Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory

Learn more about this page

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10: 30 days

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

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

Q: But wasn't Shokin investigating Burisma?

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

Q: What about Hunter Biden's laptop?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

Ukraine Low‑importance

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

Politics: American Low‑importance

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

Skepticism Low‑importance

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

Alternative Views Low‑importance

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

United States: Presidents / Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

International relations Low‑importance

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

Before requesting any edits to this protected article, please familiarise yourself with reliable sourcing requirements.

Before posting an edit request on this talk page, please read the reliable sourcing and original research policies. These policies require that information in Wikipedia articles be supported by citations from reliable independent sources, and disallow your personal views, observations, interpretations, analyses, or anecdotes from being used.

Only content verified by subject experts and other reliable sources may be included, and uncited material may be removed without notice. If your complaint is about an assertion made in the article, check first to see if your proposed change is supported by reliable sources. If it is not, it is highly unlikely that your request will be granted. Checking the archives for previous discussions may provide more information. Requests which do not provide citations from reliable sources, or rely on unreliable sources, may be subject to closure without any other response.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

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

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

Enforcement procedures:

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

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

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

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

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

On 14 September 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Joe Biden–Viktor Shokin–Burisma conspiracy theory. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Suggest removing “false” from opening sentence

Latest comment: 3 days ago11 comments9 people in discussion

I referred a friend of mine who supports Trump to this article. He noted that the first sentence says “false accusations”. He sees this as revealing bias in the article. I think removing the word “false” from the first sentence would reduce any resistance to accepting the rest of the article (which clearly documents that the allegations are false). 98.97.92.82 (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

The first paragraph of any article on Wikipedia is a summary of the sourced content of the remainder of the article. So if the body of the sourced content emphatically says something is false, as supported in reliable sources, then the lead should reflect that. Whether somebody wishes to disbelieve the article isn't Wikipedia's problem. Acroterion (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Support. The problem is the political bias. The words "false" and "conspiracy theory", both in the lead, show such bias and should be removed. Fx6893 (talk) 01:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
No we will not be making changes, as the Wikipedia follows reliable sources. Also, consider widening your friend circle. Zaathras (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

The term "conspiracy theory" is defined as having a derogatory connotation (see Wiktionary, for example). Employing derogatory terms in the lead reveals the bias of the editors and their attempts to disparage those with differing views, similar to your personal remarks about the commenter's friends. It's politically motivated bullying, and erodes the credibility of the encyclopedia. Fx6893 (talk) 00:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

WP:AGF WP:CIV You need to stop personal attacks against editors with whom you disagree. Comment on content -- not on editors. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Those words are accurate descriptions from RS. We do not censor RS or whitewash content. Your gripe is with reliable sources, not with the myriad editors of all political persuasions who worked together, and discussed those words, to create this article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oppose. Not when RS say it. We document the facts. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oppose, we follow what the reliable sources have to say. What your mate feels about having reality shown to them is highly irrelevant. TarnishedPath^talk 07:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

What's the point of having a false article on Wikipedia? Someone should make up their mind.Maybe call it "The Biden-Burisma accusations" 2001:2020:4321:F453:7934:8176:A824:EA03 (talk) 07:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Support Agree, the article says it is false but then goes on to confirm that the pressure from the Biden administration to dismiss the prosecutor using economic extortion was true. This is extremely biased but what should we expect from Wikipedia? 2001:638:508:F003:D7AA:DA60:16DA:2D64 (talk) 12:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 July 2024

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Joe Biden himself is the most reliable source we shall take into consideration when committing this text. He did insist on firing Sorkin which he himself bragged about on the record. It is a serious allegation that this article must reflect and explain. 98.211.197.119 (talk) 23:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not done: Read the FAQ. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

New revelations in the Burisma case

Latest comment: 3 days ago8 comments5 people in discussion

New York Post: "Zuckerberg separately added that suppressing The Post’s exclusive report on Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop ahead of the 2020 election was a mistake. He explained to the House Judiciary Committee, which has been probing Facebook’s content moderation standards, that prior to the decision to limit sharing of the bombshell October 2020 story, the FBI had “warned” Meta about “a potential Russian disinformation operation” related to the Biden family and Ukrainian energy giant Burisma, where Hunter sat on the board of directors... “It’s since been made clear that the reporting was not Russian disinformation, and in retrospect, we shouldn’t have demoted the story,” he acknowledged."[1]

I think in the meantime, "conspiracy theory" should be removed from the name of the article. Mhorg (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

See WP:NYPOST. They are a terrible source.

Meanwhile, the conspiracy theory isn't about the laptop or what social media did or didn't do with it. The conspiracy theory is the false idea that Joe Biden committed crimes involving Burisma when he was vice president. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

"WP:NYPOST. They are a terrible source." Yes, but they are a great resource for comedy. They publish so many lies and exaggerations, and they pretend that they are not a propaganda resource. Dimadick (talk) 12:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is not only reported by NYP, but by many others.

CNN:[2] Zuckerberg in the letter also said the FBI warned his company about potential Russian disinformation around Hunter Biden and the Ukrainian firm Burisma affecting the 2020 election. That fall, Zuckerberg said, his team temporarily demoted reporting from the New York Post alleging Biden family corruption while their fact-checkers could review the story. Zuckerberg said that since then, it has “been made clear that the reporting was not Russian disinformation, and in retrospect, we shouldn’t have demoted the story.” Mhorg (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

What's your point? O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

CNN is a fine source, but Zuck's comment doesn't change anything. The laptop doesn't have anything to do with Burisma. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Agree, this has enough truth to it to not be a conspiracy theory 2001:638:508:F003:D7AA:DA60:16DA:2D64 (talk) 12:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is not an acceptable source and the laptop has nothing to do with Burisma anyway. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic