Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JzG (talk | contribs) at 08:43, 3 April 2021 (→It's a FAQ: Replying to Kenosha Forever (using reply-link)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 08:43, 3 April 2021 by JzG (talk | contribs) (→It's a FAQ: Replying to Kenosha Forever (using reply-link))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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: 5 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:

You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page

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.

Further information

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.

The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

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.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Current events

This article is part of WikiProject Current events, an attempt to expand and better organize information in articles related to current events. If you would like to participate in the project, visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.Current eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Current eventsTemplate:WikiProject Current eventsCurrent events

Template:WikiProject Donald Trump Template:WikiProject Joe Biden

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Ukraine Low‑importance

	Ukraine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Alternative views Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: Government Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

International relations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on December 16, 2020.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

view · edit Frequently asked questions

Q: Why is this presented as a conspiracy theory when the New York Post and others say it is true?

A: The factual reliability of the New York Post has been discussed multiple times by editors, and there is a consensus that it is not a reliable source. The core components of the conspiracy theory have been known to be false since 2016.

Q: Didn't Joe Biden withhold US aid to get Ukrainian President Poroshenko to fire the Prosecutor General?

A: Viktor Shokin was widely regarded as corrupt. There were demands for his removal from within Ukraine as early as June 2015, before any international involvement. The US policy seeking his removal was bipartisan, and the US was joined by the European Union, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Shokin was removed after an overwhelming vote of the Ukrainian Parliament in March 2016. Extensive investigations showed no evidence of undue influence.

Q: But wasn't Shokin investigating Burisma?

A: No, the entire problem was that he was not investigating Burisma, or multiple other companies. The investigation of Burisma was on hold, and there is evidence that Shokin was pursuing investigations only when the companies refused to pay bribes.

Q: What about Hunter Biden's laptop?

A: The authenticity of the laptop has not been verified. The provenance of the laptop, its contents, and the circumstances of how the laptop came to public scrutiny is questionable. Repair shop owner Mac Isaac, a Trump supporter who passed the laptop to Giuliani and the FBI, was not able to identify Hunter Biden as the person who gave him the laptop. Mac Isaac’s accounts concerning the laptop have been inconsistent and sometimes contradictory. Hunter Biden is unsure whether the laptop is his, but said there could have been a laptop stolen from him, or that it could be that a laptop of his was hacked. No information purported to come from the laptop has implicated Joe Biden in any misconduct. The FBI acquired the devices via a grand jury subpoena in December of 2019, though it was unclear if the seizure related to an investigation of Hunter Biden. The law enforcement assumption is that the laptop is Biden's.

Q: Wasn't Hunter Biden unqualified for the Burisma job?

A: Hunter Biden had experience as a corporate lawyer, as executive vice president of a bank, and in government. He was hired to advise on corporate governance, although he did not have experience with Ukrainian regulatory affairs. It is not a stretch to assume he was hired in part due to his name, but this does not mean nepotism was involved – he was not hired by a family member.

Q: Didn't Hunter Biden have drug and alcohol problems?

A: This is well known and openly acknowledged - Joe Biden even discussed it in the first Presidential debate.

Q: Aren't you representing mainstream media as the truth, when conservative media says a different thing?

A: Editors measure the reliability of sources against a standard set of guidelines, including news organisations. A source's political orientation, liberal or conservative, is not a factor. Editors then aim to give due weight to sources that are known to be reliable, while avoiding giving undue weight to sources that are known to be less reliable (for more information, see WP:WEIGHT). Our policies do not state that extraordinary claims and fringe theories, such as the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, need to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity (see WP:VALID).

NIC confirms Ukraine as a Russian intelligence op.

In a declass today: .

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.

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. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Misleading laptop claims in FAQ

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:

The provenance of the laptop is considered dubious by all reliable media sources
The situation has parallels with the Russian "Fancy Bear" operation against Emanuel Macron in 2017
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
At this time, no serious sources take the laptop at face value. (which time is "At this time?")

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. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

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. Guy (help! - typo?) 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. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, one section up. Any more questions? Guy (help! - typo?) 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. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

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. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

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. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Then what is your suggestion for an FAQ on the laptop? Koncorde (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I would remove the whole FAQ as unsourced and unnecessary editorializing. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Specify what is unsourced? Please read the article sources and talk archives. SPECIFICO talk 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?” Mr Ernie (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, irrelevant. See 2017 Macron e-mail leaks. 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. Guy (help! - typo?) 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. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

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. Guy (help! - typo?) 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. Mr Ernie (talk) 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 WP:SATISFY 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. --Aquillion (talk) 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. The provenance of the laptop is considered dubious by all reliable media sources, and the situation has parallels with the Russian "Fancy Bear" operation against Emanuel Macron in 2017. 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. There are also reports of Burisma being hacked by Russian actors early in 2020. At this time, no serious sources take the laptop at face value.

References

White House was warned Giuliani was target of Russian intelligence operation to feed misinformation to Trump, Washington Post
Here's what happened when NBC News tried to report on the alleged Hunter Biden emails, NBC
^ Suspect provenance of Hunter Biden data cache prompts skepticism and social media bans, TechCrunch
Russians hacked company key to Ukraine scandal: researchers, AP
Russian hackers targeted Burisma amid impeachment inquiry, cybersecurity firm says, The Guardian
[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/13/us/politics/russian-hackers-burisma-ukraine.html Russians Hacked Ukrainian Gas Company at Center of Impeachment
The media has mostly not taken the bait on dubious Biden claims – with some Australia-linked exceptions, The Guardian
e.g. NPR

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. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a lot of original research to me. Kenosha Forever (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Have you looked at the sources to see if they support the statements? Koncorde (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I have. Have you read WP:SYNTH? Kenosha Forever (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

If you have looked you know that they support the statements and you must be aware of the considerable coverage of this matter, 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). Koncorde (talk) 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. Kenosha Forever (talk) 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. ValarianB (talk) 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.Kenosha Forever (talk) 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. ValarianB (talk) 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. Kenosha Forever (talk) 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. Koncorde (talk) 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/) Kenosha Forever (talk) 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. Koncorde (talk) 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. Kenosha Forever (talk) 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. Koncorde (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Multiple editors say it's fine, and multiple editors say it's not. Consensus can change. Kenosha Forever (talk) 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. Mr Ernie (talk) 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. Mr Ernie (talk) 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. Koncorde (talk) 00:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

This context needs to be complete. Right now it is not, and giving a one-sided view. Kenosha Forever (talk) 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. Koncorde (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Consensus can change, please address the issues raised by Mr Ernie and myself. Kenosha Forever (talk) 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. Koncorde (talk) 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.Kenosha Forever (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Koncorde, where is the policy governing article FAQ pages? I would like to closely read it. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

MOS for FAQ. Koncorde (talk) 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.Kenosha Forever (talk) 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. Koncorde (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

No, it's not. I suggest you click on it.Kenosha Forever (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Balls, I have copied and pasted the wrong link. Apologies, let me find the right one. Koncorde (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

No, it's the right one. It's the example FAQ used as part of the Template:FAQ page under the Formatting the Q&A section. Apologies that was unclear. Koncorde (talk) 13:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

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"). Kenosha Forever (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

FAQ page provides more context and is the only one to provide an example usage. You can review more at Category FAQ's for more examples. Koncorde (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

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") Kenosha Forever (talk) 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. Koncorde (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

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. Kenosha Forever (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

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. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

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 . Kenosha Forever (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

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. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

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 Kenosha Forever (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Kenosha Forever, you failed to propose any change in the form "change X to Y", so I cannot evaluate your suggestion. Guy (help! - typo?) 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. Kenosha Forever (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

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. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kenosha Forever: did you read the sources you're discussing (the ones provided by 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 originated in Ukraine (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. Jr8825 • Talk 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, —Paleo Neonate – 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 WP:SYNTH.Kenosha Forever (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Goto 2.1: it's a FAQ, —Paleo Neonate – 02:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

FAQs are required to be written in accordance with policy. SYNTH is such a policy. Kenosha Forever (talk) 03:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Kenosha Forever, you have not identified any parts that need to change. See above. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Twitter and reliable sources

Please explain how – Skynews, The Seattle Times and others are not reliable sources. Kenosha Forever (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

A problem was likely reinserting other unreliable sources. For Sky News, it probably should be avoided (1, 2). Seattle Times may be usable, remains to see if the material is WP:DUE (maybe not if only one acceptable source mentions it, WP:NOTNEWS is also to consider)... —Paleo Neonate – 20:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

How about the LA times? . NY Times ? ? Forbes ? How long is this game going to continue? Kenosha Forever (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:FOC. I'm not sure for LA Times, the Forbes one is from Sandler not Forbes, NYTimes is better, —Paleo Neonate – 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? Kenosha Forever (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Categories: