Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory/Archive 5

Better title?
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)
 * It's less WP:concise. There's only one Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * OK Trump-Ukraine conspiracy theory? Matching Trump-Ukraine scandal. SPECIFICO talk 20:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no need to match. In the case of Trump-Ukraine scandal, Trump was an active participant. In this case, he wasn't, though he did make sure it was well known. Well, I suppose we don't know that he wasn't active, but not in the same way. Gah4 (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Trump-Ukraine conspiracy theory is concise and more clearly reflects the topic of the article. Matching has nothing to do with it - just proof of concept. Yes we do know that Trump was involved in promulgating this narrative, as were his agents. SPECIFICO talk 17:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no need to match. In the case of Trump-Ukraine scandal, Trump was an active participant. In this case, he wasn't, though he did make sure it was well known. Well, I suppose we don't know that he wasn't active, but not in the same way. Gah4 (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Trump-Ukraine conspiracy theory is concise and more clearly reflects the topic of the article. Matching has nothing to do with it - just proof of concept. Yes we do know that Trump was involved in promulgating this narrative, as were his agents. SPECIFICO talk 17:59, 19 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)

Deletion of laptop-related paragraph
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&#39;Near (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's explained above. It places undue weight on the argument over whether the laptop physically belonged to Biden, which was never the main focus of dispute, and far far too much weight on a single opinion piece.  Obviously the same issue applies to the amount of focus you're trying to put on that opinion piece's position in the lead (I'm concerned that it's such a recent piece, since it gives the impression that you read it and immediately came here to rewrite the article in line with the author's opinions - not really how we should write an article, especially given that the author has no relevant expertise and is essentially just a political commentator arguing a position.)  Additionally, I'll point out that the edit summary here is wrong in that Biden was unsure if the laptop belong to him, not if the emails were his, ie. the point of contention, and this edit downplayed the core takeaway from Politifact's coverage, which is misusing it as a source. --Aquillion (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I fully concur. soibangla (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There are two "core takeaways" from the PolitiFact piece: that the laptop was Hunter's, and that the laptop doesn't reveal wrongdoing. To point one out is not to downplay the other - especially because so much of the article currently is meant to cast doubt on whether the laptop is legitimate. Now, you could argue that the PolitiFact people don't actually say whether the emails were Hunter's, but it's pretty much implied there that they think the emails were Hunter's too. Certainly they don't bring up the "Hunter's laptop was stolen, then bad emails were added to it" theory - and neither does Glenn Kessler.
 * By the way, if we're talking about "undue weight", this article currently has a massive undue weight problem, with all kinds of irrelevant circumstantial evidence thrown in, like the fact that the computer repair shop owner hates Hillary Clinton. Another symptom of overusing sources from October 2020, not to mention biased editing. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There are two "core takeaways" from the PolitiFact piece: that the laptop was Hunter's is 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's LOL! soibangla (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have said "probably Hunter's". You can laugh all you want, but if PolitiFact thought there was a real chance that Russians planted his laptop with bad data, surely they would have said it? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * They didn't even say "probably" and the article encompasses a variety of Trump statements, not intended as a comprehensive review of the laptop issue, so that's why they didn't touch on a real chance that Russians planted his laptop with bad data. soibangla (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The point about Russian disinformation is made by intelligence experts in other sources cited on the page, not PolitiFact. PolitiFact does however say "we are not able to verify [the emails]" and explicitly casts doubt on them: "an image in the article of the email that the Post calls "blockbuster correspondence" does not contain any of the metadata — such as a message ID number, and the time and date the email was created — that would help establish the authenticity of an email." This is consistent with how the majority of sources treated the emails last October (highly suspicious origin, no indication they haven't been falsified/tampered with, presented in a manner consistent with a broader pattern of misinformation designed to encourage readers to draw false conclusions, and containing very little of actual substance even if they were 100% accurate). As I commented above, please do point to the sources you say show things have changed, because I haven't seem them myself.  Jr8825  •  Talk  18:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You're quoting them from October 2020. In June 2021, they said, "Over time, there has been less doubt that the laptop did in fact belong to Hunter Biden" - quite a significant change in tone, and one that this article should note. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for sharing that. So it's now considered reasonably likely the laptop belonged to Hunter and at least some information has been leaked that strongly appears to have come from a breach of his personal data (nudes, debt, money spent on addictions etc. because we're talking about a despicable publication like DM). I don't see how that justifies the removal of the sourced statement that "no evidence validating the email has emerged", though, which seems to be be just as accurate now as it was then. Jr8825  •  Talk  18:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Jr8825 - the sources cited for "no evidence validating the email has emerged" are all from October 2020 (not surprisingly, I would say). So at best, the sentence should read, "As of October 2020, no evidence validating the email had emerged." Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 19:21, 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)

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. 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&#39;Near's addition.  starship .paint  (exalt) 09:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The first part is a fair criticism - 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. 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". That said, you should feel free to include whatever else you want from the Kessler piece. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You just added "and in the week following its publication, no evidence validating the email had emerged" which directly contradicts "authenticity has never been verified" just above, which remains true. Please self-revert. soibangla (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Authenticity has not been verified" does not imply "no evidence has emerged" - you can have evidence that doesn't fully verify something, and that's the case here. (As an aside - you've already said "I'm done here" twice on this talk page, and yet here you are again. What did you mean by that?) Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that when he said that, it was based on the reasonable expectation that you'd drop the stick and stop filibustering when nobody else agrees with your POV.  SPECIFICO talk 14:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's quite rude of you. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There remains no evidence, which means it remains unauthenticated. As another editor told you hours ago: "you should be more careful when editing in this area." Either open an RfC or stop, as it is evident you are garnering little if any support after going on about this at length. I'm done here means here and now. Stop playing silly word games. soibangla (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There's actually quite a bit of evidence, as I've noted already, and as has been described in various reliable sources - though none of it is conclusive, of course. (And good to know that "I'm done here" just means "I'm done for now". I suppose you could say that at the end of every talk page statement.) Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * none of it is conclusive, of course...but it's pretty much implied there soibangla (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to catch me in a contradiction? I did say both of those phrases, but in different contexts. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

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)
 * Yes, I'm aware that opinion is different from news. But 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" - which is more or less the wording under debate.
 * As for the other part, there are I suppose three issues related to the laptop: whether it's really Hunter's, whether its contents (especially the emails) are authentic, and whether they point to any sort of wrongdoing by Joe Biden. (And within the third issue are a number of sub-topics, like whether Biden met with Pozharskyi and what, if anything, this means.) The Joe Biden meeting stuff is important, but so are the first two issues - as evidenced by the fact that this article currently spends long paragraphs trying to cast doubt on the validity of the laptop (like offering us the juicy tidbit that the repair shop owner has "offered contradictory statements about his motivations"). And whether Biden met with Pozharskyi, regardless of how innocent the meeting was, is also important, because the article explicitly quotes Biden advisor Michael Carpenter as saying that the two never met. Just because Kessler spends a lot more time on Karloutsos than anything doesn't mean we need to quote him on that specifically. That said, if you or anyone else want to add Kessler's statements on Karloutsos, feel free - it would probably improve the article. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 13:16, 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: or   starship  .paint  (exalt) 14:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree - the editorial board speaks for the newspaper. See, for example, the Wikipedia article List of United States presidential election endorsements made by The New York Times, which is not called "List of United States presidential election endorsements made by The New York Times editorial board". This is a fairly theoretical discussion, though. What about the other issue? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The WSJ likely has the most staunchly conservative editorial board of any major broadsheet in America. When 280 journalists and staff of the news division implored them last year to factcheck their editorial pages, saying "Opinion’s lack of fact-checking and transparency, and its apparent disregard for evidence, undermine our readers’ trust and our ability to gain credibility with sources," the board responded that they would not wilt under cancel culture pressure, as if facts are just for liberals. Basically, one of the most prominent conservative voices in America overtly acknowledged that it has no fidelity to truth. Absolutely astonishing. The board has the view that lies are protected speech, they're just opinions, and they have routinely demonstrated that on their opinion pages for decades. Sure, people are free to lie, but it's a peculiar position for a national broadsheet with the largest paid circulation in the country, and I'm not aware of any of its peers that hold a similar position. Any knowledgeable person who reads their opinion pages on a regular basis knows they play fast and loose with the truth in a quite brazen way, but hey, they're just opinions. By contrast, the paper's news division is excellent and I commonly cite it in my edits. But to write, as you suggest, The Wall Street Journal had come to the view would 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. Did you google that, find the Jenkins piece and leap to use it as the centerpiece of an edit that is very weakly supported, if at all, by two others sources? Just wonderin'. soibangla (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Endorsing a candidate has nothing to do with reporting facts. It has nothing to do with reporting news. What you attempted to insert was facts and news, not some endorsement. Please, please, please learn to distinguish fact (laptop is real!) from opinion (we feel that ____ is the best candidate!). As for the other issue I am working on it.  starship .paint  (exalt) 14:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Starship.paint - that's true... and that's why I phrased it as "The Wall Street Journal had come to the view...", as opposed to writing "the laptop is real". "View" is a synonym for "opinion", no?
 * Soibangla - everything you wrote is irrelevant, I think. If you feel that the opinion section of the WSJ is basically worthless, take it up with WP:RSP, which currently says that their opinion content should be treated the same as any other reliable source's. As for my motivations, they're also irrelevant, of course. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Stay on the safe side, use "opinion" or "opinion article", and really, don't leave out editorial board. Now, I've added the April '16 dinner.  starship .paint  (exalt) 14:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * RSP says "Most editors consider The Wall Street Journal generally reliable for news." NEWS. It does not at all suggest "their opinion content should be treated the same as any other reliable source's." soibangla (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Starship.paint - great, the paragraph you added is a good addition. Now what's needed is changes to the article to reflect the shift in media views about the validity of the laptop. Right now the article has a bit of a split personality, with a paragraph about a now-corroborated 2015 meeting - which we know about only because of the laptop - in the middle of an article that does its best to make it seem that the laptop and/or its contents are fake.
 * Soibangla - WP:RSP says,v of the Wall Street Journal, to "use WP:RSOPINION for opinion pieces" - which is the same thing it says for many other sources considered reliable. Nothing in there about special handling due to the 280 journalists, etc. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The edit has not demonstrated there is any preponderance of media views of that, but it insinuates there is with an opinion article from a notably conservative source as its centerpiece, accompanied by two other sources that only tangentially address it. The edit is perhaps the weakest of significant edits I have seen on WP in quite some time. soibangla (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * While I think we should be cautious about treating WSJ editorials differently from other broadsheet editorials if a consensus hasn't been established at the RS noticeboard that its opinion pieces should be regarded as lower in standard, I don't think Korny's wording "The Wall Street Journal had come to the view" is ideal. Although "view" shows that it's the opinion of the newspaper's editors – and in normal circumstances I wouldn't initially be concerned by an identical statement about a very highly regarded outlet, for example The Guardian – I agree with about the need to make it explicit it's an opinion piece here. I think it's easy for readers to presume an editorial is being said on the authority of the paper, whereas quality papers clearly mark editorials out as opinion pieces (including both The Guardian and the WSJ). If someone insisted on changing "The Guardian had come to the view" to something like "In an opinion piece, The Guardian editorial [board] argued...", I think it'd be a positive change. Add into the equation that there's documented criticism of/argument over the accuracy of the WSJ's opinion sections from within the WSJ itself, including over its coverage of events related to this article, and I think it's particularly important we spell out that it's an opinion piece, not factual reporting.  Jr8825  •  Talk  16:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Soibangla - the fact that the other sources addressed the laptop only tangentially hardly matters. We don't need PolitiFact to write a whole essay about how the media now generally believes that the laptop was Hunter Biden's; (though that would have been nice); but a single sentence is enough to prove that this is PolitFact's view.
 * Jr8825 - let me note again that this is a mostly theoretical discussion, since the WSJ editorial board has not actually weighed in on this topic. We've probably discussed the mechanics of editorial boards too long already. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You're correct, and sorry for straying a bit off-topic there. To clarify, my point is that if we would treat an editorial in that manner, we should be doubly cautious about giving undue weight to an opinion piece by a single member of the editorial board; we should probably not be mentioning it at all (if we decide it really does warrant a mention, we should clearly spell out it's only opinion). Also, the writer's position on the board shouldn't be a factor in our treatment of the piece. Jr8825  •  Talk  17:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Lead sentence POV should be fixed
"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 support both this proposal and the old version over the status quo. The current version was implemented to avoid implying something that is likely to be true and we are now instead implying something that is likely to be false. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph references May 2021. That is in the past, but not far in the past. So, more specifically, what is wrong with it? Gah4 (talk) 07:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, perhaps the title of the section should be a bit more clear. The sentence that is quoted is presently contained in the last paragraph of the lead. It is about an article published on October 15, 2020 concerning the laptop and e-mails alleged to be Hunter Biden's. The current wording leaves the impression that the article's allegations could be more viable than initally thought. There does not appear to be any reliable sources that corroborate this. Consequently it is not stated in the body, so the lead should not be worded to suggest that POV. The proposed wording simply states why the article was questioned. Ward20 (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree. While I think 's point about the previous version (making a timeless statement based on a source published last year) was a valid concern, I think Korny's solution was deeply inadequate for the reason points out (implying a change in consensus among RS, when, as Korny acknowledges in the above discussion, only two unreliable sources (Daily Mail and the New York Post) have treated it seriously). The very fact that more reputable sources have refused to touch the emails or take them seriously (presumably because they consider it pointless to undertake analysis of material that passed through multiple impossible-to-trace hands before arriving at the NYP/DM), combined with the fact that that the two sources still treating the emails as important are particularly low-quality outlets with political leanings that give them obvious motives for wanting to smear the Bidens, is adequate evidence that the RS consensus has not changed. I think Ward's proposed wording is the best solution.  Jr8825  •  Talk  16:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree. While I think 's point about the previous version (making a timeless statement based on a source published last year) was a valid concern, I think Korny's solution was deeply inadequate for the reason points out (implying a change in consensus among RS, when, as Korny acknowledges in the above discussion, only two unreliable sources (Daily Mail and the New York Post) have treated it seriously). The very fact that more reputable sources have refused to touch the emails or take them seriously (presumably because they consider it pointless to undertake analysis of material that passed through multiple impossible-to-trace hands before arriving at the NYP/DM), combined with the fact that that the two sources still treating the emails as important are particularly low-quality outlets with political leanings that give them obvious motives for wanting to smear the Bidens, is adequate evidence that the RS consensus has not changed. I think Ward's proposed wording is the best solution.  Jr8825  •  Talk  16:55, 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)
 * Sounds fine to me, too. I'm not sure if "and its contents" is necessary, but I doubt it would hurt, either. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The concern I have is that even if it was Hunter's laptop, the chain of custody is unknown and hence the veracity of its contents is unknown. It's less a matter if he once owned it than what's on it. soibangla (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. It seems to me that it would already be implicit in "the questionable provenance of the laptop" (if you don't know where it's been, you don't know who's been mucking with it). But I have no objection to three extra words if they make the point more clear. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Ward20 (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If something is not news anymore, the mainstream media stops writing about it. They don't write articles saying that it isn't news anymore. No news does not mean that the information may no longer be agreed upon in the mainstream, but just that there is no interest in it.  The fact that n people are involved in conspiracies, does not mean that they are all conspiring together. There might be (n-1) conspiracies all involving one person, or any other combination of the n people. Gah4 (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Find a quotable source that says so and it might be a valid addition, though I don't quite see the purpose of the addition. 00prometheus (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Find a quotable source that says so and it might be a valid addition, though I don't quite see the purpose of the addition. 00prometheus (talk) 15:15, 3 August 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)
 * When you get around to reading the body of the article, the sources are there. A cite in the lead is unnecessary. ValarianB (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The claim stands out as surprising, causing a controversial tone to the article. If there is actual proof that the accusation is false (not just unsubstantiated allegations), it really needs a reference where it is first stated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 00prometheus (talk • contribs)
 * It is only "surprising" to those of an extremist, conspiracy-minded point-of-view. The Wikipedia does not give equal weight to fringe beliefs. ValarianB (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There is nothing fringe about doubting the proof of a negative. Proving a negative is generally very hard to do. Remember, we are not merely claiming that there is an unsubstantiated claim, we are claiming that the allegation is straight off false. That requires proof, not just the absence of proof.

Significant change
, 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 . 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 email seems 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)


 * We could argue about specific wording for hours (and perhaps we will), but let's get back to basics. Speaking of that April 2015 dinner, attended by Hunter Biden, briefly by Joe, and by various others: regardless of whether "Vadym" was there, it definitely happened, and the only reason we know about it because of an email found in the laptop. Does anyone disagree with that? And if so, 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? Yes, we have to go with what reliable sources are saying. But the reliable sources since April 2021 are quite a bit more trusting of the laptop and its contents than this article is. The issue is not the sources; the issue seems to be the editors. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * it definitely happened but it doesn't mean Joe "met" with Pozharskyi and the only reason we know about it because of an email the authenticity of which was not verified. isn't that fairly substantive proof that the laptop really belonged to Hunter no, actually soibangla (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * So how did the Russian hackers know that Hunter and Joe attended a dinner at Cafe Milano on April 16, 2015, and that they should fabricate an email reflecting that? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There's any number of ways they could have known. Numerous people attended the conference and dinner. People talk. soibangla (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, so the Russians engaged in some sort of spycraft to find out Hunter and Joe's whereabouts at various times, then fabricated a bunch of emails to go with it, and planted them on all on a fraudulent laptop. Why go to all that trouble - and the obvious, massive risks of getting caught - when the evidence they ultimately constructed was so flimsy? As you note, the emails don't even say that Joe and Vadym met. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And round and round we go. Biden had urged Ukraine to kick Russia out of the lucrative and influential Ukrainian gas business, and the USIC said in March that Russian proxies had since at least 2014 been digging dirt on Biden. Why? Because he was VP and they feared he'd run for POTUS in 2016 and they wanted to stop him because he'd demonstrated he'd mess with their program. Russia really didn't want him to become POTUS. So they closely monitored him for every tidbit they could get to fabricate an elaborate false narrative, which included, according to Russian operative Derkach, multiple Hunter laptops. As you note, the emails don't even say that Joe and Vadym met but 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)
 * I'm curious to hear what other people think. So far, you may be the only editor willing to conclusively state that you still think the laptop is fake. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You have repeatedly heard what others think but you just don't like it and continue to recycle the same things over and over. conclusively state that you still think the laptop is fake is 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)
 * My thoughts: Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:00, 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&#39;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, . 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 2021 state that the laptop was real? News articles, not opinion articles.  starship .paint  (exalt) 02:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * To be frank, I think a major difficulty in this conversation is that you're pushing further than your sources allow. Among other issues, you're comparing your from opinion pieces to evidence presented as fact by reliable sources. Regarding : I disagree. I can't defend every tidbit that casts doubt on the laptop content's authenticity, not having checked every statement and source, but I know there's been abundant RS coverage of major issues with the "it's real" story we've been told. The Zlochevsky quote you're objecting to is a Politico story that clearly ties the laptop story and the Giuliani details to overall attempts to discredit Bideninclusion here seems like good editorial judgment. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur that we should not push any further than what the reliable sources say.  starship .paint  (exalt) 03:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Let me first note, again, the irony that in an article titled "Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory" - which is about a theory where the main allegation is that two people (Joe and Hunter Biden) are corrupt, fully half or more of the article is actually about the insinuation of a secret plot involving Vladimir Putin, corrupt oligarchs, a team of unknown Russian cyberhackers (linked to both "Russian intelligence and organized crime"), Rudy Giuliani, Steve Bannon, and a computer repair shop owner - who all conspired to produce and publicize a laptop with fake emails on it (and maybe fake photos too?), and did such a good job of it that not a single person who allegedly sent or received any of those emails (or was in any photos) has come forward to state that any of it was fake. (And, of course, none of the dozens or so of people who are in on the secret plan has admitted their guilt either.) So, a conspiracy of two is an official "conspiracy theory", but a conspiracy of dozens - involving technothriller elements like flawless forgeries and stolen laptops - well, that's just what reliable sources are telling us.
 * Now, to some extent we are simply bound to restate what reliable sources say. And there's no question (in my mind, at least), that, from 2015 to 2020 or so, much of the mainstream media in the U.S. was prone to unquestioningly reporting every bit of evidence they could find that Trump and his associates were secretly working for/with the Russians. (The fact that no proof of any of it has come out has gone generally unremarked.) That includes everything relating to both the laptop and the overall Ukraine story. Whether or not that's a failing of the media, we have to work with what we have. What can be noted, though, is that a massive number of the sources being used here are from October 2020, and mostly from a single week: October 14-21, 2020.
 * For that reason, right now this article has a split personality: everything from that week in October is massively skeptical of the laptop, its contents, and everyone related to it; and just about everything from later on is quite a bit more moderate, in some cases (like the 2nd Kessler piece) actually using the laptop as an initial source of information. So yes, it's an issue of editorial judgment - and perhaps guidelines like WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS apply here.
 * Finally, the statement Before tackling the lead, we tackle the body reminds 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&#39;Near (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * your points about recentism and notnews are relevant. However, while I don't doubt you're coming at this with a constructive mindset, to be frank with you, the problem looks to me like this article is about a fringe theory and you largely believe said fringe theory, which consequently makes it very difficult for you to contribute in a neutral way per the requirements of NPOV. This is exemplified by the first para of your comment (which is your original thought about the infeasibility of the conspiracy theory as it's reported by the overwhelming majority of RS, and your view that the majority of RS are not reliable here because they were making efforts to treat Trump unfairly). The only option you have is to start a conversation at the RS noticeboard, because at the end of the day we are "simply bound to restate what reliable sources say". Only deprecated or unreliable sources report this as anything other than a political smear. I realise this sounds condescending, but it's my honest opinion about the value of continuing this conversation. Jr8825  •  Talk  19:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for trying to be constructive as well. To be clear, what exactly is the fringe theory you think I believe? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't want to go down the road of speculating about what other editors think, as I'm aware we should be commenting on the article content. It was a general impression I had gained from discussion on this page, and it may well be wrong. I just wanted to express my concerns as I didn't think this conversation is moving in a productive direction, and I've said as much as I think was necessary to convey this. I'll leave it to other editors to continue this thread. You're welcome to disregard my advice. Jr8825  •  Talk  19:59, 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)
 * Alright, I guess I'll stop "kinda" promoting a conspiracy theory, whatever that means. So, does anyone disagree that the current "Hunter Biden's laptop" FAQ entry needs some rewriting? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * I don't see anything that needs to be changed in the one FAQ item about the laptop. What do you think is wrong with it? Specifically what needs to be changed?


 * I found three recent reliable sources that dispute The Washington Post, CNN and Time articles agree that Russia was spreading disinformation about the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory in regards to the 2020 presidential campaign, and using associates close to Trump to help. Many of this article's sources are from just before the election because that was when the theories were being pushed by NOT reliable sources for obvious reasons. Ward20 (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't want to make it seem like I'm "moving the goalposts", or dismissing the research work you did, but when I wrote about the allegations that "Trump and his associates were secretly working for/with the Russians" I meant on actual matters of policy, not on digging up dirt on a political opponent. Getting information from Russian agents may be unsavory, but by itself it's not the kind of thing that would get one labelled a Putin stooge, which is exactly the thing many in the U.S. media wanted to label Trump.
 * As for the FAQ answer: as long as it is (and it is quite long), it doesn't reflect PolitiFact's recent assessment that "Over time, there has been less doubt that the laptop did in fact belong to Hunter Biden". Or fact checker Glenn Kessler, without actually bringing himself to say the laptop's contents are valid, nonetheless straightforwardly quoting from an email found on the laptop as a source. Now, neither of these is quite airtight evidence of anything, but they both seem to directly contradict the FAQ item's assertion that "serious sources do not take the laptop story at face value". Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 00:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I will mull over some of the points, but I have much to do IRL over the next few days so I will have to get back later. Ward20 (talk) 02:17, 27 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)
 * Rudy has been the central figure in this matter, at least since it was reported in May 2019 "Rudy Giuliani Plans Ukraine Trip to Push for Inquiries That Could Help Trump", including meeting with Derkach who is a longtime Russian agent, and by no later than November 2019 he and his associates were being investigated by SDNY] and they tapped his iCloud and raided his home/office. Some editors may not have followed this complicated story very closely and don't have a full appreciation of why some things are included in this article. soibangla (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Giuliani was on right-wing media and in court and at rallies every day promoting this and other false narratives. Please famiiarize yourself with the RS accounts relating to the topic. SPECIFICO talk 15:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * First of all, I don't appreciate the accusation that I haven't read the sources. Second, let me give an example of what I'm talking about. Read the following four sentences:
 * 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.
 * All four sentences are basically saying the same thing, that Giuliani was the target of a Russian disinfo operation. Particularly the sentences about Bolton don't add anything that the first two sentences don't already make clear. The article does not need all four of these sentences, it's redundant. Mlb96 (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You are aware that others disagree. You'll need an evidence-based argument. Editors who are familiar with the broad consensus of RS reporting do not appear to have presented convincing arguments against this. Maybe you can be the first, if you care to try.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure what "evidence" you would like me to present. Read the sentences and decide for yourself: are they redundant or not? I can't exactly "prove" redundancy. Mlb96 (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Mlb96 - thanks for putting those sentences all here in one place. I had sort of noticed that there was a plethora of people warning other people about Giuliani in this article, but couldn't quite put my finger on it before. Yes, this is unwarranted, and feels like what's known as argument from repetition - especially since nobody doing the warning is named. (Even John Bolton, we're told, was just relaying somebody else's warning, and O'Brien in turn found out from Bolton.) For all we know, the warnings could have all started out from one guy. Also there's no evidence presented, as far as I can tell, that any information delivered by Giuliani was false. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the first sentence relates to Rudy. The content flows from USIC warning the White House and why, then to efforts by NSAs to shut Rudy out, then to the specific warning about him actively spreading conspiracy theories, then to a specific example of what Rudy might be attempting to do: mixing fake stuff with real stuff to smear Hunter. So the problem is...? soibangla (talk) 01:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Because Rudy is the central figure in this matter, I might argue the article should include more about Rudy and his associates, such as:
 * soibangla (talk) 02:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

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&#39;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&#39;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)
 * - thank you for your careful analysis, and for removing that sentence fragment. I still think more in that answer should be removed or modified, though. The word "dubious" is used twice, and whatever its exact meaning, I think it implies that the media consider the laptop story false. But as you note, the attitude of the PolitiFact and Glenn Kessler pieces is basically that they don't know whether the laptop and its contents are genuine or not. There are other strange parts to the FAQ answer: one sentence says 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&#39;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)
 * Well, I think I adequately explained why that content is presented as it is, which is not to say I'd oppose editing it for style rather than substance. soibangla (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposed changes for addressing laptop FAQ discussions:

Ward20 (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd say overall this is better, but it still has some issues: did the hacking of Burisma now definitely happen? Was it definitely done to damage Joe Biden's reputation? How does propensity to hacking show the ability to plan evidence, a much more difficult endeavor? (To be fair, that's an issue with the current wording as well.) I also think the word "conceded" is misleading, because it implies that he's grudgingly telling the truth, rather than (potentially) lying completely, if the truth is that he simply dropped off the laptop in a drunken haze, then forgot about it. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * - NYT says hacking occurred, "according to security experts", and we should include that wording.  starship .paint  (exalt) 03:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * CNN, AP News, NPR, CBS News and ABC News all say Berisma was hacked Russian agents. However most of these articles say it is similar to the Russian hacking of the Hillery Clinton Campaign. Ward20 (talk) 05:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC) The AP News article mentions the Macron material. Ward20 (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that answers my first question. What about the other issues? I should note again that hacking in order to steal secrets is quite a different story from planting fake evidence, which is the charge in this case; the first is relatively easy (even teenagers have been known to do it); the second is extremely difficult, maybe even impossible. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * extremely difficult, maybe even impossible On what basis do you assert that? soibangla (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, of course it's easy to plant fake evidence, but to plant fake evidence that includes emails written to, from and about a variety of people in the public eye, related to extremely hot-button political topics, and do it so convincingly that a year later no one can point to any evidence of fakery, seems impossible. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please do not post absurd personal opinions about technical matters on this talk page. If you wish to cite a RS expert opinion, that would be appropriate. Good luck finding one.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Checking how the sources word the purpose of the hacking, they use words like experts suspect the obective was to damage Biden. So the wording needs to be adjusted to what the sources state. The sources also say that Russian agents plant fake information and distribute it through various methods (disinformation), so I believe that is not in dispute. Ward20 (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * seems impossible Seems, in your opinion, without basis to support it? soibangla (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize a statement like "no one has disputed any of the published emails" required heavy technical expertise... good to know. which sources say that Russians have planted evidence in this way before? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And round and round and round we go! smh
 * soibangla (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * AP News, CBS News, ABC News, NY Times and Newsweek, among others. Ward20 (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Very good, thank you - this is actually useful information. It seems more relevant to the FAQ than the stuff about Macron. It also makes one wonder why seemingly no one has tried to do that kind of analysis on the Hunter laptop contents (other than the Daily Mail, of course). Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * (To be clear, I was talking about the Wired article linked by soibangla. I don't see anything in the other articles about planting evidence, although maybe I missed it.) Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I might quibble about a word or three, but it seems fine to me. We might want to briefly mention that it remains unclear why the FBI seized the laptop, though some (like Fox News) reported it was about money laundering and suggested it was for an investigation of Hunter, an investigation which was later reported to have been dropped, and the WSJ reported that Rudy/associates were also being investigated for money laundering and other other matters related to Ukraine. So based on what we know, the FBI could very well have seized the laptop not because of Hunter, but because of Rudy, pursuant to their ongoing investigation of his activities and concerns of Russian disinformation efforts. soibangla (talk) 00:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I move that the FAQ language proposed by 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)
 * I'm in the middle of doing a final edit on the proposal to address some issues that were brought up, and then hopefully get a consensus on it. Ward20 (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed the Russian information because most of it is not directly related to the facts of the laptop. Ward20 (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * After more thought, I propose modifying the last sentence to read: 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, due to this from NYT:
 * Without this, readers will likely conclude the seizure must be related to Hunter, but that's not necessarily correct. soibangla (talk) 04:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Proposed changes to Talk: laptop FAQ done. Ward20 (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Good update. The only suggestion I have is that we should document the law enforcement assumption is that the laptop is Biden's - CNN. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Good update. The only suggestion I have is that we should document the law enforcement assumption is that the laptop is Biden's - CNN. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * This is indeed better than what was there before, although it could still be improved, in my opinion. Issues I see:
 * The repair shop owner's last name is Mac Isaac, not Isaac.
 * Referring to Mac Isaac as a "President Trump supporter" (and not, say, a repair shop owner) seems strange - a way to cast aspersions without directly saying so, perhaps.
 * The word "conceded", when talking about Hunter Biden, implies sincerity on Hunter's part that has hardly been proven; "said" would probably be better.
 * The sentence "No information purported to come from the laptop has implicated Joe Biden in any misconduct" is unclear. Does that mean legally implicated? If so, it should say so. If not, then it's a matter of opinion.
 * As noted above, it's important to state that the law enforcement assumption remains that the laptop is Biden's.
 * There are also some grammatical issues, but those are pretty minor. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 13:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Made changes proposed above that I agreed with.  starship .paint  (exalt) 15:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2021
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)
 * This has been addressed several times. Biden was stating and acting on official US and NATO policy, not personal or family interest. You can read the talk page archives to see the discussions and sources for what I've just said.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:POVNAMING
We know from numerous RS that there are unsubstantiated allegations of possible impropriety WRT to Joe Biden’s "unscheduled" stop at a certain restaurant in April 2015 and that there are denials of this from his 2020 campaign. Some RS like WaPo don’t find anything untoward about it, while acknowledging the NYPost’s revelations from Hunter Biden’s laptop, which one writer for the WSJ has criticised. 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. We also know from a Politico report that federal authorities delayed actions, and that investigations are ongoing. 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 Biden–Ukraine 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)
 * "Conspiracy theory" accurately summarizes the material in the article as it is written now. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , because 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)


 * How telling that this is marked as a ‘conspiracy theory,’ while the entirely meritless Russiagate investigation is not. 74.15.137.42 (talk) 04:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing you haven't read the Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election if you think that way. But I digress.  starship .paint  (exalt) 07:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "Like the Mueller report that preceded it, the report does not find a criminal conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign". Meaning the idea that there was one is still officially kooky/meritless/unfounded. But yes, we all digress. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Evidently many believe that lack of a criminal conspiracy that could be successfully prosecuted in federal court means it was a complete hoax invented by fake news. That's not what it means. soibangla (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not to the many who evidently believe it's not, of course, fair point. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * 74.15.137.42 (and InedibleHulk), the whole "Russiagate" investigation was partially based on knowledge of myriad suspicious contacts between Trump campaigners and Russian agents (already starting in 2015), and the lies told by them and Trump about those contacts. The investigation was not "meritless".
 * Over a period of several months, starting in August 2015, and before U.S. intelligence agencies started any investigations, they began to receive alarming reports from eight foreign intelligence agencies (United Kingdom, Germany, Estonia, Poland, Australia, France, a Baltic state, and Holland) describing overheard conversations between known Russian agents and Trump campaign members. The conversations "formed a suspicious pattern", and while their nature is known by intelligence agencies, it has not been revealed to the public.
 * Legal experts see plenty of evidence in the Mueller Report for both collusion and obstruction:
 * "There was a near-consensus on both questions. While Mueller may not have had sufficient evidence to charge anyone with conspiracy, the experts agree that plenty of evidence exists. The same is true of the obstruction question."
 * To understand this, one must understand two key words (bolded) here: allegation of a "conspiracy of co-operation between [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership". The Mueller Report did not find enough evidence to charge "conspiracy" and "coordination", but it did find abundant evidence of obstruction and collusion (cooperating, inviting, welcoming, hiding, lying about, not informing the FBI about, and denying Russian interference).
 * Trump's successful obstruction blocked the full and proper investigation of these matters: "In an important but somewhat overlooked passage, the Mueller report states that in light of these “identified gaps,” in the evidence, “the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.” That is, the obstruction may have worked." (Bolding original.) More:
 * I call that treasonous behavior, because aiding the enemy when its military attacks one's country is normally considered treason, and the Trump campaign was aiding and abetting a Russian GRU (military) attack, but that's just me. How it would play out in the courts would be interesting.
 * So which is more important, to "conspire" to rob a bank, or to "rob" a bank? In the Trump/Russia context, whether there was or was not a formal written or oral "conspiracy" (likely none) is rather irrelevant, because the actual deed is most important, and that's what we have here: the Trump campaign did cooperate with, help, and protect the Russians, but those who deny (IOW those who denigrate the Russian interference investigation by calling it "Russiagate") these facts, and claim Trump was the victim of a "meritless" witch hunt, don't seem to care about America's national security and think it's okay for a presidential candidate, and then President, to actively and passively aid such warfare against his own nation.
 * There's a lot to consider, and I have plenty more evidence from RS of collusion. -- Valjean (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As do all conspiracy theorists. Entire websites, full of evidence, doubts and counterclaims. I'm not interested in getting into the weeds of either of these cases, just saying they seem generally similar from afar. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * getting into the weeds is vitally important because they seem generally similar from afar but not at all upon close examination. I recommend a deep dive into Mueller investigation. soibangla (talk) 01:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * VJ FYI I removed some of your comment because it is a serious BLP violation. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And I have restored it with multiple RS documenting common knowledge literally unknown by those who use unreliable sources. Normally we don't need to provide references for "the sky is blue" type knowledge, but, just for you, I have shared a tiny bit of the RS coverage of Trump's obstruction. -- Valjean (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Blogs and “may have” articles? For real? Maybe easiest just to paste the text supporting your wording that Mueller missed a key piece because Trump obstructed it. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Time, FactCheck, AP News, and CBS News are standard RS, while both Just Security and Lawfare (that's no ordinary "blog") are considered subject matter experts and rated as especially RS here, more so than the others. There are many more RS that make the same points. You really should read those sources before exposing your ignorance anymore. It's time to stop digging. -- Valjean (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


 * - your WSJ opinion article is not a reliable source for facts. Furthermore regarding unsubstantiated allegations of possible impropriety WRT to Joe Biden’s "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)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2021
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)


 * That partisan opinion piece has been extensively discussed here and there was no consensus to include it soibangla (talk) 06:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * There is indeed new information on the subject, though it's not from that WSJ piece, from July; it's from this Politico Playbook article, which is in turn based on the new book The Bidens: Inside the First Family’s Fifty-Year Rise to Power by Ben Schreckinger. I just added some info from it to this article. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree that this new information should be added. I tried to add it yesterday but it was I think wrongly reverted per SYNTH. Now obviously it's not SYNTH as the source says "Ben Schreckinger’s “The Bidens: Inside the First Family’s Fifty-Year Rise to Power,” out today, finds evidence that some of the purported HUNTER BIDEN laptop material is genuine, including two emails at the center of last October’s controversy." and the added text was "Some of the material was confirmed as genuine by Politico journalist Ben Schreckinger in a book released in September 2021." Perhaps SPECIFICO would like to try again with a relevant reason? Perhaps we could use wording "Two emails at the center of the controversy were confirmed as genuine by Politico journalist Ben Schreckinger in a book released in September 2021." Mr Ernie (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This information is very thinly sourced at this time. Schreckinger’s anonymous source "remembered viewing both emails but was not able to compare the text leaked to the Post with the original emails." I realize some editors are very eager for a smoking gun, but this is weak and we need to wait for better sourcing before we rewrite the lead and thus the entire article. Let's be patient.soibangla (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Aftermath
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)

"unevidenced claims centered on the false allegation" needs citation
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)
 * Because you have opened this issue, you should cease editing the content and provoking an edit war until others have responded here. I suggest you self-revert this. soibangla (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 00, please read the DS page sanctions for this article. You need to self-revert.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I would have, though it was done for me 00prometheus (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I used my 1RR for today to revert that edit. There is evidence of absence of any factual basis of the allegation. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I am really fine with it reading either way, we can edit it to read "false allegations" only, however I find that less clear, since "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". The main issue is that making it read "unevidenced claims centered on the false allegation" the sentence is redundant repetition, making it sound argumentative. 00prometheus (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It reads fine to me. The central allegation is false, and the various claims swarming around it are unevidenced. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that sentence's current wording is both clear and accurate. Removing "series of unevidenced claims" would incorrectly imply there's no grain of truth in some of the surrounding claims, removing "false" wouldn't reflect the sources. Some editor over at conspiracy theory explained the problem quite nicely, "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)
 * Both adjectives are essential to a full understanding of the sentence. I don't see any redundancy that I can see. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * To me, it sounds as if you do consider there to be actual evidence that the claim is directly false. If that is the case, I would really like a citation on it! That is surprising to me (I can't imagine how anyone would be able to prove such a thing), so it certainly warrants a citation in the first place it is stated. 00prometheus (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The central claim that Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire Shokin so as to protect Hunter has been shown to be false. Over and over and over again. soibangla (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If it is so very self-evident that I (a non-American) should be ashamed of not knowing this I am sorry, but it is a complete surprise to me. I knew that the allegations were spurious, but I had no idea that someone had actually managed to prove Biden's innocence! I still feel that just putting in that reference to the proof would be very valuable. As it is now, my first reaction to reading the article was that it was argumentative and had lost it's NPOV. 00prometheus (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There are 7 sources supporting that statement. I glanced at a couple quickly, they appear to support it, calling Trump's claims a "conspiracy theory" and "false" etc. I'm not prepared to waste my time combing through all of them methodically again (it's been several months since I fully engaged with this article) as I find this conspiracy theory pretty tiring. If you think they don't support the statement, I'd appreciate it if you could read through them yourself and then explain why they don't support the statement, preferably with quotes of their assessments. Jr8825  •  Talk  20:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * First source: "President Donald Trump cited an unsubstantiated news report to revive a widely debunked false narrative about Joe Biden’s work in Ukraine on behalf of the Obama administration." Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What I am hearing now is that you don't want to put in the reference because you don't have it... This is surprising because you earlier claimed that the sources were cited further down in the article, in which case it should be easy to just lift them up to the first mention of the fact. I did look through the sources supporting the the first line, even before I started editing. None of them speak of the proof that you refer to. They do use wording like "false narrative", however if you read the articles they mean that in the sense that it is a completely unsubstantiated narrative, a made up story, not in the sense that there has been any proof that Biden is innocent. I might have missed it, but any such evidence was certainly not the main point of any of the cited references, which is surprising considering the fact that direct proof that Biden was innocent ought to have been quite news worthy. 00prometheus (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * quite the opposite. I'm not saying I don't want to put an additional reference in, I'm saying the sources are already there. I've already read them – long enough ago for me to not have them fresh in my head – and I'm not keen to spend time digging through this again as they appear to support it and I previously examined the lead sentence in detail and was content with its accuracy. I was inviting you, albeit in a bit of a grumpy way, to break down why those sources don't support saying it's false. If you want to convince me (and the majority of other editors who seem to agree with me) that my understanding of those sources is wrong, please quote the relevant bits here so we can cut directly to discussing what they actually say.
 * My strong recollection is that the sources called this a completely discredited, baseless, false political smear – I hope you can understand my slightly exasperated tone here (this conversation has been had many times on this page), and don't take it personally. Regarding the distinction you're drawing between false "narrative"/"story" and "allegation", I think it's no different from saying "false allegation that..." and then preceding to detail that allegation/narrative (namely, "while Joe Biden was vice president of the United States, he engaged in corrupt activities relating to the employment of his son Hunter Biden by the Ukrainian gas company Burisma"). Now I suppose we could change "allegation" to "narrative" and it wouldn't really make a difference – I think they're functionally synonymous in this case – but what's the point? Attempts to qualify the "falseness" of the central claim would be treating the conspiracy theory as if it had far more weight than the sources say it does, which only serves to promote it (i.e. chuck enough shit at someone and eventually something'll stick). It's pretty hard to prove a negative when the sources say there's no substance to begin with. If this was an actual allegation of criminality, rather than hints and suggestions of nefarious, conspiratorial behaviour, then it'd be a whole different matter. A precise/substantive accusation can't be described as false until the evidence is weighed up by a court. A baseless conspiracy theory wholly without evidence, dismissed as false by multiple sources, can be. Jr8825  •  Talk  02:25, 4 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)
 * I am sorry, I seem to have slipped into a mindset of speaking to all the editors of this article as if you all were one person here, using the term "you" in the plural sense. I got that from ValarianB here on the talk page, as well as Soibangla in the revert. Anyway, I still feel that the tone of the initial sentence is argumentative and therefore unconvincing as encyclopedic content, but it is becoming clear to me that there is a majority for having it that way, so I will leave. 00prometheus (talk) 15:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

- see below.  starship .paint  (exalt) 10:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * USA Today: Based on our research, the claim that Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion from Ukraine to save his son's job is FALSE.
 * Axios: Biden pushed for Shokin's ouster to protect his son.
 * Washington Post: Trump has falsely claimed that Biden in 2015 pressured the Ukrainian government to fire Viktor Shokin, the top Ukrainian prosecutor, because he was investigating Ukraine’s largest private gas company, Burisma, which had added Biden’s son, Hunter, to its board in 2014.
 * ABC News (Australia): 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)
 * Thank you for putting in all that work! I tried, but was unable to find those references and no one who claimed to have an inkling about them seemed interested in finding them again. I had dismissed this article as a lost cause, but you have restored my faith in even controversial subjects on Wikipedia! 00prometheus (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Verified emails
According to Politico, Politico reporter Ben Schreckinger, in his new book The Bidens: Inside the First Family’s 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&#39;Near (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll be convinced once reliable sources "say that some of these emails (and especially the most relevant one, from Vadym Pozharskyi) are authentic." That is not currently the case. If/when that becomes true, it still won't be true that the Giuliani and murky provenance content is a red herring. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * reliable sources now say is 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)
 * Yes you are 100% correct. Let's look at the current state of the article, which overwhelmingly treats the emails as fake. The lead cites a Politico story by Natasha Bertrand (who has written a few dubious articles including one about the debunked Trump server) where she writes about the letter that members of the intelligence community signed. The letter states "We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement..." That's not evidence that they are fake. The law enforcement assumption is that they are real, and now we've got another confirmation by Schreckinger. There's no actual evidence they are not genuine, and this open letter admits that their assumption is evidence free. The point should be that these emails are real but they don't amount to any sort of real issue or controversy. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * overwhelmingly treats the emails as fake is 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 real Source? soibangla (talk) 15:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We've gone through that before up in a previous section - CNN. The law enforcement assumption is that it is Biden's laptop. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Such a conspicuously different statement. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * CNN: "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" soibangla (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That seems to be the journalist's assessment of it. Is there a quote by the FBI saying they doubt the veracity of the emails? I can't find a single source of someone involved in the investigation who has uncovered evidence they are not genuine. The Biden's haven't disputed them and several involved have now confirmed them. I have serious doubts that Natasha Bertrand is going to write a follow-up story that debunks her Politico piece from a year ago, so if we aren't using the new Politico article or the assortment of articles covering Schreckinger's book we are left with outdated information. And it's not for want of trying, I would say - any journalist who is able to produce evidence that the emails are doctored would be a hero and receive wall to wall coverage. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * SDNY is now two years into investigating Rudy and what he was doing in Ukraine, accompanied by another investigation by EDNY into the Ukrainians. They'll talk when they're good and ready. 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." soibangla (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That article is from the week the emails came out, so it hardly proves anything. Regardless of the status of the investigation, though, the fact is that Politico now says that evidence exists for the authenticity of the Pozharskyi email. That information obviously is of high relevance to this article, and keeping it out of the article makes no sense. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 18:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You have persistently demonstrated WP:IDHT throughout these discussions. Persistently. soibangla (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Does the new Politico source document that at least some of the emails are genuine? Shouldn't this new corroboration be added to the article or should we leave it out of date? Mr Ernie (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It absolutely does not meet the standards of this encyclopedia. Let's wait. soibangla (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

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.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I believe that citing reliable sources that document the text we want to add is how the process works, and how it was followed here. I added text sourced to Politico, you removed it per SYNTH. What is the SYNTH? Mr Ernie (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether it was SYNTH, OR generally, or a mistake, but "Some of the material was confirmed as genuine" is not verified by the source. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The linked Politico source states that the new book "finds evidence that some of the purported HUNTER BIDEN laptop material is genuine." Mr Ernie (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:06, 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)
 * No, the mainstream media has been (characteristically) silent on the matter. My guess is that, if some proof had come out the other way, that the emails were fake, many of these sources would have loudly proclaimed the news, but that's just personal opinion. From a Wikipedia perspective, the lack of reporting tells us nothing about the veracity of this information. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * From a Wikipedia perspective we 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 way Yes, proof, which this Schreckinger story doesn't provide. but that's just personal opinion Noted. soibangla (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * which are not covering it because it's weak - that's your personal opinion. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't help but notice that nobody agrees with you.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If it was strong they'd report it. But it's not so they don't.soibangla (talk) 16:37, 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 Biden’s. Politico is a reliable source when it is publishing articles falsely claiming that the laptop was a Russian Op, based on nothing but the author’s (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)
 * Politico's Playbook is obviously not at the quality of its full articles, certainly not at the point where we could use it as the sole source for WP:EXCEPTIONAL / WP:BLP-sensitive material. Especially given that what we're essentially using it to say is that this book has explosive must-read material in it, which Politico is not an WP:INDEPENDENT source to say when it comes to a book by a politico writer. As with most exceptional claims, this is the sort of thing that will have broad and massive coverage if it is true and the interpretations made here are valid, so we can simply wait for that widespread secondary coverage and see if it emerges. --Aquillion (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I have to admit puzzlement at the use of WP:BLP to keep out this information - presumably, we need to protect Hunter Biden from any insinuation that he helped a Burisma executive meet with his father, even though it's now been discussed by reliable sources, and Hunter himself has never denied it. But in the course of trying to protect Hunter from this charge, this article currently: calls Mykola Zlochevsky "corrupt", says that Andrii Derkach is linked to organized crime, dismisses John Ratcliffe as a "Trump loyalist", and says that computer repair shop owner John Paul Mac Isaac believes in conspiracy theories (how that's relevant, I don't know). All of these people are still living. If BLP is such an overriding guideline, perhaps it's time for a more general rewrite of this article? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Rather than elaborate on the multiple dubious|incorrect assertions you just made evidently as a basis to rewrite the article to your liking, I'll just encourage you to rectify any BLP issues you believe you've identified. soibangla (talk) 01:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So if I, for example, remove the sentence "Ratcliffe is considered a Trump loyalist, and a number of commentators had expressed concerns previously over his partiality", you won't revert my change? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Your edits, as always, will be considered on the merits.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Speak for yourself, I'd say. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ratcliffe being a loyalist looks well-sourced. I'm less sure about Zlochevsky's corruption, and I'd support removal unless some charges have stuck that I don't know about. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Z is a crook, not sure about corrupt.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * BLP requires sourcing of the highest quality; the sourcing for those parts is, as far as I'm aware, solid. If you genuinely believe that Politico's Playbook (a brief rundown of the news of the day) highlighting a book by a Politico author is sourcing of the highest quality, take it to WP:BLPN or WP:RSN or somesuch, but it seems straightforward enough to me - I wouldn't rely solely on that sort of sourcing for anything of this nature. If you must, find the book, and find the relevant sections from it, then we can discuss whether we should cite it directly after reviewing the actual context for the parts in question.  I don't understand the insistence on trying to cite a brief blurb in Politico's Playbook at all. --Aquillion (talk) 02:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course, the source is not just the Politico Playbook, but also (as you note) the book The Bidens: Inside the First Family's Fifty-Year Rise to Power, published by Twelve, which is a reputable publisher. What if we just source this information to the book instead? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Does anyone here have access to the book? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So get the book. But even then, it's a weak claim based on one anonymous source who remembers seeing the emails but cannot tie them back to the NYP story. If the story were more substantive than that, don't you think the Politico blurb would've mentioned it, and then followed up with an article? soibangla (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's better than the evidence free assertion ("we do not have evidence of Russian involvement") from the open letter that most outlets ran with (note that Natasha Bertrand's article had the headline "Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say," despite the former intel officials explicitly not saying that - on Wiki we would call that SYNTH). Here now we have a reliable source stating that some of the material is genuine. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it's not better, see Bertrand's lede. And this And this and others. soibangla (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know what any of those links prove. Anyway, we're now in the strange situation where a major new book about Joe Biden says the Pozharskyi email is genuine, and a mainstream news publication (Politico) repeats this finding, but readers going to Wikipedia to find out about the subject will not see any of it - though they will read a lot of nonsense like how John Paul Mac Isaac thinks Seth Rich was murdered. Does anyone think this is good state of things? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 13:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:DENY. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 13:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes at the moment it seems like the consensus is to keep the article out of date, and with regards to the last sentence in the lead, possibly incorrect. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The consensus is to maintain the standards and integrity of this encyclopedia, which I am confident some dissenters would heartily agree with if the matter involved someone they like. soibangla (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's see - there's a book out called The Bidens, which I believe is a fully reliable source per WP:RS, that comments directly on the subject of this article and offers some new information on the subject. Do you really think the responsible thing to do is to simply not mention the book at all? Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 23:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No one has attempted to add anything sourced to the book yet. We'll see when they do. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 23:06, 24 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)
 * The new info is that at least some of the emails are genuine. If we cite the text to the book is that ok with you? It would be great if an admin helps assess which comments are value add vs non. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please familiarize yourself with the Mueller report and mainstream RS descriptions of Russian disinformation methods. This is not "new info".<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Mueller report? Sounds like you're advocating original research and/or synthesis. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Rather than engage in hypotheticals, let's see what the book says, bearing in mind that after nearly four days not a single RS has confirmed the story, or even echoed it, so it remains WP:EXTRAORDINARY. soibangla (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing either hypothetical or extraordinary about it - we have one reliable source (Politico) confirming that another, even more reliable source (the book The Bidens) states that the Pozharskyi email is authentic. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's worth repeating: that's not what the Politico source says. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * By hypotheticals, I was responding to 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&#39;Near (talk) 02:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

New Evidence available and new change.
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 Político, 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)
 * What you have written is the misrepresentation.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * How? How is it misrepresentation? More evidence comes out and it's becomes more uncertain if it's a conspiracy theory or not. We are here to inform people, not sway their opinion. Thecommander236 (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What "evidence"? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What investigations? Who are "they?" soibangla (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "They are starting to reconsider the accusations as potentially true." Which accusations? Thecommander236, please provide RS for that information. We need that before we can make any changes. -- Valjean (talk) 02:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:DENY please.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> 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)
 * What does that have to do with this article's subject? What does it have to do with alleged corrupt dealings by Joe Biden in Ukraine? Sure, Hunter Biden has lots of problems that are frequently acknowledged by his own father. So what? This isn't the National Enquirer. This article isn't about guilt by association. This is not the Hunter Biden article. You're in the wrong place. -- Valjean (talk) 06:47, 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, 2021‎ (UTC)
 * I am unimpressed with the article in several ways, I find it sloppy and I identified a good number of cases in which it omitted important facts or qualifiers. Specifically his references to some guy telling him stuff about the emails, and that he verified stuff but doesn't say how. Based on what I've read so far, I don't see he's actually "confirmed" anything. Maybe his book does a better job. And the author's credentials don't seem particularly impressive to me (even to the extent I can find them). BTW, have the right-wing media gone virally berserk with this, as one might expect them to do considering their obsession with Hunter? I don't even see that, let alone any reliable sources running with it. Thud. soibangla (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Mr Ernie, I think you're right. That would be the content that might need updating. To get that done, we need the exact quotes from the newer RS and how they would be used to update the article. I hope that Thecommander236 produces the info we need to move forward.
 * The provenance of the laptop itself has been questionable. Hunter alleged his laptop might have been stolen, and since Russian intelligence/Derkach admits to possessing another (and possibly more) laptop owned by Hunter, that really makes any content produced from such laptops suspicious. -- Valjean (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2021 (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)
 * Please show us this not concrete evidence. soibangla (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

2019
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 -. 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)
 * You're saying that the 2019 elements of this story that are in the "Background" section should be pulled out to show that it's not just background? I can agree with that. The "background" is Hunter working for Burisma and Viktor Shokin, and then the conspiracy theory begins with Jim Jordan and others alleging malfeasance without evidence. Then comes the New York Post laptop October surprise as another element of the conspiracy theory. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, including context, pre-history and background info is necessary. -- Valjean (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald
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)
 * We can't use a self-published video blog. Maybe find a reliable source that cites him. soibangla (talk) 14:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The mainstream no longer appears to take Greenwald seriously, in a stunning reversal of his former reputation. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Since i don't know u i'll take u're comment seriously. [sarcasm on] --Ivan VA (talk) 17:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't think the advice u'v given covers it. He is quoted and taken as a reliable source, because he is Glenn Greenwald, not because he works for some newspaper the wiki community thinks is credible. So, in my opinion u can cite his video blog if u write a sentence like -the journalist Glenn Greenwald thinks/is of the opinion...and then u can add up whats his take. --Ivan VA (talk) 17:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ivan VA, Greenwald is only a RS for his own misleading opinions. No unreliable source that quotes him can be used at Wikipedia with one exception, in his own biography, and then subject to the limitations found at WP:ABOUTSELF. Even The Intercept parted with him over his dishonesty and refusal to abide by the norms of good journalism. See Inside Glenn Greenwald’s Blowup With The Intercept. So only RS can be used here. -- Valjean (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * It can be used if it's explicitly his opinion, not as a generalised claim. As for the rest, if u want to dispute the credibility of Greenwald and ban his opinions from en.w as not credible, theres a procedure, and ill be very happy to see that claim! --Ivan VA (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, that's not how it works here. Greenwald used to be a good guy whose opinions were published in RS and valued by many. I was a fan. Unfortunately, many of his fans haven't noticed that he now carries water for the Russians, pushes ideas debunked by RS, and has forsaken good journalistic practices, so much so that he was separated from The Intercept. That must have really hurt! What he wrote in RS before this latest phase in his life can well be a RS we can use, but his later stuff is questionable. Now WP:ABOUTSELF applies to him and anything he writes in an unreliable source or a primary source. Unreliable sources must never be used because, with that one exception, all content here is based on RS. -- Valjean (talk) 03:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * His opinion is not automatically noteworthy just because it's his opinion. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * But? --Ivan VA (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Look, we see you really like Glenn Greenwald 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)
 * It's not about me (or u who dislikes him obviously). Hes opinion is credible encyclopedic material just because of his credentials. Just like some credible historians opinion is cited, on lets say, a WWII topic. It's about that. --Ivan VA (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So no, hes not just a guy with a substack and youtube channel. --Ivan VA (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * At this point? Yeah, he is. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Greenwald has no specific knowledge or expertise on this matter that makes his opinion more noteworthy than any other columnist. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Says . A known RS on Wikipedia. (sarcasm on) Greenwald has no specific knowledge or expertise... U'll have to explain what the threshold is for 'no specific knowledge' is coz, on the merit (the emails), based on his own expertise, he said they are proof. 2ndly, the guys in the debate before u, disputed even using him as a source/putting his opinion into the article. What's your take on that? Coz if i wanna edit this article i don't wanna get caught in an editwar. --Ivan VA (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Politico ran a tiny blurb about this three weeks ago that not a single RS has picked up. The blurb appears to be little more than a book promo for one of its journalists. It has been totally ignored because the journalist cites "evidence" from an anonymous source who says he saw the emails but cannot match them with what NYP published. Really weak. But Glenn needs some material to work now that he's a regular on Fox News primetime. soibangla (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * All i hear are your own political opinions. Your comment has no relation with the topic discussed what so ever. So, to conclude, Greenwald and his opinion, as well as the book, can be part of this article. Case closed. --Ivan VA (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see you have consensus here, but go ahead and WP:BEBOLD soibangla (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

He is right 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, 2021‎ (UTC)
 * I am not an admin, I and others sensibly explained why the content is not compliant with policy, and I suggested the editor go ahead and WP:BEBOLD anyway. 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)

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)

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)

- 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. 

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. I don't see any fact checker trying to prove it wrong. Barecode (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Loaded questions overload? — Paleo  Neonate  – 22:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

- 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)