![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | â | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | â | Archive 10 |
I think the title should reflect the nature, origin, and promulgation of the conspiracy theory by the Trump campaign and allies. How would editors feel about a move to Trump's Biden-Ukraine conpiracy theory. SPECIFICO talk 20:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
This conspiracy theory has nothing to do with Biden. It is not NPOV to associate Biden with this narrative in the article's title. Does anyone have an objection to Trump-Ukraine conspiracy theory? If so, why? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Can anyone justify this deletion of content? The person who deleted it wrote, "please defend it on Talk", so here I am. Personally, I think it's the deletion that needs defending, but I welcome any comments. Korny O'Near ( talk) 13:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
There are two "core takeaways" from the PolitiFact piece: that the laptop was Hunter'sis simply and flatly false. soibangla ( talk) 17:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
it's pretty much implied there that they think the emails were Hunter'sLOL! soibangla ( talk) 17:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
a real chance that Russians planted his laptop with bad data. soibangla ( talk) 17:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Per CNN, the law enforcement assumption is that the laptop is Biden's. The article goes on to say that "Federal prosecutors in Delaware are working with the FBI and IRS to examine multiple financial issues, including whether he and his associates violated tax laws and money laundering laws," but that it is unclear how relevant the information on the laptop is to the investigation. I maintain that the text in the FAQ is improper. Mr Ernie ( talk) 18:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Because the chain of custody was disrupted, the provenance of contents of the laptop is not simply a question of whether he once owned it. soibangla ( talk) 19:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)A law enforcement source has told CNN that the assumption is that it is Hunter Biden's laptop. But the FBI is still working through the content and the integrity of what is on it, because it was not in Hunter Biden's sole possession the whole time before it was handed over to the FBI. [1]
WSJ opinion piece cannot be used for facts. Only opinion. We cannot say " The Wall Street Journal ... begun to state that the laptop was real" unless it is a news article. @ Korny O'Near: you should be more careful when editing in this area. In addition the real focus of the WaPo piece was discussing that Biden met his Greek friend Alex Karloutsos at the dinner, something wholly absent from Korny O'Near's addition. starship .paint ( exalt) 09:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
none of it is conclusive, of course...
but it's pretty much implied theresoibangla ( talk) 15:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
@
Korny O'Near: it's arguable to what extent Holman Jenkins represents the WSJ, since he's not just a columnist but a member of their editorial board.
Holy moley. Even when the entire
editorial board writes articles... it's still opinion articles. Editorial board articles are
clearly tagged as opinion. This raises questions about your competence. The second part of your statement is strange; we have no obligation any specific elements of a cited source, whether or not they're the "real focus".
Re-read the
source. After raising Vadym Pozharskyi in paragraph 3, and referring to Pozharskyi in paragraph 1 and 4, the article spends paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 on Alex Karloutsos, establishing Karloutsos as the real reason why Biden briefly visited the dinner, regardless of whether Pozharskyi was at the dinner. The articles spends only paragraph 15 on Pozharskyi. There's three possible reasons why you didn't include Karloutsos. Competence, carelessness, or POV.
starship
.paint (
exalt)
03:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
if that opinion piece by Jenkins had been explicitly written by the WSJ editorial board, I think it would be enough to justify writing something like "By June 2021, The Wall Street Journal had come to the view that the laptop and its contents were authentic" -- I totally disagree. The WSJ editorial board speaks for itself. It does not speak for the entirety of the WSJ, particularly, it does not speak for the WSJ's news team. We need to clearly distinguish fact from opinion, and merely saying The Wall Street Journal fails to do so. There are two easy ways to do so: The editorial board of the The Wall Street Journal stated its opinion that.... or In an opinion article, the editorial board of the The Wall Street Journal stated that... starship .paint ( exalt) 14:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
The Wall Street Journal had come to the viewwould need to be qualified as "The Wall Street Journal editorial board had come to the view," which would alert knowledgeable readers about who is actually saying this, though even citing a WSJ editorial here would acceptable only in very limited cases. "The WSJ reported" would be fully acceptable, because it's the news division. So Jenkins' membership on the board does not strengthen the veracity of his piece, as you seem to argue, it weakens it. And without that source, presented as reliable, your edit goes from weak to nothing, a real reach because the other sources don't say nearly what you assert they do. When I google biden laptop real, lo and behold, the first result is the Jenkins piece, because it's entitled The Hunter Biden Laptop Is Real.
"The article's veracity was initially strongly questioned by most mainstream media outlets, analysts and intelligence officials, and in the week following its publication, no evidence validating the email had emerged."
I agree the sentence should not extrapolate past the date of the sources. However, it should not be written to hint that the information may no longer be agreed upon in the mainstream, as it presently does. No reliably sourced material in the article states that. I suggest more neutral wording:
"The article's veracity was strongly questioned by most mainstream media outlets, analysts and intelligence officials, due to the questionable provenance of the laptop, and the suspicion it may have been part of a disinformation campaign." Ward20 ( talk) 04:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the proposed language, adding "questionable provenance of the laptop and its contents" soibangla ( talk) 17:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
The rather strong claim that the allegations were false is a factual claim that needs citations. I have added a CN tag. There is a comment in the article that says "backed up by multiple RS in body of article". That belongs in the talk page where it can be discussed, not in an HTML-comment! Also, the comment consists of weasel words, it doesn't state which resources are spoken about, so "Citation Needed". 00prometheus ( talk) 15:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Korny O'Near, after exhaustive discussion I do not see that your argument for a significant change to the article has gained traction, nevertheless you just renewed your effort to insert your position by adding "initially" in the lead, contradicting precise language that had been agreed to by consensus hours earlier.
You also added to the lead what I consider an excessive amount of detail about Pozharskyi, who is addressed at some length in the body, and despite the Post effort to characterize this as a "meeting" (as in: they sat down and talked; Post headline: "Hunter Biden brought VP Joe to dinner with shady business partners") the preponderance of evidence here suggests that it wasn't anything more than Joe passing by a banquet table where his longtime friend was sitting and briefly acknowledging others at the table, where the topic was global food security, not business. Two Biden aides also said Joe never met with Pozharskyi and they had no idea who he is, and in fact there is no evidence Joe knows who Pozharskyi is, let alone that he "met" with him. This whole whispered narrative of nefarious association is being driven by the Post, a red source on RSP, and the Post's history tells us we should view that narrative with great skepticism. I see no reason this should should get anything more than a passing mention in the lead.
Evidently you are determined to insert your content into the article without gaining consensus, so I now ask you for the third time to open an RfC. If you choose to not do so, your behavior could be construed by some as disruptive. soibangla ( talk) 03:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
The New York Post later published another email allegedly from the laptop, which seemed to confirm that Joe Biden met briefly with a "Vadym" in April 2015; The Washington Post corroborated elements of the email- I cannot accept this addition by Korny O'Near. No, according to the The Washington Post, the New York Post did not seem to confirm that Joe Biden met briefly with a "Vadym", because this was just a tentative guest list. As The 'Washington Post noted, Alex Karloutsos, whom Biden met according to Karloutsos and another dinner attendee, was not even on that tentative guest list. Furthermore the writing of
The Washington Post corroborated elements of the emailseems to give a misleading impression to support that indeed, "Vadym" met Joe, when the actual focus was Joe met Karloutsos. I am definitely concerned about the misrepresentation of the source here. starship .paint ( exalt) 06:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
it definitely happenedbut it doesn't mean Joe "met" with Pozharskyi
and the only reason we know about it because of an emailthe authenticity of which was not verified.
isn't that fairly substantive proof that the laptop really belonged to Hunterno, actually soibangla ( talk) 14:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
As you note, the emails don't even say that Joe and Vadym metbut you seem to argue that because the dinner happened and both men were present suggests they did, or at least there was something suspicious about it, when there is no evidence of that. Open an RfC so we can settle this, or there is an increasing likelihood there will be some sort of intervention here. soibangla ( talk) 15:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
conclusively state that you still think the laptop is fakeis flatly false. Beyond this point I doubt I can continue talking to you without resorting to personal attacks, but I won't go that way. Open an RfC. soibangla ( talk) 15:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Firefangledfeathers - I think you're unintentionally pointing to what has made this conversation so difficult. There are a variety of questions related to the laptop: did Hunter Biden own the laptop? Are the emails on it really his? Do any of them prove wrongdoing? What, if anything, can we say about what the press has reported on it, post-2020? It seems like certain editors, when pressed on one of these questions, simply switch to another one, as in "Who cares if the emails are real? They don't prove anything anyway." Now, maybe this is true, but looking at the article as it currently stands, especially certain sections of it like the intro, you would think it's extremely important to make the laptop and its contents seem fraudulent - and that's not really an issue of following the sources, it's an issue of editorial judgment. That may be why the article has so much seemingly irrelevant information like that Rudy Giuliani learned about the laptop "during a visit with Vitaly Pruss, an associate of the corrupt oligarch Zlochevsky", while the intro omits the seemingly important information that Biden Hunter has said that the laptop might be his (an editor just recently removed it, on the grounds that it "encourages speculation"). The pattern seems to be clear: evidence that the laptop and/or its contents are fake is made prominent, evidence that it's real is downplayed. Korny O'Near ( talk) 17:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
isn't that fairly substantive proof that the laptop really belonged to Hunter, and that the emails it contains are (at least partly) authentic? And given that, shouldn't this article be modified to reflect that?- wrong questions, Korny O'Near. It's not up to us to decide (or argue) if the laptop or the emails are authentic. We follow the sources. Before tackling the lead, we tackle the body. Which
reliable sources since April 2021state that the laptop was real? News articles, not opinion articles. starship .paint ( exalt) 02:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Before tackling the lead, we tackle the bodyreminds me that maybe, before fully tackling either of those, what really needs to be tackled is the "FAQ" right on this page, and specifically the "What about Hunter Biden's laptop?" question, which is heavily biased/outdated, and perhaps sets the tone for the current editing. Does anyone disagree that the current answer could go for a heavy rewrite? Korny O'Near ( talk) 15:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Korny, you're kinda using this page to promote the conspiracy theory. You need to step back and follow the weight of mainstream RS reports, regardless of what you believe is likely, reasonable, true, possible, etc. SPECIFICO talk 21:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm inclined to at least agree with Korny O'Near when he pointed out that the article has a fair amount of "seemingly irrelevant information." Particularly, the section on Rudy Giuliani is basically just a single point, "Rudy Giuliani was susceptible to Russian disinformation," being reworded in 14 different ways. It's one of the longest sections in the article and most of it has nothing to do with the main topic of the article. Mlb96 ( talk) 02:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Intelligence officials warned Ron Johnson, the chairman of the Senate committee investigating the Bidens, that he risked spreading Russian disinformation. The Washington Post reported in October 2020 that American intelligence agencies warned the White House in 2019 that Giuliani was the target of a Russian influence operation, and National Security Advisor Robert O'Brien warned President Trump about accepting what Giuliani told him. ... According to officials interviewed by The Daily Beast, then-National Security Advisor John Bolton told his staff not to meet with Giuliani, as did his successor Robert C. O'Brien, because Bolton had been informed that Giuliani was spreading conspiracy theories that aligned with Russian interests in disrupting the 2020 election. These officials were also concerned that Giuliani would be used as a conduit for disinformation, including "leaks" of emails that would mix genuine with forged material to implicate Hunter Biden in corrupt dealings.
soibangla ( talk) 02:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)In mid-August 2019, attorney general Bill Barr had a rare face-to-face meeting with Trump and Giuliani associates Joseph diGenova and his wife Victoria Toensing, who since earlier that year represented former Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin and pro-Russia Ukrainian oligarch Dmytry Firtash as attorneys. Trump had announced in March 2018 that diGenova and Toensing would join his legal defense team during the Mueller investigation; the appointments were withdrawn days later, though Trump personal attorney Jay Sekulow said they might assist in other legal matters. DiGenova has said he has known Barr for thirty years, as they both worked in the Reagan Justice Department. Since 2014, Firtash had been fighting extradition to the United States under a federal indictment while he was living in Austria after being arrested there and released on $155 million bail, and diGenova and Toensing sought to have Barr drop the charges. Firtash was a middleman for importing Russian natural gas into Ukraine and has said he was installed in that role by Russian organized crime boss Semion Mogilevich; Russian president Vladimir Putin reportedly agreed to the appointment. When he was vice president, Joe Biden had urged Ukraine to eliminate middlemen such as Firtash and to reduce the country's reliance on imports of Russian natural gas. Giuliani had directed associate Lev Parnas to approach Firtash with a recommendation to hire diGenova and Toensing, with the proposition that Firtash could help provide damaging information on Biden, which Parnas's attorney described was "part of any potential resolution to [Firtash's] extradition matter." DiGenova and Toensing obtained a September 2019 statement from Shokin that made false assertions about corruption by Biden. The statement noted that it was prepared "at the request of lawyers acting for Dmitry Firtash ('DF'), for use in legal proceedings in Austria." Giuliani promoted the statement in television appearances as purported evidence of wrongdoing by Biden. Prior to meeting with diGenova and Toensing, Barr had been briefed in detail on the initial TrumpâUkraine scandal whistleblower complaint within the CIA that had been forwarded to the Justice Department, as well as on Giuliani's activities in Ukraine. Barr declined to intervene in the Firtash case. Bloomberg News reported that its sources told them Giuliani's high-profile publicity of the Shokin statement had greatly reduced the chances of the Justice Department dropping the charges against Firtash, as it would appear to be a political quid pro quo.
@
Korny O'Near: has a point that the FAQ's "serious sources do not take the laptop story at face value"
is problematic. It is not clear what exactly "laptop story" means - does it mean (a) the laptop is fake? Does it mean (b) the laptop is real but how it ended up in Trump allies' hands is fake? Does it mean (c) the laptop is real, but the emails are fake? It is all very vague. In addition we have provenance of the laptop is considered dubious by all reliable media sources. 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
, so is "serious sources do not take the laptop story at face value"
just needless repetition? Korny O'Near is also correct that
PolitiFact's quote of Over time, there has been less doubt that the laptop did in fact belong to Hunter Biden
, is significant and relevant to the FAQ. Korny O'Near is also correct that
Glenn Kessler did not use the assumption that the laptop was fake. However that doesn't equate to a claim that the laptop was real, neither does it assume that the laptop was real. Either way we have two serious sources that do not assume that the laptop is fake. That warrants a change to the fragment in the FAQ, which I have simply deleted (the fragment)
starship
.paint (
exalt)
08:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
There are also reports of Burisma being hacked by Russian actors early in 2020, but then the very next sentence talks about
the hacking of Burisma. So are there just reports, or did it definitely happen? And what does that have to do with Biden's laptop anyway? "Hacking" is not the same as "planting evidence". A much bigger reduction in that FAQ entry may be the easiest solution. Korny O'Near ( talk) 13:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
soibangla, the fact that the section is about Rudy Giuliani isn't why I have concerns about it. The reason I have concerns is because the section is bloated with redundant information. It could have been about anything and my concern wouldn't have changed. Wiki articles should strive to be as concise as possible without sacrificing any important information, and I think that that particular section is needlessly cumulative. I'm not necessarily saying that the section needs to be shorter; if there is other information which is truly important to have included, then it can be added and the section can be made longer. But I think that there is a lot of extraneous information in that section, and it should be removed. Mlb96 ( talk) 16:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Proposed changes for addressing laptop FAQ discussions:
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. President Trump supporter Mac Isaac, who passed the laptop to Giuliani and the FBI, was not able to identify Hunter Biden as the person who gave him the laptop. Isaacâs accounts concerning the laptop have been inconsistent and sometimes contradictory. Hunter Biden is unsure whether the laptop is his, but conceded it could have been stolen or 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.
Ward20 ( talk) 21:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
extremely difficult, maybe even impossibleOn what basis do you assert that? soibangla ( talk) 13:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
seems impossibleSeems, in your opinion, without basis to support it? soibangla ( talk) 15:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
soibangla ( talk) 20:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Over the past year, the Kremlin's strategy of weaponizing leaks to meddle with democracies around the world has become increasingly clear, first in the US and more recently in France. But a new report by a group of security researchers digs into another layer of those so-called influence operations: how Russian hackers alter documents within those releases of hacked material, planting disinformation alongside legitimate leaks. [7]
I move that the FAQ language proposed by Ward20 be adopted and this discussion be closed because it's going everywhere but leading nowhere. May I have a second to the motion? soibangla ( talk) 21:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Officials separately confirmed that the FBI seized the laptop and an external hard drive as part of an investigation, though they did not detail the inquiry or whether it involved money laundering or Hunter Biden. [8]
![]() | This
edit request to
BidenâUkraine conspiracy theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is actual video of Biden laughing and telling the story himself that if the prosecutor was not fired he would withhold loan guarantees. You calling it a "conspiracy theory" is directly contradicted by Bidens own words. This page is completely inaccurate and a falsehood. If you wanted to argue the point about Hunter being guilty of corruption or the prosecutors integrity ithat is a seperate matter. But Joe Biden did commit this infraction, and to suggest otherwise puts in question EVERYTHING that you claim are your core values and what you hope to achieve. 2001:56A:74A0:8E00:9898:9209:2A29:8BF6 ( talk) 21:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
We know from numerous RS that there are unsubstantiated allegations of possible impropriety WRT to Joe Bidenâs "unscheduled" stop at a certain restaurant in April 2015 and that there are denials of this from his 2020 campaign. Some RS like WaPo donât find anything untoward about it, while acknowledging the NYPostâs revelations from Hunter Bidenâs laptop, which one writer for the WSJ has criticised [9] [10]. The group of former intelligence professionals warning of "hallmarks" of a "Russian information operation" are no longer a concern post elections, and their stance has been criticised by the abovementioned WSJ writer too [11]. We also know from a Politico report that federal authorities delayed actions, and that investigations are ongoing [12]. Until those investigations have been completed and their findings have been published, not everything in this page can be considered conspiracy theory, so I suggest we rename it to 2020 BidenâUkraine controversy. I am new to this subject, so I would accept any policy-based counter arguments, or definitive information from any reliable sources I may have missed. CutePeach ( talk) 11:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
I am new to this subject, I suggest it was precipitous of you to create Hunter Biden laptop controversy and I have nominated it to be deleted. soibangla ( talk) 16:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Forum-style debate about Trump/Russia is off-topic and inappropriate for this page.
|
---|
|
unsubstantiated allegations of possible impropriety WRT to Joe Bidenâs "unscheduled" stop at a certain restaurant- not sure what "impropriety" is being alleged here... say, even if he did meet a certain Vadym... that is not a crime? starship .paint ( exalt)
References
...the Russians were talking to people associated with Trump. The precise nature of these exchanges has not been made public, but according to sources in the US and the UK, they formed a suspicious pattern.
![]() | This
edit request to
BidenâUkraine conspiracy theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This needs to be edited to reflect that the laptop has been confirmed as Hunter Biden's.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-hunter-biden-laptop-is-real-11625868661 174.29.105.52 ( talk) 05:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
10:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)Remove this:
"After a scandal narrative failed to gain traction in the mainstream press, conservative media and personalities pivoted to a "meta narrative" that the press, social media platforms and the "deep state" were suppressing news of the scandal. This was one of many instances during the 2020 campaign where conservatives accused tech companies of aiding Biden's campaign by suppressing negative coverage of him.[68]"
The only purpose of this statement is to falsely imply that there was no suppression of the story, when, in fact, in the next section titled "Reactions" provides well sourced information about both the efforts of intelligence community members to lend weight to the unproven and evidence-free assertion that this story was Russian disinformation, and also the documented ways in which tech companies actually suppressed the story. 199.241.231.199 ( talk) 22:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
There is a difference between claiming that an allegation is unsubstantiated and claiming that it is false. Claiming that an assertion is unsubstantiated is quite easy, just ask whomever made the allegation for their evidence. Claiming that an allegation is false means that you have proof it false, which is far harder. Such an assertion requires a citation. The citations on the first sentence do not substantiate that the allegations are false, merely that they are unsubstantiated. Handwaving to the rest of the article is not valid substantiation; if you know the source, just reference it!
There is a different interpretation where the the words "false allegation" refer to the allegation being faulty due to it being unsubstantiated. This *is* what the cited articles say, however that makes the initial sentence repetitively superfluous. It is only saying the same thing twice, making it come out as argumentative rather than factual. I move to edit the sentence to either say that the claims are unsubstantiated, or (though less clear), only state that the allegations are false/faulty. 00prometheus ( talk) 17:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
"conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth". Jr8825 ⢠Talk 18:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
"you earlier claimed that the sources were cited further down in the article"are you referring to me? where did I say that? Jr8825 ⢠Talk 02:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@ 00prometheus: - see below. starship .paint ( exalt) 10:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Based on our research, the claim that Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion from Ukraine to save his son's job is FALSE.
Biden pushed for Shokin's ouster to protect his son.
Trump has falsely claimed that Biden in 2015 pressured the Ukrainian government to fire Viktor Shokin, the top Ukrainian prosecutor, because he was investigating Ukraineâs largest private gas company, Burisma, which had added Bidenâs son, Hunter, to its board in 2014.
To begin with, it must be noted that the central premise of the stories is false. Since 2018, Mr Giuliani and Mr Trump have been making the case that Mr Biden acted corruptly during his time as vice-president, accusing him of advocating for the dismissal of a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, which employed his son, Hunter Biden.starship .paint ( exalt) 11:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
According to Politico, Politico reporter Ben Schreckinger, in his new book The Bidens: Inside the First Familyâs Fifty-Year Rise to Power, states that he has verified that two of the most provocative emails in the Hunter Biden laptop are genuine: one from Burisma advisor Vadym Pozharskyi thanking Hunter for "giving an opportunity to meet your father", and another about a deal with CEFC China Energy, containing the line "10 held by H for the big guy?" - which it has been speculated refers to Joe Biden getting a 10% cut, via Hunter, of a multi-million-dollar deal. (The latter is not related to Ukraine, although " Hunter Biden laptop controversy" redirects here, so at the moment this is the only article meant to cover these emails in-depth; perhaps that should change.) There's now a small group of editors apparently working to keep this information out of the article - they're some of the same editors who fought at certain points to keep other such relevant information out before.
If these emails are authentic, it calls into question a lot of what's currently in this article, like long paragraphs about the murky provenance of the laptop and suspicious goings-on with Rudy Giuliani. After all, ultimately all that matters is whether what's in these emails is accurate - and if it is, then all the speculation about the laptop and who had it when is irrelevant, and presumably a red herring. So of course this revelation is a big deal.
The stated reason for keeping out this reporting is that well, it hasn't really been confirmed. So let me ask the obvious question: what would it take to convince the editors here that reliable sources now say that some of these emails (and especially the most relevant one, from Vadym Pozharskyi) are authentic? Korny O'Near ( talk) 14:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
reliable sources now sayis one writer with an anonymous source who "remembers" seeing the emails but could not match them with what NYP reported, which you support with a tiny blurb from Politico. Weak. Really weak. soibangla ( talk) 15:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
overwhelmingly treats the emails as fakeis inaccurate. Unverified is accurate. And this new information is not persuasive, at least not yet. soibangla ( talk) 15:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
The law enforcement assumption is that they are realSource? soibangla ( talk) 15:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I can't find a single source of someone involved in the investigation who has uncovered evidence they are not genuine."US authorities are investigating whether recently published emails that purport to detail the business dealings of Joe Biden's son in Ukraine and China are connected to an ongoing Russian disinformation effort targeting the former vice president's campaign." [25] soibangla ( talk) 17:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Mr Ernie and Korny O'Near: This is BLP content. The burden is on you to verify your claims. "Not disproved" is not the standard here. And BLP also applies to respected journalists such as Natasha Bertrand. Editors should not have to devote any more time reminding our colleagues of this. SPECIFICO talk 18:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Google hunter Biden emails. After 1.5+ days, do you see any reliable sources jumping all over this bombshell development, or less than a handful of the usual suspects? soibangla ( talk) 20:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
From a Wikipedia perspectivewe rely on reliable sources, which are not covering it because it's weak. Notably, Schreckinger's own employer hasn't published a follow-up story.
if some proof had come out the other wayYes, proof, which this Schreckinger story doesn't provide.
but that's just personal opinionNoted. soibangla ( talk) 14:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
which are not covering it because it's weak- that's your personal opinion. Korny O'Near ( talk) 14:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, and there never has been, that any content on the laptop is not genuinely Hunter Bidenâs. Politico is a reliable source when it is publishing articles falsely claiming that the laptop was a Russian Op, based on nothing but the authorâs (who previously boosted several other similar conspiracy theories that have been debunked) wild eyed speculation and letters signed by people who say they have no evidence. Politico is not a reliable source when it reports on its journalist writing a book in which several portions of the laptop content are genuine, based on anonymous sourcing as well as the government of Switzerland. The difference? Whether or not the information benefits the left wing QAnon. 199.241.231.199 ( talk) 21:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
offers some new information on the subject.Like what? As I said before,
So get the book. And as you continue to do, WP:IDHT and so round and round and round we go. Why do you keep engaging in this disruptive and bludgeoning behavior to waste other editors' time? Maybe an admin should have a word with you. soibangla ( talk) 23:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
If we cite the text to the book is that ok with you?because we don't have the text of the book. All we have is a tiny blurb that makes a major claim that no other RS has even noted after five days. It is WP:EXTRAORDINARY, you are WP:BLUDGEONING and you should WP:DROPTHESTICK unless/until there is substantial corroboration. soibangla ( talk) 02:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I hardly think any of those things apply, if all it takes is one person to buy the book and cite it here for everyone to agree that that gets us over this particular hurdle. Korny O'Near ( talk) 02:41, 27 September 2021 (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.
We have multiple articles and investigations that show that the Biden family is being scrutinized for corruption accusations. It's not fair to not give these news sites and outlets, many left leaning like the Guardian and PolĂtico, their voice. They are starting to reconsider the accusations as potentially true. We should represent this hard working investigators and cite them. We should change the name of the article to "Biden-Ukraine accusations" and remove the "conspiracy theory" part to not misrepresent what is going on in case we are wrong. Thecommander236 ( talk) 20:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
WP:DENY please. SPECIFICO talk 02:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
A lot of news sites, including left leaning ones are coming out with new information on this. These aren't unreliable sites. This kinda stuff can't be ignored.
https://www.google.com/ amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/news/magazine/2021/10/12/hunter-biden-corruption-515583
https://www.businessinsider.com com/new-emails-reveal-that-hunter-biden-wanted-2-million-for-libya-deal-2021-9 Thecommander236 ( talk) 04:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
I suspect the OP is referring to the Hunter Biden laptop part of this article. There's a recent article out from POLITICO - link - by the author of the recent book confirming at least some of the emails as genuine. The POLITICO article also links to the Business Insider piece regarding allegations that Hunter Biden was offering some sort of help to Libya in unfreezing assets. Our entry here is not some catch all about all news related to Hunter, so the Libya stuff is out of scope, but I still maintain the section titled "Laptop and hard drive" is out of date and should be updated. Mr Ernie ( talk) 13:53, October 15, 2021â (UTC)
There's also the evidence to show that they shared a bank account and that Hunter complained about Biden taking half of his pay. It's not concrete evidence, but it does show Biden had opportunity to use some of the money. If the money isn't dirty, it could still be a conflict of interest as the account could have money from Burisma. Biden got the corrupt investigator looking into Burisma sacked. "Conspiracy" implies that the whole idea is impossible, but Biden's family is under FBI investigation. Biden himself may be a suspect, but the FBI would never implicate a sitting president unless they had a bullet proof case. The scandal could hurt the administration and foreign policy especially if it turns out they are wrong. Thecommander236 ( talk) 09:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
These accusations existed way before the NYP posted the laptop article in 2020, which only added to the story. I was watching this on TV in September 2019 Jake Tapper fact-checks Rep. Jim Jordan on Ukraine scandal - [30] [31]. Why is the article starting with October 2020? The same accusations were made by Jim Jordan one year before that. Barecode ( talk) 14:44, 3 December 2021 (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.
This should be added to the article. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I31O5_X4P1Y&ab_channel=GlennGreenwald) His opinion. Hes a very credible source.-- Ivan VA ( talk) 07:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Greenwald discusses the book. It should be in the article as well. -- Ivan VA ( talk) 07:35, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
because he is Glenn Greenwald, but he's just a guy with a substack and youtube channel just like countless other guys with a substack and youtube channel. That dog won't hunt. soibangla ( talk) 18:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
He is right@ Soibangla: is abusing his power as admin to make his own opinons as fact. Agreed with the above user. 2600:8805:c980:9400:a936:e491:2f23:3272 ( talk) 00:25, October 13, 2021â (UTC)
go ahead and WP:BEBOLDanyway. I also promise I won't revert it, though I admit I broke a promise once. OK, twice maybe. soibangla ( talk) 00:55, 13 October 2021 (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.
soibangla, I understand you're trying to be magnanimous and gentle, but, in the future, please don't recommend being BOLD in such cases. When lack of consensus is known, and the proposed content change is known to be controversial, BOLD does not apply. We want to keep the controversy here among editors on the talk pages and not in the actual editing. That's all. Keep up the good work. -- Valjean ( talk) 18:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
@ SPECIFICO: Why did u close the debate? I don't know the endresult, please tell me. Can i put his opinion into the article? -- Ivan VA ( talk) 11:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Valjean - sorry I am late but I see some wild accusations against Greenwald. Working for Russia? Proof? Criticizing Biden/Democrats is a proof of working for Russia? Example of Fox News videos: "Glenn Greenwald: Neither political party is on your side" - "Glenn Greenwald warns 'democracy is in peril'" - "Glenn Greenwald: The Afghan war was a lie for years". It doesn't make him look like a Russian tool.
He was not allowed to publish his article about this very topic, of this Wikipedia article, and he left. He was not even allowed to exercise an option in his contract to publish the piece outside of The Intercept. [32]
He has forsaken good journalistic practices? Like what? Like not calling people who menstruate "women", calling riots "peaceful demonstrations", not publishing stories like the story this very article is about, not criticizing Biden, not allowing to call for National Guards to stop riots? Calling education or nuclear family evidence of white supremacy? Asking for segregation of children in schools and dividing them between "oppressors" and "oppressed"? Claiming that the way math taught in schools is rooted in white supremacy? Weaponizing offense taking? Becoming a professional outrage person? Playing identity politics? Playing political moral posturing? Calling whatever he doesn't like "white supremacist"? Claiming that "cars, guns, knifes and rocks" (as opposed to the people using those things) kill people? Labeling white supremacists the people who dare who defend themselves when they are assaulted? Suggegsting an act of terrorism was an accident? Are those really good journalistic practices? According to whom? To the woke media? He was not allowed to publish his article in which he criticized Biden, so he had to leave. What he was supposed to do? To write articles about fairies? What would you do if the Wikipedia admins would tell you that you are only allowed to edit 3 letter disambiguation pages like CCC because whatever else other edits you might make would be outside of good Wikipedia practices? Wouldn't you feel humiliated and forced to leave? How is CNN practicing good journalism when it publishes lies without any shame and how is that a reliable source? And why is Glenn Greenwald unreliable in the same time? Because you don't like him? Because the liberals are cancelling him? Glenn Greenwald sent a shockwave through the entire Western world with the revelations he made but now he is a bad guy for not becoming a soldier of the liberal media who is self-censoring to avoid being attacked by "woke" mobs? Is that what makes him bad? Barecode ( talk) 15:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Then Greenwald accused The Intercept of helping Antifa to target reporters. [33] I don't see any fact checker trying to prove it wrong. Barecode ( talk) 16:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
PaleoNeonate - Very loaded accusations without any support and originated from righteous statements? If you make loaded and inflammatory accusations without any support then it's probably reasonable to expect loaded questions? The main question is: Why is Glenn Greenwald an unreliable source? Proof?
And if I can ask: what exactly is loaded in my questions? Can you give any example? Comparing Greenwald with journalists who say lies is somewhat loaded? Stating the obvious (Valjean doesn't like Greenwald) is a loaded statement? Reference: Loaded question - Barecode ( talk) 10:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | â | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | â | Archive 10 |
I think the title should reflect the nature, origin, and promulgation of the conspiracy theory by the Trump campaign and allies. How would editors feel about a move to Trump's Biden-Ukraine conpiracy theory. SPECIFICO talk 20:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
This conspiracy theory has nothing to do with Biden. It is not NPOV to associate Biden with this narrative in the article's title. Does anyone have an objection to Trump-Ukraine conspiracy theory? If so, why? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Can anyone justify this deletion of content? The person who deleted it wrote, "please defend it on Talk", so here I am. Personally, I think it's the deletion that needs defending, but I welcome any comments. Korny O'Near ( talk) 13:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
There are two "core takeaways" from the PolitiFact piece: that the laptop was Hunter'sis simply and flatly false. soibangla ( talk) 17:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
it's pretty much implied there that they think the emails were Hunter'sLOL! soibangla ( talk) 17:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
a real chance that Russians planted his laptop with bad data. soibangla ( talk) 17:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Per CNN, the law enforcement assumption is that the laptop is Biden's. The article goes on to say that "Federal prosecutors in Delaware are working with the FBI and IRS to examine multiple financial issues, including whether he and his associates violated tax laws and money laundering laws," but that it is unclear how relevant the information on the laptop is to the investigation. I maintain that the text in the FAQ is improper. Mr Ernie ( talk) 18:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Because the chain of custody was disrupted, the provenance of contents of the laptop is not simply a question of whether he once owned it. soibangla ( talk) 19:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)A law enforcement source has told CNN that the assumption is that it is Hunter Biden's laptop. But the FBI is still working through the content and the integrity of what is on it, because it was not in Hunter Biden's sole possession the whole time before it was handed over to the FBI. [1]
WSJ opinion piece cannot be used for facts. Only opinion. We cannot say " The Wall Street Journal ... begun to state that the laptop was real" unless it is a news article. @ Korny O'Near: you should be more careful when editing in this area. In addition the real focus of the WaPo piece was discussing that Biden met his Greek friend Alex Karloutsos at the dinner, something wholly absent from Korny O'Near's addition. starship .paint ( exalt) 09:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
none of it is conclusive, of course...
but it's pretty much implied theresoibangla ( talk) 15:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
@
Korny O'Near: it's arguable to what extent Holman Jenkins represents the WSJ, since he's not just a columnist but a member of their editorial board.
Holy moley. Even when the entire
editorial board writes articles... it's still opinion articles. Editorial board articles are
clearly tagged as opinion. This raises questions about your competence. The second part of your statement is strange; we have no obligation any specific elements of a cited source, whether or not they're the "real focus".
Re-read the
source. After raising Vadym Pozharskyi in paragraph 3, and referring to Pozharskyi in paragraph 1 and 4, the article spends paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 on Alex Karloutsos, establishing Karloutsos as the real reason why Biden briefly visited the dinner, regardless of whether Pozharskyi was at the dinner. The articles spends only paragraph 15 on Pozharskyi. There's three possible reasons why you didn't include Karloutsos. Competence, carelessness, or POV.
starship
.paint (
exalt)
03:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
if that opinion piece by Jenkins had been explicitly written by the WSJ editorial board, I think it would be enough to justify writing something like "By June 2021, The Wall Street Journal had come to the view that the laptop and its contents were authentic" -- I totally disagree. The WSJ editorial board speaks for itself. It does not speak for the entirety of the WSJ, particularly, it does not speak for the WSJ's news team. We need to clearly distinguish fact from opinion, and merely saying The Wall Street Journal fails to do so. There are two easy ways to do so: The editorial board of the The Wall Street Journal stated its opinion that.... or In an opinion article, the editorial board of the The Wall Street Journal stated that... starship .paint ( exalt) 14:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
The Wall Street Journal had come to the viewwould need to be qualified as "The Wall Street Journal editorial board had come to the view," which would alert knowledgeable readers about who is actually saying this, though even citing a WSJ editorial here would acceptable only in very limited cases. "The WSJ reported" would be fully acceptable, because it's the news division. So Jenkins' membership on the board does not strengthen the veracity of his piece, as you seem to argue, it weakens it. And without that source, presented as reliable, your edit goes from weak to nothing, a real reach because the other sources don't say nearly what you assert they do. When I google biden laptop real, lo and behold, the first result is the Jenkins piece, because it's entitled The Hunter Biden Laptop Is Real.
"The article's veracity was initially strongly questioned by most mainstream media outlets, analysts and intelligence officials, and in the week following its publication, no evidence validating the email had emerged."
I agree the sentence should not extrapolate past the date of the sources. However, it should not be written to hint that the information may no longer be agreed upon in the mainstream, as it presently does. No reliably sourced material in the article states that. I suggest more neutral wording:
"The article's veracity was strongly questioned by most mainstream media outlets, analysts and intelligence officials, due to the questionable provenance of the laptop, and the suspicion it may have been part of a disinformation campaign." Ward20 ( talk) 04:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the proposed language, adding "questionable provenance of the laptop and its contents" soibangla ( talk) 17:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
The rather strong claim that the allegations were false is a factual claim that needs citations. I have added a CN tag. There is a comment in the article that says "backed up by multiple RS in body of article". That belongs in the talk page where it can be discussed, not in an HTML-comment! Also, the comment consists of weasel words, it doesn't state which resources are spoken about, so "Citation Needed". 00prometheus ( talk) 15:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Korny O'Near, after exhaustive discussion I do not see that your argument for a significant change to the article has gained traction, nevertheless you just renewed your effort to insert your position by adding "initially" in the lead, contradicting precise language that had been agreed to by consensus hours earlier.
You also added to the lead what I consider an excessive amount of detail about Pozharskyi, who is addressed at some length in the body, and despite the Post effort to characterize this as a "meeting" (as in: they sat down and talked; Post headline: "Hunter Biden brought VP Joe to dinner with shady business partners") the preponderance of evidence here suggests that it wasn't anything more than Joe passing by a banquet table where his longtime friend was sitting and briefly acknowledging others at the table, where the topic was global food security, not business. Two Biden aides also said Joe never met with Pozharskyi and they had no idea who he is, and in fact there is no evidence Joe knows who Pozharskyi is, let alone that he "met" with him. This whole whispered narrative of nefarious association is being driven by the Post, a red source on RSP, and the Post's history tells us we should view that narrative with great skepticism. I see no reason this should should get anything more than a passing mention in the lead.
Evidently you are determined to insert your content into the article without gaining consensus, so I now ask you for the third time to open an RfC. If you choose to not do so, your behavior could be construed by some as disruptive. soibangla ( talk) 03:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
The New York Post later published another email allegedly from the laptop, which seemed to confirm that Joe Biden met briefly with a "Vadym" in April 2015; The Washington Post corroborated elements of the email- I cannot accept this addition by Korny O'Near. No, according to the The Washington Post, the New York Post did not seem to confirm that Joe Biden met briefly with a "Vadym", because this was just a tentative guest list. As The 'Washington Post noted, Alex Karloutsos, whom Biden met according to Karloutsos and another dinner attendee, was not even on that tentative guest list. Furthermore the writing of
The Washington Post corroborated elements of the emailseems to give a misleading impression to support that indeed, "Vadym" met Joe, when the actual focus was Joe met Karloutsos. I am definitely concerned about the misrepresentation of the source here. starship .paint ( exalt) 06:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
it definitely happenedbut it doesn't mean Joe "met" with Pozharskyi
and the only reason we know about it because of an emailthe authenticity of which was not verified.
isn't that fairly substantive proof that the laptop really belonged to Hunterno, actually soibangla ( talk) 14:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
As you note, the emails don't even say that Joe and Vadym metbut you seem to argue that because the dinner happened and both men were present suggests they did, or at least there was something suspicious about it, when there is no evidence of that. Open an RfC so we can settle this, or there is an increasing likelihood there will be some sort of intervention here. soibangla ( talk) 15:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
conclusively state that you still think the laptop is fakeis flatly false. Beyond this point I doubt I can continue talking to you without resorting to personal attacks, but I won't go that way. Open an RfC. soibangla ( talk) 15:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Firefangledfeathers - I think you're unintentionally pointing to what has made this conversation so difficult. There are a variety of questions related to the laptop: did Hunter Biden own the laptop? Are the emails on it really his? Do any of them prove wrongdoing? What, if anything, can we say about what the press has reported on it, post-2020? It seems like certain editors, when pressed on one of these questions, simply switch to another one, as in "Who cares if the emails are real? They don't prove anything anyway." Now, maybe this is true, but looking at the article as it currently stands, especially certain sections of it like the intro, you would think it's extremely important to make the laptop and its contents seem fraudulent - and that's not really an issue of following the sources, it's an issue of editorial judgment. That may be why the article has so much seemingly irrelevant information like that Rudy Giuliani learned about the laptop "during a visit with Vitaly Pruss, an associate of the corrupt oligarch Zlochevsky", while the intro omits the seemingly important information that Biden Hunter has said that the laptop might be his (an editor just recently removed it, on the grounds that it "encourages speculation"). The pattern seems to be clear: evidence that the laptop and/or its contents are fake is made prominent, evidence that it's real is downplayed. Korny O'Near ( talk) 17:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
isn't that fairly substantive proof that the laptop really belonged to Hunter, and that the emails it contains are (at least partly) authentic? And given that, shouldn't this article be modified to reflect that?- wrong questions, Korny O'Near. It's not up to us to decide (or argue) if the laptop or the emails are authentic. We follow the sources. Before tackling the lead, we tackle the body. Which
reliable sources since April 2021state that the laptop was real? News articles, not opinion articles. starship .paint ( exalt) 02:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Before tackling the lead, we tackle the bodyreminds me that maybe, before fully tackling either of those, what really needs to be tackled is the "FAQ" right on this page, and specifically the "What about Hunter Biden's laptop?" question, which is heavily biased/outdated, and perhaps sets the tone for the current editing. Does anyone disagree that the current answer could go for a heavy rewrite? Korny O'Near ( talk) 15:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Korny, you're kinda using this page to promote the conspiracy theory. You need to step back and follow the weight of mainstream RS reports, regardless of what you believe is likely, reasonable, true, possible, etc. SPECIFICO talk 21:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm inclined to at least agree with Korny O'Near when he pointed out that the article has a fair amount of "seemingly irrelevant information." Particularly, the section on Rudy Giuliani is basically just a single point, "Rudy Giuliani was susceptible to Russian disinformation," being reworded in 14 different ways. It's one of the longest sections in the article and most of it has nothing to do with the main topic of the article. Mlb96 ( talk) 02:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Intelligence officials warned Ron Johnson, the chairman of the Senate committee investigating the Bidens, that he risked spreading Russian disinformation. The Washington Post reported in October 2020 that American intelligence agencies warned the White House in 2019 that Giuliani was the target of a Russian influence operation, and National Security Advisor Robert O'Brien warned President Trump about accepting what Giuliani told him. ... According to officials interviewed by The Daily Beast, then-National Security Advisor John Bolton told his staff not to meet with Giuliani, as did his successor Robert C. O'Brien, because Bolton had been informed that Giuliani was spreading conspiracy theories that aligned with Russian interests in disrupting the 2020 election. These officials were also concerned that Giuliani would be used as a conduit for disinformation, including "leaks" of emails that would mix genuine with forged material to implicate Hunter Biden in corrupt dealings.
soibangla ( talk) 02:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)In mid-August 2019, attorney general Bill Barr had a rare face-to-face meeting with Trump and Giuliani associates Joseph diGenova and his wife Victoria Toensing, who since earlier that year represented former Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin and pro-Russia Ukrainian oligarch Dmytry Firtash as attorneys. Trump had announced in March 2018 that diGenova and Toensing would join his legal defense team during the Mueller investigation; the appointments were withdrawn days later, though Trump personal attorney Jay Sekulow said they might assist in other legal matters. DiGenova has said he has known Barr for thirty years, as they both worked in the Reagan Justice Department. Since 2014, Firtash had been fighting extradition to the United States under a federal indictment while he was living in Austria after being arrested there and released on $155 million bail, and diGenova and Toensing sought to have Barr drop the charges. Firtash was a middleman for importing Russian natural gas into Ukraine and has said he was installed in that role by Russian organized crime boss Semion Mogilevich; Russian president Vladimir Putin reportedly agreed to the appointment. When he was vice president, Joe Biden had urged Ukraine to eliminate middlemen such as Firtash and to reduce the country's reliance on imports of Russian natural gas. Giuliani had directed associate Lev Parnas to approach Firtash with a recommendation to hire diGenova and Toensing, with the proposition that Firtash could help provide damaging information on Biden, which Parnas's attorney described was "part of any potential resolution to [Firtash's] extradition matter." DiGenova and Toensing obtained a September 2019 statement from Shokin that made false assertions about corruption by Biden. The statement noted that it was prepared "at the request of lawyers acting for Dmitry Firtash ('DF'), for use in legal proceedings in Austria." Giuliani promoted the statement in television appearances as purported evidence of wrongdoing by Biden. Prior to meeting with diGenova and Toensing, Barr had been briefed in detail on the initial TrumpâUkraine scandal whistleblower complaint within the CIA that had been forwarded to the Justice Department, as well as on Giuliani's activities in Ukraine. Barr declined to intervene in the Firtash case. Bloomberg News reported that its sources told them Giuliani's high-profile publicity of the Shokin statement had greatly reduced the chances of the Justice Department dropping the charges against Firtash, as it would appear to be a political quid pro quo.
@
Korny O'Near: has a point that the FAQ's "serious sources do not take the laptop story at face value"
is problematic. It is not clear what exactly "laptop story" means - does it mean (a) the laptop is fake? Does it mean (b) the laptop is real but how it ended up in Trump allies' hands is fake? Does it mean (c) the laptop is real, but the emails are fake? It is all very vague. In addition we have provenance of the laptop is considered dubious by all reliable media sources. 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
, so is "serious sources do not take the laptop story at face value"
just needless repetition? Korny O'Near is also correct that
PolitiFact's quote of Over time, there has been less doubt that the laptop did in fact belong to Hunter Biden
, is significant and relevant to the FAQ. Korny O'Near is also correct that
Glenn Kessler did not use the assumption that the laptop was fake. However that doesn't equate to a claim that the laptop was real, neither does it assume that the laptop was real. Either way we have two serious sources that do not assume that the laptop is fake. That warrants a change to the fragment in the FAQ, which I have simply deleted (the fragment)
starship
.paint (
exalt)
08:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
There are also reports of Burisma being hacked by Russian actors early in 2020, but then the very next sentence talks about
the hacking of Burisma. So are there just reports, or did it definitely happen? And what does that have to do with Biden's laptop anyway? "Hacking" is not the same as "planting evidence". A much bigger reduction in that FAQ entry may be the easiest solution. Korny O'Near ( talk) 13:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
soibangla, the fact that the section is about Rudy Giuliani isn't why I have concerns about it. The reason I have concerns is because the section is bloated with redundant information. It could have been about anything and my concern wouldn't have changed. Wiki articles should strive to be as concise as possible without sacrificing any important information, and I think that that particular section is needlessly cumulative. I'm not necessarily saying that the section needs to be shorter; if there is other information which is truly important to have included, then it can be added and the section can be made longer. But I think that there is a lot of extraneous information in that section, and it should be removed. Mlb96 ( talk) 16:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Proposed changes for addressing laptop FAQ discussions:
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. President Trump supporter Mac Isaac, who passed the laptop to Giuliani and the FBI, was not able to identify Hunter Biden as the person who gave him the laptop. Isaacâs accounts concerning the laptop have been inconsistent and sometimes contradictory. Hunter Biden is unsure whether the laptop is his, but conceded it could have been stolen or 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.
Ward20 ( talk) 21:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
extremely difficult, maybe even impossibleOn what basis do you assert that? soibangla ( talk) 13:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
seems impossibleSeems, in your opinion, without basis to support it? soibangla ( talk) 15:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
soibangla ( talk) 20:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Over the past year, the Kremlin's strategy of weaponizing leaks to meddle with democracies around the world has become increasingly clear, first in the US and more recently in France. But a new report by a group of security researchers digs into another layer of those so-called influence operations: how Russian hackers alter documents within those releases of hacked material, planting disinformation alongside legitimate leaks. [7]
I move that the FAQ language proposed by Ward20 be adopted and this discussion be closed because it's going everywhere but leading nowhere. May I have a second to the motion? soibangla ( talk) 21:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Officials separately confirmed that the FBI seized the laptop and an external hard drive as part of an investigation, though they did not detail the inquiry or whether it involved money laundering or Hunter Biden. [8]
![]() | This
edit request to
BidenâUkraine conspiracy theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is actual video of Biden laughing and telling the story himself that if the prosecutor was not fired he would withhold loan guarantees. You calling it a "conspiracy theory" is directly contradicted by Bidens own words. This page is completely inaccurate and a falsehood. If you wanted to argue the point about Hunter being guilty of corruption or the prosecutors integrity ithat is a seperate matter. But Joe Biden did commit this infraction, and to suggest otherwise puts in question EVERYTHING that you claim are your core values and what you hope to achieve. 2001:56A:74A0:8E00:9898:9209:2A29:8BF6 ( talk) 21:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
We know from numerous RS that there are unsubstantiated allegations of possible impropriety WRT to Joe Bidenâs "unscheduled" stop at a certain restaurant in April 2015 and that there are denials of this from his 2020 campaign. Some RS like WaPo donât find anything untoward about it, while acknowledging the NYPostâs revelations from Hunter Bidenâs laptop, which one writer for the WSJ has criticised [9] [10]. The group of former intelligence professionals warning of "hallmarks" of a "Russian information operation" are no longer a concern post elections, and their stance has been criticised by the abovementioned WSJ writer too [11]. We also know from a Politico report that federal authorities delayed actions, and that investigations are ongoing [12]. Until those investigations have been completed and their findings have been published, not everything in this page can be considered conspiracy theory, so I suggest we rename it to 2020 BidenâUkraine controversy. I am new to this subject, so I would accept any policy-based counter arguments, or definitive information from any reliable sources I may have missed. CutePeach ( talk) 11:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
I am new to this subject, I suggest it was precipitous of you to create Hunter Biden laptop controversy and I have nominated it to be deleted. soibangla ( talk) 16:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Forum-style debate about Trump/Russia is off-topic and inappropriate for this page.
|
---|
|
unsubstantiated allegations of possible impropriety WRT to Joe Bidenâs "unscheduled" stop at a certain restaurant- not sure what "impropriety" is being alleged here... say, even if he did meet a certain Vadym... that is not a crime? starship .paint ( exalt)
References
...the Russians were talking to people associated with Trump. The precise nature of these exchanges has not been made public, but according to sources in the US and the UK, they formed a suspicious pattern.
![]() | This
edit request to
BidenâUkraine conspiracy theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This needs to be edited to reflect that the laptop has been confirmed as Hunter Biden's.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-hunter-biden-laptop-is-real-11625868661 174.29.105.52 ( talk) 05:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
10:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)Remove this:
"After a scandal narrative failed to gain traction in the mainstream press, conservative media and personalities pivoted to a "meta narrative" that the press, social media platforms and the "deep state" were suppressing news of the scandal. This was one of many instances during the 2020 campaign where conservatives accused tech companies of aiding Biden's campaign by suppressing negative coverage of him.[68]"
The only purpose of this statement is to falsely imply that there was no suppression of the story, when, in fact, in the next section titled "Reactions" provides well sourced information about both the efforts of intelligence community members to lend weight to the unproven and evidence-free assertion that this story was Russian disinformation, and also the documented ways in which tech companies actually suppressed the story. 199.241.231.199 ( talk) 22:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
There is a difference between claiming that an allegation is unsubstantiated and claiming that it is false. Claiming that an assertion is unsubstantiated is quite easy, just ask whomever made the allegation for their evidence. Claiming that an allegation is false means that you have proof it false, which is far harder. Such an assertion requires a citation. The citations on the first sentence do not substantiate that the allegations are false, merely that they are unsubstantiated. Handwaving to the rest of the article is not valid substantiation; if you know the source, just reference it!
There is a different interpretation where the the words "false allegation" refer to the allegation being faulty due to it being unsubstantiated. This *is* what the cited articles say, however that makes the initial sentence repetitively superfluous. It is only saying the same thing twice, making it come out as argumentative rather than factual. I move to edit the sentence to either say that the claims are unsubstantiated, or (though less clear), only state that the allegations are false/faulty. 00prometheus ( talk) 17:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
"conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth". Jr8825 ⢠Talk 18:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
"you earlier claimed that the sources were cited further down in the article"are you referring to me? where did I say that? Jr8825 ⢠Talk 02:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@ 00prometheus: - see below. starship .paint ( exalt) 10:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Based on our research, the claim that Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion from Ukraine to save his son's job is FALSE.
Biden pushed for Shokin's ouster to protect his son.
Trump has falsely claimed that Biden in 2015 pressured the Ukrainian government to fire Viktor Shokin, the top Ukrainian prosecutor, because he was investigating Ukraineâs largest private gas company, Burisma, which had added Bidenâs son, Hunter, to its board in 2014.
To begin with, it must be noted that the central premise of the stories is false. Since 2018, Mr Giuliani and Mr Trump have been making the case that Mr Biden acted corruptly during his time as vice-president, accusing him of advocating for the dismissal of a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, which employed his son, Hunter Biden.starship .paint ( exalt) 11:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
According to Politico, Politico reporter Ben Schreckinger, in his new book The Bidens: Inside the First Familyâs Fifty-Year Rise to Power, states that he has verified that two of the most provocative emails in the Hunter Biden laptop are genuine: one from Burisma advisor Vadym Pozharskyi thanking Hunter for "giving an opportunity to meet your father", and another about a deal with CEFC China Energy, containing the line "10 held by H for the big guy?" - which it has been speculated refers to Joe Biden getting a 10% cut, via Hunter, of a multi-million-dollar deal. (The latter is not related to Ukraine, although " Hunter Biden laptop controversy" redirects here, so at the moment this is the only article meant to cover these emails in-depth; perhaps that should change.) There's now a small group of editors apparently working to keep this information out of the article - they're some of the same editors who fought at certain points to keep other such relevant information out before.
If these emails are authentic, it calls into question a lot of what's currently in this article, like long paragraphs about the murky provenance of the laptop and suspicious goings-on with Rudy Giuliani. After all, ultimately all that matters is whether what's in these emails is accurate - and if it is, then all the speculation about the laptop and who had it when is irrelevant, and presumably a red herring. So of course this revelation is a big deal.
The stated reason for keeping out this reporting is that well, it hasn't really been confirmed. So let me ask the obvious question: what would it take to convince the editors here that reliable sources now say that some of these emails (and especially the most relevant one, from Vadym Pozharskyi) are authentic? Korny O'Near ( talk) 14:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
reliable sources now sayis one writer with an anonymous source who "remembers" seeing the emails but could not match them with what NYP reported, which you support with a tiny blurb from Politico. Weak. Really weak. soibangla ( talk) 15:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
overwhelmingly treats the emails as fakeis inaccurate. Unverified is accurate. And this new information is not persuasive, at least not yet. soibangla ( talk) 15:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
The law enforcement assumption is that they are realSource? soibangla ( talk) 15:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I can't find a single source of someone involved in the investigation who has uncovered evidence they are not genuine."US authorities are investigating whether recently published emails that purport to detail the business dealings of Joe Biden's son in Ukraine and China are connected to an ongoing Russian disinformation effort targeting the former vice president's campaign." [25] soibangla ( talk) 17:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Mr Ernie and Korny O'Near: This is BLP content. The burden is on you to verify your claims. "Not disproved" is not the standard here. And BLP also applies to respected journalists such as Natasha Bertrand. Editors should not have to devote any more time reminding our colleagues of this. SPECIFICO talk 18:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Google hunter Biden emails. After 1.5+ days, do you see any reliable sources jumping all over this bombshell development, or less than a handful of the usual suspects? soibangla ( talk) 20:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
From a Wikipedia perspectivewe rely on reliable sources, which are not covering it because it's weak. Notably, Schreckinger's own employer hasn't published a follow-up story.
if some proof had come out the other wayYes, proof, which this Schreckinger story doesn't provide.
but that's just personal opinionNoted. soibangla ( talk) 14:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
which are not covering it because it's weak- that's your personal opinion. Korny O'Near ( talk) 14:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, and there never has been, that any content on the laptop is not genuinely Hunter Bidenâs. Politico is a reliable source when it is publishing articles falsely claiming that the laptop was a Russian Op, based on nothing but the authorâs (who previously boosted several other similar conspiracy theories that have been debunked) wild eyed speculation and letters signed by people who say they have no evidence. Politico is not a reliable source when it reports on its journalist writing a book in which several portions of the laptop content are genuine, based on anonymous sourcing as well as the government of Switzerland. The difference? Whether or not the information benefits the left wing QAnon. 199.241.231.199 ( talk) 21:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
offers some new information on the subject.Like what? As I said before,
So get the book. And as you continue to do, WP:IDHT and so round and round and round we go. Why do you keep engaging in this disruptive and bludgeoning behavior to waste other editors' time? Maybe an admin should have a word with you. soibangla ( talk) 23:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
If we cite the text to the book is that ok with you?because we don't have the text of the book. All we have is a tiny blurb that makes a major claim that no other RS has even noted after five days. It is WP:EXTRAORDINARY, you are WP:BLUDGEONING and you should WP:DROPTHESTICK unless/until there is substantial corroboration. soibangla ( talk) 02:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I hardly think any of those things apply, if all it takes is one person to buy the book and cite it here for everyone to agree that that gets us over this particular hurdle. Korny O'Near ( talk) 02:41, 27 September 2021 (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.
We have multiple articles and investigations that show that the Biden family is being scrutinized for corruption accusations. It's not fair to not give these news sites and outlets, many left leaning like the Guardian and PolĂtico, their voice. They are starting to reconsider the accusations as potentially true. We should represent this hard working investigators and cite them. We should change the name of the article to "Biden-Ukraine accusations" and remove the "conspiracy theory" part to not misrepresent what is going on in case we are wrong. Thecommander236 ( talk) 20:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
WP:DENY please. SPECIFICO talk 02:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
A lot of news sites, including left leaning ones are coming out with new information on this. These aren't unreliable sites. This kinda stuff can't be ignored.
https://www.google.com/ amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/news/magazine/2021/10/12/hunter-biden-corruption-515583
https://www.businessinsider.com com/new-emails-reveal-that-hunter-biden-wanted-2-million-for-libya-deal-2021-9 Thecommander236 ( talk) 04:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
I suspect the OP is referring to the Hunter Biden laptop part of this article. There's a recent article out from POLITICO - link - by the author of the recent book confirming at least some of the emails as genuine. The POLITICO article also links to the Business Insider piece regarding allegations that Hunter Biden was offering some sort of help to Libya in unfreezing assets. Our entry here is not some catch all about all news related to Hunter, so the Libya stuff is out of scope, but I still maintain the section titled "Laptop and hard drive" is out of date and should be updated. Mr Ernie ( talk) 13:53, October 15, 2021â (UTC)
There's also the evidence to show that they shared a bank account and that Hunter complained about Biden taking half of his pay. It's not concrete evidence, but it does show Biden had opportunity to use some of the money. If the money isn't dirty, it could still be a conflict of interest as the account could have money from Burisma. Biden got the corrupt investigator looking into Burisma sacked. "Conspiracy" implies that the whole idea is impossible, but Biden's family is under FBI investigation. Biden himself may be a suspect, but the FBI would never implicate a sitting president unless they had a bullet proof case. The scandal could hurt the administration and foreign policy especially if it turns out they are wrong. Thecommander236 ( talk) 09:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
These accusations existed way before the NYP posted the laptop article in 2020, which only added to the story. I was watching this on TV in September 2019 Jake Tapper fact-checks Rep. Jim Jordan on Ukraine scandal - [30] [31]. Why is the article starting with October 2020? The same accusations were made by Jim Jordan one year before that. Barecode ( talk) 14:44, 3 December 2021 (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.
This should be added to the article. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I31O5_X4P1Y&ab_channel=GlennGreenwald) His opinion. Hes a very credible source.-- Ivan VA ( talk) 07:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Greenwald discusses the book. It should be in the article as well. -- Ivan VA ( talk) 07:35, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
because he is Glenn Greenwald, but he's just a guy with a substack and youtube channel just like countless other guys with a substack and youtube channel. That dog won't hunt. soibangla ( talk) 18:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
He is right@ Soibangla: is abusing his power as admin to make his own opinons as fact. Agreed with the above user. 2600:8805:c980:9400:a936:e491:2f23:3272 ( talk) 00:25, October 13, 2021â (UTC)
go ahead and WP:BEBOLDanyway. I also promise I won't revert it, though I admit I broke a promise once. OK, twice maybe. soibangla ( talk) 00:55, 13 October 2021 (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.
soibangla, I understand you're trying to be magnanimous and gentle, but, in the future, please don't recommend being BOLD in such cases. When lack of consensus is known, and the proposed content change is known to be controversial, BOLD does not apply. We want to keep the controversy here among editors on the talk pages and not in the actual editing. That's all. Keep up the good work. -- Valjean ( talk) 18:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
@ SPECIFICO: Why did u close the debate? I don't know the endresult, please tell me. Can i put his opinion into the article? -- Ivan VA ( talk) 11:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Valjean - sorry I am late but I see some wild accusations against Greenwald. Working for Russia? Proof? Criticizing Biden/Democrats is a proof of working for Russia? Example of Fox News videos: "Glenn Greenwald: Neither political party is on your side" - "Glenn Greenwald warns 'democracy is in peril'" - "Glenn Greenwald: The Afghan war was a lie for years". It doesn't make him look like a Russian tool.
He was not allowed to publish his article about this very topic, of this Wikipedia article, and he left. He was not even allowed to exercise an option in his contract to publish the piece outside of The Intercept. [32]
He has forsaken good journalistic practices? Like what? Like not calling people who menstruate "women", calling riots "peaceful demonstrations", not publishing stories like the story this very article is about, not criticizing Biden, not allowing to call for National Guards to stop riots? Calling education or nuclear family evidence of white supremacy? Asking for segregation of children in schools and dividing them between "oppressors" and "oppressed"? Claiming that the way math taught in schools is rooted in white supremacy? Weaponizing offense taking? Becoming a professional outrage person? Playing identity politics? Playing political moral posturing? Calling whatever he doesn't like "white supremacist"? Claiming that "cars, guns, knifes and rocks" (as opposed to the people using those things) kill people? Labeling white supremacists the people who dare who defend themselves when they are assaulted? Suggegsting an act of terrorism was an accident? Are those really good journalistic practices? According to whom? To the woke media? He was not allowed to publish his article in which he criticized Biden, so he had to leave. What he was supposed to do? To write articles about fairies? What would you do if the Wikipedia admins would tell you that you are only allowed to edit 3 letter disambiguation pages like CCC because whatever else other edits you might make would be outside of good Wikipedia practices? Wouldn't you feel humiliated and forced to leave? How is CNN practicing good journalism when it publishes lies without any shame and how is that a reliable source? And why is Glenn Greenwald unreliable in the same time? Because you don't like him? Because the liberals are cancelling him? Glenn Greenwald sent a shockwave through the entire Western world with the revelations he made but now he is a bad guy for not becoming a soldier of the liberal media who is self-censoring to avoid being attacked by "woke" mobs? Is that what makes him bad? Barecode ( talk) 15:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Then Greenwald accused The Intercept of helping Antifa to target reporters. [33] I don't see any fact checker trying to prove it wrong. Barecode ( talk) 16:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
PaleoNeonate - Very loaded accusations without any support and originated from righteous statements? If you make loaded and inflammatory accusations without any support then it's probably reasonable to expect loaded questions? The main question is: Why is Glenn Greenwald an unreliable source? Proof?
And if I can ask: what exactly is loaded in my questions? Can you give any example? Comparing Greenwald with journalists who say lies is somewhat loaded? Stating the obvious (Valjean doesn't like Greenwald) is a loaded statement? Reference: Loaded question - Barecode ( talk) 10:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)