Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory

Deletion of this page

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

multiple reliable sources say false, not merely unproven[[1]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the biden family business?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I second this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Longer false claims

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On or around.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phone recording of which president of Ukraine? Poroshenko, who was corrupt too? “Neither Shokin nor Poroshenko wanted to investigate [Burisma owner Mykola​] Zlochevsky,” says Sakvarelidze. “They simply began a criminal case, arrested a few assets, and began negotiating with the corruptioneer for a bribe.”[2] Everything you say about that dinner is circumstantial. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Framing

This article is clearly not in line with NPOV and I think the main problem is how the issue is framing. You could say, for example, that because there is no evidence Joe Biden withheld the loan and pressured Ukraine into removing the prosecutor general for the explicit purpose of protecting his son from investigation, then any claims to the contrary are "conspiracy theories". Indeed, this is narrative that is peddled in the article. But you could also say that this is an egregious confict of interest on the part of Biden, if not legally, then ethically. And in fact, much of the media coverage about the affair focuses on exactly that. For example: [3]https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/us/politics/biden-son-ukraine.html

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

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

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

I'm not asking you for equal weight to be given to conspiracy theories. I'm asking for balance to be given to very real concerns about Biden's conflict of interest here. As I already stated, a significant amount of the media coverage surrounding the controversy has been to do with the conflict of interest issue. Here's another example of a reliable source covering the conflict of interest perspective that is almost entirely ignored in this article: [4]https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/joe-biden-ukraine-burisma-holdings/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Glenn Kessler's newsletter:

An FBI source, a Burisma deal and the Bidens

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

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

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

You can read our full report by clicking this link.

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

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

Clean Up Warning

Hey everyone,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you ignoring $5 million?

What about the $5 million transferred into foreign LLC bank accounts and then 25 hours later transferred to Biden Family members? They got paid because … let’s see maybe Joe fired the prosecutor? That’s evidence? Is it enough to convict? Maybe especially when to add the Form 1023, Joe Biden bragging about firing him, what Viktor Shokin said about the situation and what others have mentioned in the topics. You can’t say they are false claims. The facts don’t support that statement. False means it didn’t happen. Right now the weight of the evidence would point to more likely than not we took a bribe. 2600:4040:265E:E800:6C95:3CEF:59D0:70EC (talk) 00:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Please show us a source that says that and isn't WP:FOXNEWS or a worse conspiracy site. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Is CNN a better source than Fox News? I’m beginning to think any source that doesn’t support your believe is a bad source. 2600:4040:265E:E800:6C95:3CEF:59D0:70EC (talk) 02:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

See WP:RSP, a list of sources that have been routinely discussed and rated as reliable or unreliable. CNN is fine. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

"Is CNN a better source than Fox News?" Just about any source is better than the notoriously unreliable Fox News. Even the Daily Fail has has had less scandals. Dimadick (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Still waiting for a source on that alleged $5 million to the Bidens. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

It seems like someone is protecting Biden here

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

I don't know that there's anything you can do. Wikipedia is a democracy, majority rules. And the majority here are not neutral; they lean left. The editors who have responded to you are the same ones who pushed to deem "unreliable" any media organizations they perceive as right-leaning. They then post and allow left-leaning comments from "reliable" liberal sources while blocking any other comments based on the RS Policy - which they themselves effected. There used to be a Neutral Point of View Principle here, but with one side blocked that's impossible now. [5][6] Fx6893 (talk) 04:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Move to "Biden Family Corruption Accusations in Ukrainian Business Dealings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It doesn't matter what we editors personally call something. We rely on RS. Even USA Today, considered about as neutral as you can get, uses the term.[7] O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

1023

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

The first sentence of this article says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move 14 September 2023

Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory → Joe Biden–Viktor Shokin–Burisma conspiracy theory – "Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory" seems imprecise and unnatural at this point. It might be better to title this article to be about the single, discrete allegation that this is about. The title is easily confused with other allegations of conspiracy involving a Biden and (some entity in) Ukraine, and a name change is needed to attain a natural, disambiguating title. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• Weak support. I agree that it works better and minimizes confusion. However, I think the "Viktor Shokin" part is not really needed. (I changed to weak support, just because I do think it would confuse a lot of people). Professor Penguino (talk) 04:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• Please define "the single, discrete allegation that this is about" in your proposal. (For reference, the article originally clearly defined it as: "The conspiracy theory asserts that Hunter Biden was paid a large sum of money by a Ukrainian firm, Burisma Holdings, to take a job for which he was unqualified, as a means for Burisma to influence then-vice president Joe Biden, who then extorted Ukraine for $1 billion to fire a prosecutor so as to prevent Hunter Biden from being investigated for corruption."[8]) Fx6893 (talk) 05:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Stop harping about the original wording. We are discussing the current wording. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Additionally this would just encourage forking about what is essentially the same deranged conspiracy and further debates about how it's not a conspiracy but accusations allegations. Hard pass. TarnishedPath^talk 06:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Some things start as conspiracy theories, but then... Magnolia677 (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. "Biden–Ukraine corruption allegations" would be more accurate. As for "conspiracy theory", we're not talking about aliens at Area 51, or the earth being flat. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Furthermore efforts to define the false allegations as revolving around Shokin is the conspiracy. Jgmac1106 (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. If we wanted to make it more precise, we would name it: Goofy Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Few readers would recognize or search for that proposed article name. WP:COMMONNAME applies. And then we'd need the Biden-Giuliani-theory, the Biden-Taylor theory, the Biden-Jim Jordan theory, the Hunter-and-Joe-Biden-phonecall-Bill Barr theory pages, etc. SPECIFICO talk 14:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
• Weak Support. There are many, many, ahem 'theories' regarding Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Burisma, and Ukraine. This one specifically focuses on the pressuring of Ukraine to fire Viktor Shokin (did happen, for non corrupt reasons, both parties wanted him fired). So I think Shokins name needs to be in the title somewhere, although I'm not exactly sure where. MarkiPoli (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The newly suggested title may be a bit more precise, but it is impractical and not the COMMONNAME as others here have pointed out. Opinions by editors that fail to read past the title and get confused have only themselves to blame, IMO. Cheers. DN (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Clunky and unnecessary. Zaathras (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom, at least to another title, this isn't what I would call a conspiracy.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per others, COMMONNAME. Andre🚐 01:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too complicated. I do think the current title could do with some form of delimitation to define the scope better, but this suggestion goes too far. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  That's fair. In hindsight, it may have been better to have this structured as an open-ended discussion, rather than having a specific title. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  Something like Biden–Burisma conspiracy theory might have been what you're looking for? Who knows that probably fails WP:COMMONNAME. TarnishedPath^talk 00:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

WaPo fact-checker gets very specific

This is a great source we can use. From Kessler's newsletter:

In an exclusive report, The Fact Checker shows that Biden decided while flying to Kyiv in early December 2015 to use the loan guarantee as leverage to make sure Ukraine’s president at the time, Petro Poroshenko, followed through with the request of the United States that Shokin be fired.

You can read our full report by clicking this link:

• Inside VP Biden's linking of a loan to a Ukraine prosecutor's ouster

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

The reporter indirectly mentions the European Council's 2015 report, which examined the Prosecutor General's [Shokin] anti-corruption overhaul and determined that "the anti-corruption benchmark is deemed to have been achieved." Yet the reporter is determined to persuade his readers that the Europeans instead wanted Shokin fired for incompetence and/or corruption, because, if true, that would exonerate Biden from charges that he extorted Ukraine to fire Shokin to protect the Biden family's interests. So the reporter effortlessly dismisses the 2015 report by stating, "But those documents represent a minority view at the time on Shokin, officials said." It is an indicator of the reader's credulity whether they believe the actual contemporaneous reports by world bodies, or the recent revisionist statements of anonymous Biden officials as recalled by this reporter.

This is the same reporter who previously asserted there was no evidence supporting the Hunter Biden laptop emails leading up to the 2020 election, and who, during the 2016 campaign, promoted the Democrat-funded Trump-Russia narrative, accusing Trump of lying about his connections to Russia (four Pinocchios!). This reporter is a serial disseminator of election disinformation. And by putting it in the Wikipedia article, we perpetuate that. Fx6893 (talk) 06:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Kessler isn't a "reporter" in the normal sense, but WaPo's chief fact-checker, so a top RS here. The laptop's provenance has always been problematic and fact-checkers have revised their reporting as new information came to light. That's proper. Just to be clear here, the Trump-Russia narrative turned out to be true because Trump and his campaign did cooperate/collude with the Russian interference in myriad ways. They also knew about it before anyone else and lied about it. It was only "conspiracy" that remains unproven, although there is also evidence for that allegation. Trump did lie about his Russian connections, and denials of these facts are the false conspiracy theory being perpetuated by the GOP and Trump, so don't fall into their trap -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

In March 2016 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, former ambassador to Ukraine John E. Herbst stated, "By late fall of 2015, the EU and the United States joined the chorus of those seeking Mr. Shokin's removal" and that Joe Biden "spoke publicly about this before and during his December visit to Kyiv". During the same hearing, assistant secretary of state Victoria Nuland stated, "we have pegged our next $1 billion loan guarantee, first and foremost, to having a rebooting of the reform coalition so that we know who we are working with, but secondarily, to ensuring that the prosecutor general's office gets cleaned up."[9] Do you have Kessler's previous reporting cited in your second paragraph? soibangla (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Ping User:Soibangla and User:Darknipples. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Soibangla, don't forget this. It's a very valuable and informative source well-deserving of extensive coverage. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Does this contradict anything currently in the article that needs to be changed, or do you think it should be added or used to replace certain RS? Cheers. DN (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

It strengthens the evidence that Joe Biden didn't do anything wrong, and it does it with lots of new details we should include. It is thorough fact-checking research. We should create a whole section on the topic: "Firing of Viktor Shokin". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:27, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

References

$10 million bribe allegation

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

Scope

We need to shut down the constant attempts to change the scope of this article. There are other articles which cover other aspects related to the Biden family and allegations of corruption. I have accordingly tried to make this information prominent at the top. Some other format or template(s) might do it better, but I don't know how. Here is the current wording:

This article is only about the false allegation that the firing of Viktor Shokin was an attempt by Joe Biden to protect Hunter Biden.

For the controversy surrounding Hunter Biden's laptop, see Hunter Biden laptop controversy.

For allegations of corruption in the Biden family, see United States House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family.

Does anyone have any suggested improvements? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

>Does anyone have any suggested improvements?

Yes, the suggestion for improvement is literally two posts above this one. If you're worried about the scope of this article, then why would you oppose a name change that clearly defines the scope? It's almost like you want the best of both worlds.

It seems that you and others (soibonga, adnrevan) want this article to have a title that is broad in scope (to attract more readers) but to have content that is limited in scope so that it can be easily "debunked".

If the scope is so limited, why do we even need this article? Why not just include this information in the biography of Victor Shokin? And if the intent is for this article to be so laser-focused on Shokin, why is there no mention that Shokin himself stated in an interview that he believes he was fired due to corruption in the Biden family? Copied Ahead (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@Valjean:You write "This article is only about the false allegation..." Well, kinda. See the problem is, some very high level Republicans are challenging that narrative, and they seem to think Shokin's firing was the result of a bribe. And it's not just some alt-right whack job journalist making these allegations, it's members of the highest level of elected office in the United States. Moreover, two recent polls indicate a majority of Americans also believe there was monkey business. My point being, don't you agree that in light of the new allegations and supposed evidence, "unproven" allegations would be more encyclopedic than--as you wrote--"false" allegations"? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Magnolia677: Many reliable sources have found the allegations false since 2020. Many disreputable sources such as those you have promoted ("There has been excellent reporting of this in conservative media, such as The Federalist (website), FrontPage Magazine, The Washington Free Beacon, Townhall, The Washington Times, and the Washington Examiner. Miranda Devine has also done an exquisite job outlining the allegations of corruption in the New York Post.")[11] have been aggressive mouthpieces for Republican politicians advancing a political agenda. Comer alone has been all over conservative television making myriad baseless allegations, so it's no wonder all this media bombardment of deception has had an effect on public opinion. That's the whole point, after all: if they can't impeach Biden, they want to drive him down in the polls so he'll lose next year. Same as it ever was.[12]soibangla (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I have previously said I'd like a better title but I find the proposal above too awkward. We need this specific article because the allegation was thoroughly refuted three years ago but has recently been resurrected by Republicans with no new evidence to advance their determination to impeach, which has renewed interest in the article with people claiming "it's not a conspiracy theory anymore!" I suppose we could mention what Shokin said, but WP:MANDY[13] soibangla (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I think people have given clearly articulated reasons for opposing the name change. TarnishedPath^talk 23:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Help me understand your perspective. You already know that the article's original scope included payments to the Biden family as central to the conspiracy. Now, edits regarding the sworn testimony of IRS investigators identifying payments of $6.5 million from Burisma are deleted as "irrelevant", and questions referencing the original scope are scorned as "harping". You say you want to shut down the changes - when it is clear that it is you who want the scope changed from original intent. Why must we exclude the payments from the scope of the Biden-Ukraine conspiracy? Fx6893 (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit: You asked for suggested improvements to the current scope, which has been changed from the original. My suggestion is to NOT change the scope from the original. The change to exclude discussion of the payments, which are central to the conspiracy, has undermined the neutrality of the article. Let's take a step towards restoring neutrality by maintaining the original intent: "The conspiracy theory asserts that Hunter Biden was paid a large sum of money by a Ukrainian firm, Burisma Holdings, to take a job for which he was unqualified, as a means for Burisma to influence then-vice president Joe Biden, who then extorted Ukraine for $1 billion to fire a prosecutor so as to prevent Hunter Biden from being investigated for corruption.[14]" Fx6893 (talk) 06:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

"the Biden family?" soibangla (talk) 23:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

If This article is only about the false allegation that the firing of Viktor Shokin was an attempt by Joe Biden to protect Hunter Biden, might it be better to have an article on that firing, and describe the actual (and merely alleged) causes in there? Might it be better to focus on the thing than one particular alleged cause for the thing? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

That's what this article does? TarnishedPath^talk 00:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

This is an article focused on the allegations, who was involved, and through what means they spread. It's not something that we'd write if this were titled, for example, "Firing of Victor Shokin". — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's not merely on the firing of Shokin. It's on the conspiracy that Joe withheld aid to Ukraine in order to bring about Shonkins firing in order to protect Burisma because Hunter was connected. TarnishedPath^talk 00:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I think we're talking past each other a bit here: I understand that this article is about that alleged conspiracy. My point is more about whether we ought choose to organize that info in this article or in a more broad one on Shokin's firing. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Biden “Family”

There are repeated posts here using the inclusive term “Biden Family”. I think 15 times. This is also the term used constantly by right-wing media and some extremist politicians. The use of the term by some sources is to suggest that anything related to Hunter Biden somehow involves and taints Joe Biden in criminal activity with no apparent need for evidence. It can also affect others collaterally. It also suggests comparison to Mafia families, and extremists have used the term “Biden crime family”. Hunter Biden is a flawed person in some ways, as he and his father admit. Drawing his family into this is…. Like the many attempts at starting articles about his four-year old daughter or including her name in other articles. All of this falls under W:BLP, one of the most important policies in Wikipedia. I think we need to be more careful with what can amount to defamatory language in a BLP -- or even subjecting them to physical harm. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I used the term "Biden family" above, and for me, it is simply a shorter version of "Joe Biden's family" or "members of the Biden family". As I understand your comment, you possibly infer right-wing, extremist, Mafia-related, defamatory, and/or harm-inducing purpose from it's use. For whatever it's worth, that is not my intent; I am here in good faith. Fx6893 (talk) 01:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

did payments of $6.5 million from Burisma go to anyone in the Biden family other than Hunter? there are some/many who slyly use "the Biden family" to suggest Joe was included when it's really just Hunter and his business associates soibangla (talk) 01:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no evidence that President Biden has done anything illegal or gained any money related to this article. If it was your intent to suggest this, it is a serious BLP violation. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of your intent, Fx6893, everything in O3000's post disqualifies the language you used to frame your concern. Among other things, your reference to payments to the Biden family validates the conspiracy theories and false claims that there is evidence of such payments to Joe Biden, whereas what's documented is that Burisma compensated Hunter. This all should be clear to editors who volunteer to work on this page. SPECIFICO talk 14:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

"Hunter Biden is a flawed person in some ways" Him and every other example of Homo sapiens on record. So what? Perfection is both unattainable, and based on subjective standards. Wikipedia is not supposed to write hagiographies, or libels and polemics. Dimadick (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The term is used by The Atlantic, ABC News, Associated Press, etc. as a shorter way to say "Joe Biden's family". It's used in this context because the allegation in this context is straightforwardly about the relationship between Joe Biden's actions in Ukraine and Hunter Biden himself. The use of "X family" is an extremely common way to refer to families; think of the Jackson family, the Rockefeller family, the Beecher family, Musk family, etc.. I think that things like "Biden crime family" would be extremely prejudicial and inappropriate, but merely using a common English term (i.e. "Biden Family") to refer to the thing that the common English term means (i.e. "The family of Joe Biden") doesn't seem to be an inherently mafia-allusion thingy. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

RS do not use the term the same way Comer et al. do to suggest anything Hunter did also involved Joe. soibangla (talk) 01:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Correct, because they aren't saying that the allegations are substantiated. They are, however, using "Biden family" as a shorthand for the family of Joe Biden. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the Family of Donald Trump is the closest proximal comparison, IMO. DN (talk) 01:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Hawk, except on this talk page and on non-RS websites, I have never seen Hunter's income described as "payments to the Biden family". SPECIFICO talk 02:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

In their own voice, sure, because they aren't saying that this was corrupt. I would likewise not describe Hunter's earned income as payments to the Biden family. It's used, however, when referring to whom the GOP are directing specific allegations at (NPR, BBC, The Hill). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

John Solomon inadvertently detonated the House impeachment case

A RS with good stuff:

"There is wide agreement that anti-corruption must be at the top of this list, and that reforms must include an overhaul of the Prosecutor General's Office including removal of Prosecutor General Shokin, who is widely regarded as an obstacle to fighting corruption, if not a source of the problem."

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

It's in the article, under John Solomon soibangla (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Good. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Title now needs to be changed to the Biden–Ukraine allegations

Impeachment Enquiry has begun. Reaper7 (talk) 09:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Unlike an impeachment where specific charges are made, the impeachment inquiry is a very broad attempt to find something with which to impeach Joe Biden. This article is about a specific conspiracy theory based on a false allegation. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, is this considered a reliable source? Seems so to me. https://oversight.house.gov/blog/evidence-of-joe-bidens-involvement-in-his-familys-influence-peddling-schemes/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.201.113.122 (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

no it most certainly is not soibangla (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

It's just politicians on both sides giving speeches. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Looks to me like a one-sided, partisan report with no effort made to reduce bias. Specific, documented quotes from subjects involved could be used with attribution, but any analysis or conclusions would appear to be politically motivated. Fx6893 (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Republicans control the committee, the document is 100% theirs. soibangla (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

To establish due weight to justify usage here (otherwise it's OR), we need secondary sources that quote from it and provide their framing and commentary. We would use them as the sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

So? That's absolutely no reason to change the title. TarnishedPath^talk 01:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

You mean "inquiry"...Cheers. DN (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)