Talk:Conspiracy theories related to the Trump–Ukraine scandal/Archive 1

Possible deletion?
Can someone well-versed in Wikipedia policy please explain why this article might be deleted? Violetderay (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:POVFORK. Jdcomix (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. But that is not happening here. This article exists because its breadth and detail is arguably UNDUE for other existing articles, not because it diverges from summarized content in those other articles. soibangla (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. Is this sentence: "all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article." the crux? I am new to the workings of Wikipedia, though I do use it frequently. Thank you for your help! Violetderay (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

My apologies for posting my reply twice! My cell phone screen is too small for conversation. Violetderay (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. I removed the duplicates. While "all major..." holds true, it can overwhelm an article to include all the detail available and necessary, so in that case, to avoid WP:UNDUE coverage, we fork off most of the content to a separate sub-article, leaving behind a short summary and link to the new article. In the new sub-article we can give the subject the in depth coverage which RS give it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Violetderay - the article deletion by WP:AFD might be done for any of the reasons in WP:DELETION and here. In this article, for example, a deletion might happen :
 * As not WP:NOTE worthy, failing to meet WP:GNG. (e.g. "Ukrainian corruption conspiracy theory" only got 90 google hits -- incl copies from here.   Or that may indicate the article title is not the WP:COMMON one in use.
 * As a POVFORK, COATRACK, or ATTACK page.
 * As new and similar content is elsewhere, so there might be a desire to merge it into Trump–Ukraine scandal
 * As a malformed scope -- it's not clear what teh topic is.
 * As not (e.g. "Ukrainian corruption conspiracy theory" only got 90 google hits -- incl copies from here. And this seems cover more than one theory.)
 * For content issues in being largely POV spouting, a sales pitch and stating things in an extremist way -- see the lead "supported by all reliable sources" ("all" is stating an EXTREME value), or "baseless allegations" (Hunter *did* get paid to curry favor...).
 * Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

user:markbassett Thank you for this helpful information!

Alert: GOP Rep. Gohmert Introduces New Conspiracy Into Congressional Record
I am not proposing we use Talking Points Memo as a source at all, but am posting this as an alert. Keep your eyes open for more additions and variations to this conspiracy theory. The president and his GOP sycophants are flailing about and saying all kinds of ridiculous things:


 * Huh? GOP Rep. Gohmert Introduces New Conspiracy Into Congressional Record

If this gets coverage in RS, we may wish to include that coverage. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Gomer is an example of nominative determinism. Guy (help!) 09:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * When you say Gomer are you referring to Louie Gohmert? PackMecEng (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am referring to an English transliteration of the French pronunciation of Gomert. Guy (help!) 21:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Uh-huh, perhaps just use his actual name instead of making fun of a BLP. PackMecEng (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , it was a pune-or-play-on-words. We English do that. Guy (help!) 23:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's nice. Just don't do it about BLPs. PackMecEng (talk) 23:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I do wish public officials were held to the same standard. Guy (help!) 17:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed. PackMecEng (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Name and scope of the article
"Ukraine corruption" is discussed in the article on Corruption in Ukraine, which is a real thing. The present title is potentially confusing, and if someone types "Ukrainian corruption" into the search window, they would be directed to this article rather than Corruption in Ukraine.

What are people's thoughts on expanding the scope of this article to all conspiracy theories currently listed at Trump–Ukraine scandal? Along the same lines, should the article be renamed to Conspiracy theories related to Trump–Ukraine scandal or Conspiracy theories of Trump–Ukraine scandal? --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


 * No objection, this was just the first title that came to mind. Guy (help!) 00:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I object to the terminology itself, as being pejorative, prejudicial and insulting. See my comment in the next section on the polemical slant not only of the article per se, but also even of its title. "Conspiracy theories" are automatically nuts. However, in reality, there are sometimes actual coordinated behaviours which can reasonably be judged to be conspiracies if they involve actual planning together. One might instance, for example, the findings of the Mueller Report on the activities of various people from the top down in the FBI and the Department of Justice from 2016 nearly to the present. -- 122.111.212.235 (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

ProPublica
I don't generally consider ProPublica a RS for Wikipedia, but there's no reason to dispute this reporting. I would like to see if it's collaborated elsewhere. Guy (help!) 09:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's really sad what has happened to John Solomon. He's now just as bad a source as the worst conspiracy theory websites we deprecate and blacklist. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Shameless bias
Jesus Christ this article is unbelievably biased and nothing more then an attack page. Neutrality should be restored. Wikipedia is increasingly becoming the propaganda bureau of CNN and MSNBC. 80.111.44.144 (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * So you insist on edit warring, rather than following WP:BRD and discussing toward a solution? That's blockable, but I'll engage. Get specific:
 * What wording in the article is wrong?
 * What sources are unreliable?
 * You need to do more than gripe. You haven't demonstrated that the article is broken, and we don't know how to fix something that isn't broken. All you're doing is misusing this talk page as a forum for your personal political opinions. That is forbidden. You also edit warred over it. That too is blockable. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What personal political opinions have I expressed? 80.111.44.144 (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Your comment reveals a strong political bias and distaste for RS. It's okay to have a bias, but the way you wave it around here isn't constructive. It's just griping, and that's a talk page violation.
 * Now, rather than focusing on our discussion, get constructive and answer my two questions:
 * What wording in the article is wrong?
 * What sources are unreliable?
 * We can deal with that. That's what this talk page is for. You need to be specific and provide exact arguments with quotes and sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

First, There is no 'conspiracy theory' - most of what is in this page is based on fact. It shouldn't be labeled 'conspiracy theory' - second, it's not Donald Trump's conspiracy theory. The Russia Hoax and Impeachment allegations are Conspiracy theories. The anonymous gripe is based on a frustration that Wikipedia has been taken over by pro-deep state propagandists, as the facts of wikipedia are more like snopes.com not based in reality and based on 'as seen on TV' facts, not hard evidence. Sorry guys, Wikipedia is losing. It has taken years to build the credibility of Wikipedia and now it is becoming another fake site. 206.253.159.192 (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I support the above comment. By the way, it is alleged in the introduction to the article that the "Right-wing conspiracy theory" or at least the one argued against here is that Ukraine instead of Russia tried to interfere in the 2016 election. That is already a polemically simplified and biased account. Many critics of the Ukraine involvement, both on the right and the left, maintain that both countries tried to interfere in the election (among other bad actors, such as China, North Korea and Iran). Ukrainian involvement does not by definition rule out Russian involvement. Simple-minded caricatures disguise the actual complexities. Indeed, the very title of the article, "Conspiracy theories" related to the "Trump-Ukraine scandal" betray the propaganda slant. "Conspiracy theories" is a usual way of dismissing out of hand claims by people deemed nut-cases (Guy tells us below it refers just to false political narratives about conspiracies, not real conspiracies at all). The actual Ukraine scandal however does not relate to Trump as the title says but to Joe and Hunter Biden and their Swamp/media protectors and enablers - at least to Trump's defenders who are ignored here. The title completely pre-judges the content. It could no doubt have been written by Adam Schiff or Marie Jovanovich, and Swamp on-hangers keen to take over and shape public discourse, making use solely of leftist media, for those are the sources chosen and used. So it is stated right in the introduction that the corruption charges leveled against Joe and Hunter Biden in relation to the Ukrainian company Burisma are "baseless" (with the "proof" an as-usual very polemical anti-Trump article in the New York Times) - no counters to that view, of which there are now many highly significant articles, are mentioned (for example, see the really devastating investigative report by Chanel Rion of One America News (OAN), "One America News Investigates: Ukrainian Witnesses Destroy Schiff's Case (Part 3)," December 16, 2019 - accessed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRFtijtoV6I but available through links at the OAN website - presenting lengthly interviews on camera between Rudy Giuliani himself and six Ukrainian government officials, two of them the successive Chief Prosecutors of the Ukrainian government, detailing massive on-going Barisma-related corruption by Hunter Biden, including money laundering, and of course Joe Biden's own boastful and public bribery, giving very full documentary evidence - Ukrainian government documents and the like - confirming close involvement from the Swamp-serving NABU set up not by Ukrainians but by people from the American Embassy itself, facilitating extensive collaboration of that Embassy in the corruption and aiding attempts by Ambassador Jovanovich to squash investigation of it or even to refuse visas to Ukrainian officials willing to testify about it in the U.S.).
 * In the face of Ukrainian government official testimonies, actual documentary evidence they provide including of bank accounts, official letters to American government agencies like the Department of Justice, and so on, the all-too-facile "baseless" gratuitous slur in this article is therefore unjustified, but it is not exceptional: similar editorial judgmental adjectives and phrases are inserted throughout the rest of the article too. NPOV ("Neutral Point of View") is violated throughout. There is simply no decent or fair consideration, or often even mention, of the pro-Trump case or simply Biden-critical case. Instead, right-wing views are given cartoon treatment and description so as to look extremist, odd-ball, "baseless" as we have just seen, "insane" as Guy tells us below (his remarks are peppered with emotive smear comments demonstrating strong POV; perhaps he wrote most of the article?) and so on. There are very serious problems related to the entire Ukraine situation ignored completely or cosmetically altered, ignoring the quite substantial counter-evidence provided by critics of Biden, the actions of the U.S. Ambassador Jovanovich and of the State Department in the Ukraine, and related matters. Disinformation, selective quotes and sources (trashing such careful and respectable sources for example as John Solomon because of political objections worthy of CNN or The Washington Post but no more trustworthy: e.g., see Solomon's "Joe Biden's 'conspiracy theory' memo to U.S. media doesn't match the facts," of Jan. 21, 2020, which simply lists facts, with links to public evidence, that disprove Biden's own claim that opponents merely express a baseless "conspiracy theory": https://johnsolomonreports.com/joe-bidens-conspiracy-theory-memo-to-u-s-media-doesnt-match-the-facts/), and outright insults and slanting by anti-Trump editors do not contribute to wider understanding nor objectivity any more than any doctrinaire ideological editing would from other angles. The article needs a top-to-bottom rewrite so that it preserves NPOV. -- 122.111.212.235 (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice set of Fox News talking points you have there. We have articles on most of these subjects, so do please feel free to read them so you can make some reality-based arguments that we can engage with. Guy (help!) 09:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "Fox News talking points" are obviously curse words for you, Guy, but they miss their target twice over. The sources referenced were not from Fox News, and besides your refusal to grant any hearing to right-wing views only shows your own bias. It is obviously deeply set in stone. Genuinely "Reality-based arguments" such as actual interviews with the chief Ukrainian officials involved in the Biden-Berisma affair, actual documents from government records, bank account details of financial transactions, are clearly not relevant to you and must not be allowed to be mentioned in any Wikipedia article on the Ukraine scandal. And I presume that Giuliani is as far as you are concerned Satan himself, mystically toxic, so nothing from him need be cited in terms of genuine and relevant sources, even if it is just interviews with other obviously genuine and relevant sources. All that is cancelled out. Neither do you even cite any "reality-based arguments" to refute what was written. Perhaps we should take this to Wikipedia arbitration? 122.111.212.235 (talk) 10:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The issues with the right-wing media bubble and its preference for ideological "Truth" over empirical fact are laid out in detail in Yochai Benkler's Network Propaganda. It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble, it’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so - and the right wing media bubble, of which Fox is the dominant player, is assiduously informing America about things they "know for sure" that just ain't so. It's unfortunate that so many of these things originate in the Kremlin or with the organised crime / oil and gas oligarchy nexus.
 * There is no "Biden-Burisma affair": Burisma hired Hunter Biden to attempt to curry favour with influential US figures, but Joe Biden continued to pursue the US policy against corruption. Shokin was corrupt. your narrative depends on the idea that he was investigating Burisma and Biden wanted to stop it, but in fact he wasn't investigating Burisma - or anyone else. Read the article on Viktor Shokin. Contemporaneous reporting highlights his corruption.
 * This is Wikipedia. We work from reliable sources. We do not present fringe views or conspiracy theories as being equivalent to empirical fact, and there's little point in line by line rebuttals of arguments like yours when our articles already contain the facts that debunk them. It's not about hating anyone (I don't hate people, that's a ridiculous waste of emotional energy), but it is remarkable how consistently shady the characters in this drama are. Parnas, Fruman, Firtash, Zlochevsky and the rest, and people like Giuliani and Solomon who credulously accepted their version of events because it happens to align with what they would like to be true. Guy (help!) 11:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The issues with the left-wing media bubble and its preference for ideological "Truth" over empirical fact are laid out in rich historical and scholarly detail in Mark Levin's Unfreedom of the Press. It ain't what you don’t know that gets you into trouble, it’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so - and the left wing media bubble, which according to a number of studies amounts to over 90% of the media outlets in the U.S. as judged not only by media content but even by records of reporter and media figures' donations to political parties and causes, is an echo-chamber whose common thrust intensifies their lack of self-criticism and blatancy of claims, assiduously informing America about what centrist America really must and should think and other things they, the leftist media, "know for sure" that just ain't so -- as revealed by election results if nothing else. It's unfortunate that so many of these things originate in the Kremlin or with the organised crime / oil and gas oligarchy nexus. (Of course that is a really classic "conspiracy theory" in itself and I actually don't subscribe to it. But heck, why spoil things when I'm enjoying echoing you.) Anyway, how can you rely on reliable sources when your criteria for reliability are ideological and political, not evidentiary? Your cited article has some relevant facts, just as Giuliani's research also does. But its selective bias is obvious, it falsifies some crucial things (such as there was no on-going prosecution by Shokin of Burisma - which if true would obviate any need for Biden to block his handling of Burisma and thus refutes itself - and it has other flaws that do not affect the issue at hand, namely the Biden-Burisma scandal, which will not disappear no matter how many times you say "Boo!" If Biden really had been caring about Burisma corruption we would have seen him pursuing the matter and reviving prosecutory investigations after Shokin was fired, but we don't see that. Actually, Jovanovich met with Lutsenko, the next Prosecutor General, and demanded he not investigate several persons in Burisma. He refused, as he explained on camera in the ONA special report mentioned above. She was reportedly very angry and upset. I await the likely trials in the second term of Trump's presidency. By the way, I appreciate your compliment concerning your inability to refute any of the specific factual statements I have made aside from your citation of a Shokin exposé. In particular your inability to deny the actual history I laid out elsewhere on this page of Trump's strong anti-Russian foreign policy moves ever since he took on the Presidency, which just in itself for any rational and fair-minded person proved the emptiness of the "Russia collusion" scam right from the start, despite the leftist media clamour. It is easiest just to ignore the challenge when it cannot be won, and I offer you condolences. 122.111.212.235 (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Mark Levin is a right wing talk radio host, whereas Yochai Benkler is a Harvard law professor. We have policies on this.
 * If you want to invert our policies on what constitutes reliable sourcing, you're in the wrong place: you need WP:RSN. Guy (help!) 15:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You severely and unfairly belittle Mark Levin in your characterisation. Levin is an accomplished lawyer who has worked successfully both under Reagan in the government (working for the Attorney General Edwin Meese) and in the private sector, has six books to his credit dealing with constitutional law, the nature of democracy and other legal and political topics, all of which have been very highly acclaimed, is the former president of the Landmark Legal Foundation, and has a very successful nationally syndicated talk show and TV program. He knows what he is talking about. Your policies on "this" cannot rightly suppress anything that Levin writes that marks a substantial contribution to the topic. In any case, Levin's points in his book do in fact knowledgeably and effectively refute claims to centrist impartiality in the heavily leftist mainstream media. Of course, his is not the only book that does. There are many such. I was just counterpointing your own solitary citation. 122.111.212.235 (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you denying that he runs a right wing talk radio show? Or that he writes for a number of right-wing sources?
 * Nobody denies that all media have an editorial lean. The issue is not that some media leans left and others lean right, it's that conservative media is in a positive feedback loop where they lose revenue if they print facts that conflict with ideology. This has been demonstrated through network analysis. Mainstream media, by contrast, self-corrects. That's why the bullshit claim that Trump raped a 13-yeqar-old rapidly died, whereas Pizzagate and suchlike insanity did not.
 * In any case what you are demanding is a fundamental change to Wikipedia's rules on sourcing. This is not the venue for such discussion. Guy (help!) 16:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Seems this is the hill the Republicans want to die on
MR. ZELDIN: 0kay. The followup question and answers, the answer is that it's your assessment that where there was interference by Ukrainjans that it's your assessment that it djdn't change the election results. So I see that there is an interpretation MR. WOLOSKY: That misstates her testimony. DR. HILL: It also misstates it. I have no basis MR. ZELDIN: Feel free to correct it. I 'm just MR. WOLOSKY: We just said it misstated her testimony, so go to your next question, please. MR. ZELDIN: So the first answer is, it's your position that the Ukrainian Government did not interfere with the U.S. election, correct? DR. HILL: Correct. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6543445/Fiona-Hill-Testimony.pdf

It's pretty clear that they are trying to retcon Ukraine's provision of data on Manafort - presumably including the "black book" which was buried after the first, as yet little discussed shakedown - as being interference in the US election along the same lines as Russia's large, well-documented campaign of interference. Guy (help!) 10:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 2 November 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: MOVED to Conspiracy theories related to the Trump–Ukraine scandal. (non-admin closure) --- Coffee  and crumbs  12:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Ukrainian corruption conspiracy theory → Conspiracy theories related to Trump–Ukraine scandal – The new title would allow to expand the scope of the article and to properly cover the already existing content. For example, the Crowdstrike conspiracy theory (Ukrainian corruption conspiracy theory) is unrelated to the Biden corruption conspiracy. There are other conspiracy theories that could be covered by the article as well, such as those related to the whistleblower. Please see also the earlier discussion where I made a point about the current title being potentially confusing. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. I like it. It will indeed open up for better coverage and it's less ambiguous. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * My first preference, as proposed earlier here, would be a comprehensive Conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump article, in which this article and its related article Russia investigation origins counter-narrative could be unified and constitute a major section of the new article. soibangla (talk) 03:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ambivalent: change would be okay. I am concerned about scope drift, both with 's thread suggestion and 's. X1\ (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment It would be more helpful if someone explains which title would be the actual WP:COMMONNAME. Tessaracter (talk) 10:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree That title would make much more sense then what is the title is now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.170.146.1 (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. This title was just the first thing that came into my head. Guy (help!) 00:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't it be "Conspiracy theories related to the Trump–Ukraine scandal"? Dropping the definite article reminds me of Russian grammar habits, which would carry particularly unfortunate implications for this topic, da? (And "... about the Trump–Ukraine scandal" would be even simpler.)  Sandstein   20:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. This sounds as a better descriptive title. Yes, "the" should be included. "About" - maybe, not sure. My very best wishes (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Sandstein. They came up with a seemingly accurate title that is also simple. But for now, I support the move as it is, to keep the ball rolling. Also, the proposed title is a definite improvement over the current title. But, I think we should consider Sandstein's variation, and perhaps do another later RFC with that one. I think for now, the definite article "the" should be inserted, if it gains support in this RFC (imho). And perhaps later change to ..."about the Trump–Ukraine scandal" with a later RFC. (imho) --Steve Quinn (talk) 04:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

add Manafort started spreading conspiracy theory at least five months before the 2016 election; shortly after the emails stolen from the Democrats were published in June 2016
X1\ (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/us/politics/manafort-trump-ukraine-conspiracy-theory.html
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/us/politics/manafort-trump-ukraine-conspiracy-theory.html


 * Check! soibangla (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * . X1\ (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

We're missing a lot here
The mother article at Trump–Ukraine scandal contains this:

11 Conspiracy theories 11.1 CrowdStrike 11.2 First whistleblower 11.3 Whistleblower rules and hearsay 11.4 George Soros

We are missing a lot here! We should have less there and more here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

add PolitiFact "What we know about the Politico story at the heart of a Ukraine conspiracy theory" ?
X1\ (talk) 01:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What we know about the Politico story at the heart of a Ukraine conspiracy theory by Daniel Funke, Jon Greenberg, Louis Jacobson PolitiFact December 3rd, 2019

Suggest change: "One such theory seeks to blame Ukraine, instead of Russia"
The "instead of Russia" is a narrative that has been pushed by the media, which falsely claims, that Trump and/or Republicans at any point in time, have made the claim that Russia did not interfere in the elections. In fact, many prominent republicans have made statements, that they certainly do not deny Russian interference, but they also are questioning Ukraine election interference. What happened, is that Trump uttered a theory about CrowdStrike, as the call transcript Trump/Zelensky shows), and that he thought it was Ukraine, not Russia who hacked and/or covered up the DNC e-mail hacking. The DNC hack was only a part of the election meddling of Russia, but media have generalized the statement to include ALL interference, as it being something Trump et al would have proposed. There is no evidence of such a thing, and thus this sentence should at the very least be changed into something reflecting the limited scope of the statement (e.g. "One such theory seeks to blame Ukraine, instead of Russia for the hacking of the DNC servers" (if indeed this is a reference to the CrowdStrike theory). Milanbishop
 * It's a Russian narrative, and that is indeed the claim. The fact that some of those who wish to appear less insane miss off the most unbelievable part does not really change the underlying theory. Guy (help!) 19:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if that were the case (i.e. there is a Kremlin-fed narrative that Russia has no guilt in meddling ("instead of Russia" source?? ) there are no reliable primary sources (WP:VERIFIABILITY) that such theory is promoted by Trump et al. If there are in fact, two theories ( "also" and "instead" ), further nuance is warranted like previously stated e.g.:
 * "One such theory seeks to blame Ukraine, instead of Russia for the hacking of the DNC servers"
 * "One such theory seeks to put blame on Ukraine in interfering in the election"
 * The only person that has linked DNC server hacking to be Ukraine and not Russia was Trump, and in contrast many Republicans have refuted the claim that they are proposing Russia did not meddle, and have specifically told reporters that they believe Russia was the primary meddler, but there are concerns, Ukraine officials also were doing some stuff they shouldn't.  This goes back to the Politico/2017  Financial TImes/2016 articles.  Will provide a list of sources later.  Milanbishop (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 15:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a NYT article cited, that provides some of the aspects of the conspiracy theories, but there are numerous instances over the last 3 or so years of the Republicans rejecting (or at least downplaying) US Intelligence reports (and Muellers investigation) into Russian interference where it pertains to supporting Trump and Republican candidates and have rejected attempts to take official stands on the subject where possible, in particular framing any investigation as an effort by deep state actors to overturn the election results (which was a popular refrain of Nunes and co during the impeachment hearings). It is significant that Fiona Hill actually explicitly stated the very thing you are denying is taking place, or has taken place.. Koncorde (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Misinformation regarding CrowdStrike
In first line the text is as follows:

A major aspect of numerous conspiracy theories asserts that CrowdStrike, a publicly traded company[14] headquartered in California, is actually owned by a wealthy Ukrainian oligarch,[1]

However, if you read the source (New York Times - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/us/politics/trump-ukraine-conspiracy.html), this it what is written about the subject:

"Mr. Eliason and other purveyors of Ukraine conspiracies often point to the Atlantic Council, a research group in Washington, as the locus of the schemes. The Ukrainian oligarch Viktor Pinchuk has made donations to the council and serves on its international advisory board; Dmitri Alperovitch, CrowdStrike’s co-founder, who was born in Russia and came to the United States as a child, is an Atlantic Council senior fellow."

So, it is simply not true that CrowdStrike is owned by an Ukrainian Oligarch. This could also be verified by visiting the Wikipedia article about CrowdStrike.

Could someone please change the text in the Wikipedia article, so it comes out correctly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjjobe (talk • contribs) 02:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand you, and I suspect you are not understanding the text. The lie is that CrowdStrike is owned by a Ukrainian oligarch. That is not true. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly. But this is not mentioned/specified in next paragraph, unlike the other parts of the conspiracy theory. A reader would then easily believe that CrowdStrike actually IS owned by an Ukrainian oligarch - which is not true. Bjjobe (talk) 08:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , the fact of being publicly traded and headquartered in California inherently refutes the claim of ownership by any individual, Ukrainian or not. Guy (help!) 18:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm a native English speaker, and the content is not confusing to me, but it might be to others, so maybe we can try wording it a bit clearer. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Bjjobe, I have reworked that content for clarity. I hope that makes it easier to understand. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

You should be ashamed of yourselves
Did I really just click on a link with the text "discredited conspiracy theory" and come to this article, which purports to judge for us what all (all of them!!) the reliable sources are on a highly controversial subject involving secretive intelligence agencies, hacking, various accusations of abuse and corruption, cover-ups, and a highly partisan collusion delusion for which there is still no evidence?

Then a sentence later, I see references to "baseless accusations against Joe Biden [and] his son Hunter Biden" and the "right-wing Russia investigation origins counter-narrative," which the next sentence deems "fictitious alternative narratives" which are "harmful to America" and of which "the Kremlin is the prime mover"? Are you fucking kidding me?

First of all, nobody with any integrity can still refer to the criticism and investigation of Crossfire Hurricane as a "right-wing counter-narrative". Right now, honest people who love America and are paying attention to this are aghast at how the resources of the federal government can be weaponized by a corrupt establishment to try to sabotage a duly-elected president, abetted for three years by left-wing propaganda outlets that still pretend to practice honest journalism, and enabled by a rabid base of chronically aggrieved Trump haters who are willing to justify anything if it damages Trump or his associates.

Currently we are scratching our heads wondering why Clinesmith was allowed to downplay his intent in his guilty plea, which he was granted without having to testify against any of his co-conspirators. We know the wrongdoing went far beyond what made it into his allocution. But Barr, Trump, Lee Smith, and others have suggested that Clinesmith is just the tip of the iceberg, so stay tuned and we'll see how many successful prosecutions come from this "right-wing counter-narrative".

(As an aside, I know of only one publication which has been courageous, persistent, independent, and intelligent enough to not just follow this topic in depth, but to have the right story from the get-go, and most Democrats seem to think they're fake news. Thank God for the Epoch Times.)

But even if the narrative reflected in this article were true, the article is very obviously not written from a neutral point of view. It's written like a story with good guys and bad guys, and it purports to know which sources and statements are reliable and presents them prominently and favorably while others are called into doubt, often rather clumsily. For example, in the section on cabinet-level officials, Wray gets a fluff quote intended to portray him as beacon of common sense and integrity.

In contrast, we are told what a vague quote from Pompeo "appeared to say", which is followed by an awkward rebuttal of the words the author put in Pompeo's mouth. Let's try to stick to rebutting things people actually said. In this case, though, the 2017 Senate Intelligence Committee testimony cited is in no way incompatible with either what he "appeared to say" or the actual words he used in 2019.

Next we are told that Barr "claimed" the investigation was "completely baseless", but that's a lie. He actually said that the allegations of collusion "turn[ed] out to be completely baseless". The former makes him sound like a partisan hack, and the latter is true.

These are very small examples which I spotted at a first glance, but everywhere you look there are lies, distortions, editorializing, and loaded language totally inappropriate in an encyclopedia. Absolutely disgusting.

I see from the discussions below that we have at least one extreme TDS sufferer (and Rachel Maddow fan, embarrassing but unsurprising), hell-bent on committing their act of resistance "journalism", who cites left-wing sources with rapidly declining standards of journalistic integrity to make a left-wing argument in an encyclopedia with rapidly declining standards of neutrality. Then he pretends all of the sources are factual and neutral because they confirm one another and anyone who disagrees is a right-wing idiot or conspiracy nut. This is why America is a mess right now.

And as for Wikipedia? The bias, arrogance, and self-righteousness of the Trump-hating partisans who appear to be in control have turned it into a sinister perversion of its former self. Now it's just another rag for Democrat propaganda, as if we needed any more. These are truly worrying times.

You should be ashamed of yourselves.

-- 104.34.137.117 (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * As always, I strongly encourage those who believe an article is unfair to make edits to ameliorate that perceived unfairness. soibangla (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It's a fairly Herculean task, especially considering that this problem seems to have spread like wildfire throughout Wikipedia in recent years. I don't spend much time on here. But fair enough, I can try my hand at some edits. 104.34.137.117 (talk) 01:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)