Talk:Viktor Shokin/Archive 1

Coatrack for attacks on the Bidens
Some of the content mentioning the Bidens is coatracky, and it needs to be dealt with in its own subsection as part of the following conspiracy theories to cover-up the Trump administrations actions, the ones which triggered Trump's impeachment. The content should not be allowed to stand and give false impressions. That's just a smear of the Bidens. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Russia investigation origins counter-narrative
 * Conspiracy theories related to the Trump–Ukraine scandal
 * ✅ I have cleaned it up and added context. Dealing with the conspiracy theory angle is more involved, and it could itself turn out to be a coatrack issue better dealt with in other articles. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So in other words this article is not biased enough for the Bidens for you? It should say that Shokin was fired, within hours of Joe Biden threatening to withhold 1 billion in aid to Ukraine. That statement came straight from Biden's lips. It should further state: "This has lead to controversy that many Republicans and conservatives claim the firing was to benefit his son Hunter Biden, who was working for Burisma at that time." You can insert whatever democrat talking point refuting the claim after that but should only be one sentence to be fair. 32.221.50.150 (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As of August 4th 2023 we now know everything that was alleged about the Bidens is true. We now know that Viktor Shokin was fired because of Joe Biden withholding American taxpayer money at the request of Hunter Biden and Burisma Energy. As of August 4th 2023 Viktor Shokin page is completely inaccurate till updated. Jrh5605 (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * we now know everything that was alleged about the Bidens is true is not remotely close to correct soibangla (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Citation needed?
His appointment was controversial from the outset and he was widely considered to be a key obstacle in the fight against corruption, with accusations that he had blocked cases against allies and influential figures. He was dismissed in March 2016 after pressure from the United States, European Union and international financial institutions, as well as Ukrainian anti-corruption campaigners.

I’d personally like to see article’s claiming his appointment was controversial. I’d also like to see EU article’s, and articles from international financial institutions stating they were advocating for his dismissal.

Shouldn’t there be citations to corroborate this information? WhowinsIwins (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree. However, the article should not state that the allegations are "false" that Biden pressured for his firing to benefit Hunter Biden. It should instead say: "This has lead to controversy that many Republicans and conservatives claim the firing was to benefit his son Hunter Biden, who was working for Burisma at that time." 32.221.50.150 (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It is unbelievable the bias of this wikipedia article. This article is a strong example of the false agenda wikipedia is spreading.  This site cannot be considered a reliable source by any standard.  None of the recent proven findings are mentioned.  But yet it claims the Bidens are being smeared which is absolutely false! 2600:1700:FD1:7040:C3D:AADB:1DE4:52C0 (talk) 07:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have been asking the same question for years! And where is the press release prior to the trip claiming this is what was going to happen and where is the directive from the White House signed by the US president. No US president or vice president has ever forest, another government to fire their attorney general. 2601:44:0:E660:8928:BE8C:1536:CBF7 (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I would like to second the opinions above. It is getting very frustrating, reading repeatedly that the EU, IMF, and others external to the U.S. pushed for Shokin's ouster, but never a reference to documents supporting those claims. There are two references to this claim, located in the "Parliamentary investigations and removal from office" section, but one leads to a paywall and the other an opinion piece where the allegation against the Biden's is portrayed as Joe Biden protecting his son and quotes, of all people, Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt for support! The allegation was that his son was hired by Burisma to gain access to Joe Biden's clout to stop Shokin's investigation. The article does appear to be heavily biased and really needs to be balanced.

Sorry I don't know the correct way to add a comment here. Mechanique57 08-04-23. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mechanique57 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * did you see reference #27 which is summarized in note (b)?
 * soibangla (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing out reference #27 but, alas, I still see nothing beyond hearsay regarding Shokin's corruption. I do once again read of that "chorus" demanding Shokin's removal, statements he is a "compromised figure," etc. but, as usual, no supporting references, which is what I would really like to find. Without documents, transcripts, or at least multiple reasonably neutral agencies attributing statements to specific sources, it's all just noise. We still have no idea who this "chorus" actually is and only the statements of clearly biased individuals and agencies suggesting it exists. We know by the source of this document that it will be anything but neutral but, if we didn't, phrases like "Moscow’s aggression" would make that clear. I presume this is in reference to Russia's seizure of Crimea and probable military support in the Donbas but, as usual, entirely ignoring the illegal ouster of Yanukovych as a catalyst, never mind the U.S. involvement in that coup. Also, I have to say, the suggestion the U.S. would merely add its voice to a chorus, as opposed to conducting it, seems a bit far fetched, particulary where Russia is concerned. Mechanique57 (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The prosecutor general would be equivalent to a US Attorney General. The Attorney General does not announce what he is investigating, nor with any prosecutor in any federal government. How would anybody in just 13 months of being on the job know what the prosecutor general, who had been a prosecutor in that same office for many years, was working on? do you know what our Attorney General is investigating? This excuse falls flat on its face. 2601:44:0:E660:8928:BE8C:1536:CBF7 (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed
How about this article from a respected journalist and investigator? https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story Ridingdog (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Or how about An internal Fox News research briefing book obtained by The Daily Beast openly questions Fox News contributor John Solomon’s credibility, accusing him of playing an “indispensable role” in a Ukrainian “disinformation campaign.” soibangla (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Allegations that Shokin tried to bribe the oligarch....
were sourced to the friends of the oligarh. That is what is said in the actual source (NYT). I corrected it so people could judge if Shokin was corrupt based on the word of friends of a oligarch who stole billions from Ukraine, but....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Viktor_Shokin&diff=939069026&oldid=939029192

Bullrangifer just reverted it with no comment, no reason and reduced the accuracy of the article. Keeping it classy as usual wikipedia. 63.155.63.122 (talk) 02:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * On second thought, it is a BLP violation to change the meaning of the source in this way. I have reverted and warned Bullrangifer. 63.155.63.122 (talk) 02:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

"Failure to properly investigate Burisma Holdings" secton
This section is confusing. It seems to be claiming that Biden withheld $1 billion in loan guarantees because Shokin's investigation of Burisma was not vigorous enough.

However,
 * That claim is not supported by one of the sources cited in this section of the article, Biden Reportedly ‘Bragged’ About the Firing of a Prosecutor Who Was Investigating His Son’s Firm, which claims the opposite.
 * Not even Biden himself has made that claim (and if it were true, it would certainly be in his political interest to do so). RealisticPacifist (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. I removed that source as it (1) wasn't necessary, and (2) was based on a deprecated source by John Solomon, who is a key figure in the conspiracy theories created to smear the Bidens. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You didn't fix it, BullRangifer. You simply doubled down on the unlikely claim that Joe Biden withheld $1 billion in loan guarantees because Shokin's investigation of his son's employer, Burisma, was not vigorous enough.   If even Biden himself is not making such a claim, why should Wikipedia make it on his behalf?
 * Also: you are certainly not displaying a neutral point of view about Solomon.  He won the Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award, the Society of Professional Journalists' National Investigative Award, the Associated Press's Managing Editors Enterprise Reporting Award, the Gramling Journalism Achievement Award, and the White House Correspondents' Association's Raymond Clapper Memorial Award.  But BullRangifer has summarily dismissed him as a conspiracy theorist, so that should be the final say on the matter! RealisticPacifist (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Biden doesn't need to defend himself, the facts are clear:
 * Sadly, Solomon was long ago a reputable journalist who wandered off into the wilderness of conspiracy theorizing. It's peculiar how that happens to some people. soibangla (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't there be a link to facts concerning Hunter Biden being paid by Burisma with no expertise in the petroleum industry? 65.191.0.5 (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of mentions of Hunter Biden, but this article is not about him. Such information might be relevant at his article. There was nothing illegal or corrupt about him being on Burisma's BoD. Expertise in the field is not a requirement. Look at the BoD of any large corporation. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 20:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The article is also not about Trump yet his name is in it somehow. I see that you are incapable of seeing your own bias. The statement "This has lead to controversy that many Republicans and conservatives claim the firing was to benefit his son Hunter Biden, who was working for Burisma at that time." would tell the story in a very unbiased way and equally represent everyone which is what this platform should strive to do if it is to remain to be seen as a reliable and unbiased information source. 32.221.50.150 (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The article is also not about Trump yet his name is in it somehow. I see that you are incapable of seeing your own bias. The statement "This has lead to controversy that many Republicans and conservatives claim the firing was to benefit his son Hunter Biden, who was working for Burisma at that time." would tell the story in a very unbiased way and equally represent everyone which is what this platform should strive to do if it is to remain to be seen as a reliable and unbiased information source. 32.221.50.150 (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The following paragraph requires editing. In light of recent revelations (Grassley's release of 1023 form), Biden did indeed seek to thwart the investigation, it is no conspiracy theory.
Shokin's removal played a central role in the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory as it was falsely claimed that then U.S. Vice President Joe Biden sought to thwart an investigation into Burisma, a company tied to his son, Hunter Biden, but Obama administration officials, European diplomats, and anti-corruption advocates in Ukraine say Shokin was removed because he failed to pursue Ukrainian politicians for corruption, and that they intervened before Biden did. BrainiacOne (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Please provide a reliable source rather than what a guy claimed via a raw and uncorroborated FBI informant document. soibangla (talk) 06:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

This edit is false and should be reverted
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Viktor_Shokin&diff=prev&oldid=1167246708

soibangla (talk) 01:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2023
Change “Shokin's removal played a central role in the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory as it was falsely claimed that then U.S. Vice President Joe Biden sought to thwart an investigation into Burisma, a company tied to his son, Hunter Biden, but Obama administration officials, European diplomats, and anti-corruption advocates in Ukraine say Shokin was removed because he failed to pursue Ukrainian politicians for corruption, and that they intervened before Biden did.”

To:

“Shokin's removal played a central role in on-going investigations of corruption against then U.S. Vice President Joe Biden who allegedly sought to thwart an investigation into Burisma, a company tied to his son, Hunter Biden.”

Investigations are still ongoing.

References: https://oversight.house.gov/landing/biden-family-investigation/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12320527/amp/RELEASED-FBI-document-detailing-alleged-10M-Biden-bribery-scheme-publicized-Republicans-Burisma-CEO-Zlochevsky-called-Hunter-stupid-necessary-board-dad-Vice-President-Joe-Biden-protect-problems.html TheGreatGoogly (talk) 01:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:DAILYMAIL, that tabloid is not a reliable source, and should never be brought forward on Wikipedia. The link to the House Oversight Committee page contains zero evidence that Joe Biden engaged in any misconduct. Evidence free speculation does not belong on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 01:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)