted any reference to the Biden laptop. I came to this page hoping to find something more substantive, didn’t see any sources making this claim, and removed it from the FAQ. If you could please help me find specific sourcing for the 4 bullet points opening this topic, I would be appreciative. Otherwise I’m going to revert your revert as unsourced material. I don’t know that the current sourcing justifies such an authoritative statement in Wikivoice as an answer to a FAQ. ] (]) 23:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::::{{u|Mr Ernie}}, as I pointed out, all these statements are well sourced ''in the article'' and have been extensively discussed on this Talk page. The only thing that's changed in recent times is that what was a current event (sources do not at present take it seriously) is now past history (sources did not take it seriously). Everything else is demonstrably true, well documented, and endlessly debated on this page. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 15:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
::::::{{u|JzG}}, it doesn't work that way. Macron and Fancy Bear aren't even mentioned in the article, and the rest is OR. Please provide the sourcing for the 4 identified claims at the beginning of this section, to specify that it isn't just your OR. I've reverted your inclusion of unsourced OR again. ] (]) 17:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Then what is your suggestion for an FAQ on the laptop? ] (]) 17:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
::::::::I would remove the whole FAQ as unsourced and unnecessary editorializing. ] (]) 18:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::Specify what is unsourced? Please read the article sources and talk archives.]] 21:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::The entire FAQ is unsourced. Is there some exception for FAQs where they don’t need sources? What’s the policy anyway on article “FAQs?” ] (]) 00:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::::::{{u|Mr Ernie}}, irrelevant. See ]. The parallels are obvious, and drawn by sources. And you keep removing the ''entire section'' despite this being the only thing with which you have thus far taken issue. | |||
:::::::The FAQ is there because we had months of drive-bys demanding that we take this Russian intelligence op at face value, and treat it as a genuine controversy around Joe Biden. Sources that support its veracity are: a minority on the New York Post, Glenn Greenwald, and the right-wing media bubble. Meanwhile, serious sources conclude that the entire thing stinks of month-dead fish on a Moroccan dockside. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 23:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
::::::::I don’t know how many more ways I can phrase it, but maybe I’m not communicating effectively. Please explicitly present the RS for the 4 claims highlighted at the beginning of this section. We’ve gone back and forth a few times now but you’ve yet to link a single source for any of this. I’m happy to restore the content if it is verifiable. ] (]) 00:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::{{u|Mr Ernie}}, this is a talk page FAQ not an article. You are repeatedly removing content, without consensus, form a five-month stable version. The count of people agreeing with you so far on this Talk page is zero. Now would be a good time to self-revert. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 10:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Regarding your repeated reverts, per policy the onus is on you to present sourcing to justify inclusion. I will revert this until you explicitly show the sourcing for the 4 claims made in Wikivoice. ] (]) 00:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::Since the sourcing has been provided below, and there's a clear consensus here to keep it, I've restored it myself. Beyond that, please keep ] in mind - this has been stable for five months; no matter how much you disagree with it, it's inappropriate to keep removing it when so many people are telling you it has consensus and no one has yet weighed in to agree with you. --] (]) 12:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
=== It's a FAQ === | |||
We don't do inline sourcing in FAQs. However, for the benefit of those who are not prepared to read the article or the previous discussions on this page on which the FAQ was based: | |||
:'''Q''': What about Hunter Biden's laptop? | |||
:'''A''': The FBI has warned since 2019 that Rudy Giuliani is being used as a conduit for disinformation by Russian intelligence.<ref>, Washington Post</ref> The provenance of the laptop is considered dubious by all reliable media sources,<ref>, NBC</ref><ref name="tc" /> and the situation has parallels with the Russian ] operation ].<ref>, AP</ref> The idea that Hunter Biden, a California resident under intense public scrutiny, would drop off an unencrypted laptop at a Delaware computer shop run by a Trump supporter, rather than use an Apple store or a local trusted repairer, is considered dubious by mainstream sources.<ref name="tc">, TechCrunch</ref> There are also reports of Burisma being hacked by Russian actors early in 2020.<ref>, The Guardian</ref><ref>, The Guardian</ref><ref></ref> | |||
{{reflist-talk}} | |||
Next steps: | |||
# {{u|Mr Ernie to reinstate the stable version (which has been in place unchallenged for five months, is supported by sources and for whose removal he clearly does not have consensus, per above) | |||
# Mr Ernie to propose changes in wording to address what he perceives as inaccuracies. | |||
Over to him. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 10:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
:Seems like a lot of original research to me. ] (]) 02:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
::Have you looked at the sources to see if they support the statements? ] (]) 09:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::I have. Have you read ]? ] (]) 13:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
::::If you have looked you know that they support the statements and you must be aware of the , a lot of which has already been discussed on this page, that the FAQ summarises (as explained by JzG. This is not a WP:OR issue the same way the Perennial Sources list is not a WP:OR issue. It is user guidance as to the context the laptop has already been discussed. The sources meanwhile only demonstrate the the type of content of such discussion rather than an exhaustive list (again as JzG explained). ] (]) 15:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::::I disagree. Taking a January 2020 AP story about 'Fancy bear' which makes no mention of the Biden laptop (How could it?) and tying it to this is exactly original research. ] (]) 16:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
::::::It does not seem like you are actually reading what the passage says. It is drawing a comparison between the Macron disinfo and the Hunter Biden disinfo, as both originate in Russia. This is also well-covered by sources. ] (]) 17:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
::::::It does not seem like you are actually reading what I am writing. In the sources listed above, source #4 is a January 2020 AP story about 'Fancy bear' which makes no mention of the Biden laptop (How could it?) and tying it to this is exactly original research.] (]) 18:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Oh, we read it, it wasn't complex. Q4 is simply covering the long-running Russian misinformation campaign that has included areas from Macron to Biden. It is not OR or synthesis to note that the Biden laptop fabrication was simply the most recent in a string. Your concerns are meritless. ] (]) 18:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
::::::::It is very clear synthesis to use a January 2020 AP story about 'Fancy bear' which makes no mention of the Biden laptop (How could it?) to tie to the laptop story which surfaced 10 months later. This is exactly original research. ] (]) 18:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::And again, you are taking one single source as being the be-all and end-all of the consensus discussions that took place over the last 18+ months covering myriad reliable sources. ] (]) 21:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::I am taking this source because it is used right up there - if you agree to remove it, we can discuss other issues, like the fact that indeed a lot has happened in the months since the story broke out, including the fact that no security agency is today claiming this is Russian disinformation (see https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/10/19/russian-disinformation-not-behind-biden-emails-dni-ratcliffe-says/3712484001/) ] (]) 22:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::No. The FAQ exists for this reason. Please go read the archives as we have been across Ratcliffe and others previously. Absence of reference to the laptop does not negate coverage of the laptop up to and after the election. ] (]) 23:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::Multiple editors are telling you the FAQ is inappropriate as-is, and giving reasons for it. If you take out #4 above, which I hope we all agree is an egregious example of original research , we'll move on to Radcliffe. ] (]) 00:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::No. Multiple editors are saying it is fine and reflects consensus of months of discussions and reliable sources. Check archives. Come back with new stuff. ] (]) 00:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::Multiple editors say it's fine, and multiple editors say it's not. Consensus can change. ] (]) 00:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::I have been tied up IRL and will respond in greater detail as soon as I can. But in short, this sourcing is really inadequate for such strong claims made in Wikivoice. I see you say we don’t need inline citations for FAQs. Which policy governs this? I’d like to take a closer look. Anyways, having “TechCrunch” as the sole source for 2 of these claims is probably not sufficient. Also I read the entire archive and the sourcing for the FAQ was not discussed extensively. It’s good to have this in depth look now. ] (]) 00:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::Multiple editors saying it’s fine doesn’t address the very real concerns about sourcing. It would make sense to me for a FAQ section to actually contain the strongest sourcing for a quick glance for readers than expecting them to dig through archives. ] (]) 00:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::It's an FAQ, not the article. The article itself deals with the laptop. The FAQ is giving context to broader initial question "Why is this presented as a conspiracy theory?" and the specific question regularly brought up about the Laptop. That is it, it's purpose, to give context to discussions had in the past. If you have new information about the laptop, new developments in the investigation, new perspectives etc then bring them up. ] (]) 00:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::This context needs to be complete. Right now it is not, and giving a one-sided view. ] (]) 01:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::::It has the view of the consensus based on months of discussions of these same subjects. If you intend to discuss something, I suggest you create a new section and ensure you are actually raising something new to be discussed otherwise you will likely be referred to the archive and / or sources already in the article. ] (]) 02:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::::Consensus can change, please address the issues raised by ] and myself. ] (]) 13:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::::::Consensus can indeed change. If you intend to discuss something, I suggest you create a new section and ensure you are actually raising something new to be discussed otherwise you will likely be referred to the archive and / or sources already in the article. At this point I am ceasing AGF as you are just repeating the same thing. ] (]) 13:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::::::There is a new section - it is this one. And we are discussing an issue - reference 4, which is original research. Please address the issue.] (]) 13:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::{{u|Koncorde}}, where is the policy governing article FAQ pages? I would like to closely read it. ] (]) 01:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
{{Od|::::::::::::::::}} | |||
]. ] (]) 02:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
::That's not what he asked for, he asked for policy on FAQ pages for articles, what you linked to is an FAQ about the Manual of Style.] (]) 13:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::No, what I linked to is the MOS for FAQ's. FAQ's guidance is otherwise related to answering questions asked. Which you have been directed to read the archive discussions which contains all the background to questions asked and why the FAQ is as it is. If you have improvements to suggest, or specific information related to the laptop that would change the FAQ then I would suggest you do so because at the moment this is just a perpetual demand to WP:SATISFY. ] (]) 13:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
::::No, it's not. I suggest you click on it.] (]) 13:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::::Balls, I have copied and pasted the wrong link. Apologies, let me find the right one. ] (]) 13:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
::::::No, it's the right one. It's the example FAQ used as part of the ] under the . Apologies that was unclear. ] (]) 13:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::::::{{u|Koncorde}}, it wasn't the right one, but assuming Template:FAQ is the right one, I don't see how it supports the various claims made earlier regarding sourcing (e.g. "We don't do inline sourcing in FAQs"). ] (]) 14:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
::::::::FAQ page provides more context and is the only one to provide an example usage. You can review for more examples. ] (]) 18:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::{{u|Koncorde}}, I'm not interested in seeing more examples of FAQ pages, I am interested in the policy that described how FAQs are governed. assuming Template: FAQ is it, I don't see how it supports the various claims made earlier regarding sourcing (e.g. "We don't do inline sourcing in FAQs") ] (]) 18:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::I don't see how it stipulates we do? I already provided additional sources, but here are the same and some others in any case for more context and you can always google more. ] (]) 20:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::{{u|Koncorde}}, does it stipulate we don't? That was the (apparently false) claim made by the person who started this section. | |||
:::::::::::It stipulates that FAQ's should be written in accordance with wiki policies (5. "... it should actually consist of questions that are frequently asked, with answers to them that are compatible with Misplaced Pages policy, ") , one of those policies is that any statement that is challenged or likely to be challenged, needs a citation. ] (]) 22:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::{{u|Kenosha Forever}}, right. And this one is. It summarises the answers top frequently asked questions on this page. You are, of course, more than welcome to suggest refinements, in the form of "change X to Y based on Z source". The FAQ was set up due to the churn in the right-wing media bubble following the Russian disinformation operation, but the comments in recent weeks here suggest it still has value, so please do suggest improvements. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 21:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::{{u|JzG}}, I've made one suggestion: remove a Jan 2020 story , which predates the HUnter laptop issue by several months, from the list of sources, as it is original research to connect it . ] (]) 21:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::{{u|Kenosha Forever}}, what list of sources? There is no list of sources in the FAQ. Note also that the Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory goes back to before the first impeachment of former president Trump, so Jan 2020 is solidly in scope. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 21:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::{{u|JzG}}, the ones at he top of this section, that are references for the question "Q: What about Hunter Biden's laptop?". Sources that predate that laptop story breaking can't be used , as that is original research ] (]) 22:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::{{u|Kenosha Forever}}, you failed to propose any change in the form "change X to Y", so I cannot evaluate your suggestion. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 18:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::::I assume you are not a chatbot, and can deal with change requests that are not in the form "change X to Y". But if are are limited in your capacity, then Change "and the situation has parallels with the Russian "Fancy Bear" operation against Emanuel Macron in 2017." to "", or find a proper source for it. ] (]) 18:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::::::{{u|Kenosha Forever}}, you are asking for a change, it is up to you to articulate that change in a way that lets others evaluate what you are actually asking for. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 08:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
{{od|17}} | |||
{{re|Kenosha Forever}} did you read the sources you're discussing (the ones provided by {{u|JzG}} above)? The Associated Press, NY Times and Guardian stories all draw comparisons between Russian attempts to smear Hunter Biden (specifically by hacking Burisma) and the GRU's "Fancy Bear" hacking group. Given that the provenance of the content supposedly found on Hunter Biden's alleged laptop is likely to have ] (it's been a while since I worked on this article, but if I recall correctly some analysts suggested the laptop material could have come directly from the hack of Burisma) stating that there are parallels to other Russia disinformation/hacking campaigns is a logical and supported statement. All of the Russian mischief related to Burisma/Hunter Biden hacking is treated as connected by the sources. ] • ] 19:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
:Right, and that's what the FAQ section is meant to remind readers of, that no RS consider it credible and that there's evidence for not taking it seriously, —]] – 20:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
::If you have better sources than the ones currently used, by all means use them. But it should plainly obvious that you can't use a a January 2020 article to say anything about the laptop, without violating ].] (]) 22:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::Goto 2.1: it's a FAQ, —]] – 02:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::: FAQs are required to be written in accordance with policy. SYNTH is such a policy. ] (]) 03:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::::{{u|Kenosha Forever}}, you have not identified any parts that need to change. See above. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 08:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
::::::{{u|JzG}}, I have, multiple times. See above. ] (]) 14:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
https://www.congress.gov/event/118th-congress/house-event/115597/text ] (]) 18:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
==Twitter and reliable sources== | |||
Please explain how – Skynews, The Seattle Times and others are not reliable sources. ] (]) 00:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
:A problem was likely ] other unreliable sources. For Sky News, it probably should be avoided (], ]). Seattle Times may be usable, remains to see if the material is ] (maybe not if only one acceptable source mentions it, ] is also to consider)... —]] – 20:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
::How about the LA times? . NY Times ? ? Forbes ? How long is this game going to continue? ] (]) 23:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::Please see ]. I'm not sure for LA Times, the Forbes one is from Sandler not Forbes, NYTimes is better, —]] – 02:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
::::You're not sure for the LA times? ''quelle surprise''. What aren't you sure about? You're not sure it is a reliable source? Is is not current and demonstrative of ongoing coverage? Does it not explicitly support the very quote I added, which was removed under a false edit summary? Sanders is a Forbes staff reporter, writing under her byline in Forbes. I have no idea what "is from Sandler not Forbes" means ,that's the way news articles are written. But at least you agree the NY Times passes muster. So, can we put this back in, or are we going to play a few more rounds of this game first? ] (]) 03:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
:::{{u|Kenosha Forever}}, none of those sources establishes any credibility to the laptop. As Hunter Biden says, "It could be that I was hacked. It could be that it was the — that it was Russian intelligence. It could be that it was stolen from me." What we know with very high confidence is that Hunter Biden was the focus of a Russian disinformation operation involving Rudy Giuliani, and no credible source treats the provenance of the laptop as anything other than deeply suspicious. | |||
:::Russian intelligence have a history of using hack and leak operations - the DNC hack and the operation against Macron, for example. They also have a history of planting fabricated materials within those dumps. None of this establishes any part of the core conspiracy theory, that Joe Biden intervened to have Viktor Shokin fired in order to protect Hunter. Credible sources are in unanimous agreement that Shokin was corrupt. Many sources note that firing him made it ''more'' likely that the investigation he was not pursuing against Burisma, would proceed. | |||
::: So instead of arm-waving at the word "laptop" as if its mere existence somehow disproves the fact that its provenance stinks like long-dead fish, try suggesting a change that you think more accurately reflects the sources as you interpret them. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 08:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
::::Take the time to read what is being discussed. None of this has anything to do with the provenance the laptop. ] (]) 14:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 18:33, 27 December 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
view · edit Frequently asked questions
|
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
On 14 September 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Joe Biden–Viktor Shokin–Burisma conspiracy theory. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Before requesting any edits to this protected article, please familiarise yourself with reliable sourcing requirements. Before posting an edit request on this talk page, please read the reliable sourcing and original research policies. These policies require that information in Misplaced Pages articles be supported by citations from reliable independent sources, and disallow your personal views, observations, interpretations, analyses, or anecdotes from being used. Only content verified by subject experts and other reliable sources may be included, and uncited material may be removed without notice. If your complaint is about an assertion made in the article, check first to see if your proposed change is supported by reliable sources. If it is not, it is highly unlikely that your request will be granted. Checking the archives for previous discussions may provide more information. Requests which do not provide citations from reliable sources, or rely on unreliable sources, may be subject to closure without any other response. |
Clear bias in language
Several portions of this article have very clear bias in word usage, it’s clear this is not neutral and clearly propaganda.
example: John Solomon portion is only consists of cheap attacks that fit the narrative to dismiss his work. Why did the people working in this page fail to include his work that provides evidence that Ukraine indeed was facing extortion from Biden, in relation to his son, and falsely attributed this to Shokin being corrupt. Actual documents and fact prove Solomon’s reporting accurate I will be adding this to the article if no credible objections
source: https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/eu-memo-directly-undercuts-joe-bidens-narrative-about HammerofFacts (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Well there's your problem: you believe John Solomon. He lied to all of us, but you still believe him. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Reality has a well-known liberal bias. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Meeting an accusation of bias with an admission of it - even if flippant - is not appropriate. MWFwiki (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
The Bidens’ Influence Peddling Timeline
“Committee’s subpoenas to date reveal that the Bidens and their associates have received over $20 million in payments from foreign entities.”
https://oversight.house.gov/the-bidens-influence-peddling-timeline/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.183.106 (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
11 year pardon
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c99x07ny8lro
I think it's worth highlighting that the pardon provided was for 11 years when it's covered by mainstream sources as well as a point of debate. 87.212.120.73 (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
There’s literally video of Joe saying it
https://youtube.com/X3A4qPMS8R4?si=r8J7odow1trLhdpr
the first sentence of the article is false, he literally admits to the exact accusation on video using almost the same words as the article’s first sentence
Article should be changed to reflect this 2601:644:4881:BEB0:FD33:2574:6F37:9458 (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- You have misinterpreted that video without the proper context. See the FAQ at the top of this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Those FAQs show clear editorial bias, both in the framing of the questions and the construction of the answers. Look at the second FAQ, which supposedly addresses the commenter's question:
- 1. **Framing of the Question:**
- The questions are written in a way that inherently conveys skepticism toward the premise. For example, instead of neutrally asking, *"Did Joe Biden withhold US aid to get Ukrainian President Poroshenko to fire the Prosecutor General?"*, the editors use the negatively framed *"Didn't Joe Biden withhold..."*. This rhetorical structure dismisses the question before engaging with it, creating an impression of bias.
- 2. **Failure to Answer Directly:**
- The yes-or-no question is not answered in a yes-or-no manner. A direct and factual response would begin with, *"Yes, Joe Biden did withhold US aid..."*. Instead, the answer redirects attention elsewhere, potentially obscuring the central point.
- 3. **Misrepresentation of Shokin’s Reputation:**
- Instead of answering the FAQ, it launches into the claim that Viktor Shokin was "widely regarded as corrupt". This narrative only emerged *after* the controversy surfaced, with anonymous actors within the Obama/Biden administration accusing Shokin of corruption. Were one to look at actual contemporaneous evidence, they'd see a very different picture. For instance, the **2015 European Commission Report** evaluated Ukraine's progress on anti-corruption reforms, specifically citing that the "anti-corruption benchmark is deemed to have been achieved" during Shokin's tenure. Here is the full report for reference: https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2023-09/EU-SixthReportUkraineVisaLiberalization.pdf
- Fx6893 (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- You used AI to write that.
- Justthenews.com is John Solomon (political commentator), who's work on this has been discredited. I'm not further rehashing what we have rehashed here for years. It's in the archives. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oh and one of Solomon's key sources just pled guilty to lying about it. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
The lead and the section on Smirnov need to be updated.
Currently the lead, referring to the allegations of Alexander Smirnov, includes this passage: "A confidential informant told the FBI that Burisma's owner said he was coerced to pay bribes to both Bidens to ensure Shokin was fired, though the informant was indicted in 2024 on charges he had fabricated the account."
That informant, Smirnov, has now (Dec. 2024) pleaded guilty. The lead and the "Bribery allegation" section should be updated accordingly. Here's one relevant link:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgnl7qdvjno
I also think the lead should include the note about Smirnov getting his false information from Russian intelligence officials (which is mentioned in the "Bribery allegation" section). That seems like a very important point. NME Frigate (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, this page needs to be updated with Smirov's plea. If someone doesn't get to it before I do, I'll add it. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- FYI, here's the AP News report about the guilty plea:
- https://apnews.com/article/alexander-smirnov-guilty-plea-biden-informant-fbi-62a3b7acce0345303f812ca6d0206b10
- which is also archived here:
- https://web.archive.org/web/20241219205823/https://apnews.com/article/alexander-smirnov-guilty-plea-biden-informant-fbi-62a3b7acce0345303f812ca6d0206b10 70.95.164.137 (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Fake News from Misplaced Pages
WP:FORUM TarnishedPath 03:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Even with video of POTUS Biden bragging about his bribery. He shows he is above the law. Further illustrated by cleansing his son's last 11 years of any laws broken or that would have been found to be broken. I hope this can be challenged in court.
This must be corrected: "The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of false allegations that Joe Biden, while he was vice president of the United States, improperly withheld a loan guarantee and took a bribe 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.
Video link (CSPAN): https://www.c-span.org/clip/campaign-2018/user-clip-biden-tells-story-of-getting-the-ukraine-prosecutor-fired/4820105 152.130.15.108 (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- The rest of this very article explains why what you've written here is a misreading of what Joe Biden said. For example, right in the second paragraph of this article, there's this:
- "Joe Biden followed State Department intentions when he withheld the loan guarantee to pressure Ukraine into removing the prosecutor who was seen as corrupt and failing to clean up Ukrainian corruption, in accordance with the official and bipartisan policy of the United States, the European Union, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. A confidential informant told the FBI that Burisma's owner said he was coerced to pay bribes to both Bidens to ensure Shokin was fired, though the informant was indicted in 2024 on charges he had fabricated the account."
- (And as noted above, that confidential informant, Alexander Smirnov, has now pleaded guilty.) NME Frigate (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- The article's premise has been changed multiple times by the editors in an shell game to obscure the Bidens' corruption. This article, as originally written, clearly stated: "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." All of this has since been shown to be true.
- However, the editors don't like it when their pet "conspiracy theory" turns out to be factual, so they've gone back multiple times to alter the definition of the theory to something that they feel they *can* disprove, such as claiming it involves bribes from the Ukrainians directly to Joe Biden - which were never suggested in the original. It's revisionist propaganda, like erasing political enemies from historical photographs. And sadly, that's what Misplaced Pages has been reduced to, and I wish we were better than that. Fx6893 (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Nothing of what you wrote is true, except that a previous edit from four years ago says what you say it says. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Seems there was and is wrong doing according to report
https://www.congress.gov/event/118th-congress/house-event/115597/text 2603:3015:1CE9:100:846E:B618:7FF4:5F59 (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
- B-Class Ukraine articles
- Low-importance Ukraine articles
- WikiProject Ukraine articles
- B-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- B-Class American politics articles
- Mid-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class Skepticism articles
- Low-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- B-Class Alternative views articles
- Low-importance Alternative views articles
- WikiProject Alternative views articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- B-Class United States Presidents articles
- Low-importance United States Presidents articles
- WikiProject United States Presidents articles
- B-Class United States Government articles
- Low-importance United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class International relations articles
- Low-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles