Talk:Hunter Biden

Glenn Greenwald resignation from The Intercept over treatment of New York Post dossier by the media

Hi folks,

I think this is relevant to the debate about whether all claims of corruption or collusion with respect to the Biden family's activities in Ukraine are "debunked conspiracy theories". Greenwald is a respected investigative journalist and has resigned from the Intercept over the attempt of staff to censor this article.

I still think the vocabulary in the lede is NPOV, as many others seem to think. I don't think the opposite view has consensus at all. "Allegations" would be more neutral. Some of these allegations may be debunked, but not others. MonsieurD (talk) 13:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks very reliable, wow. Glucken123 (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

MonsieurD, s/censor/not print/ - because it was bullshit. See their response. Which is of course in line with every other mainstream RS, none of whom consider this "October surprise" to be credible. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

MonsieurD, Greenwald used to be a "respected investigative journalist", but in the last couple years he has deserted that position in favor of fever dreams about Trump's conspiracy theory that he is the victim of a "Russia hoax". This last firing for his extremely shoddy betrayal of all journalistic ethics should put a nail in the coffin of his previous reputation. The Greenwald we see today bears no resemblance to the man we once knew, and we can't trust his word or his work anymore, so he can't be a source anywhere but in his own biography, and then not in a self-serving manner, IOW, any of his statements about this must be balanced by the RS debunking of them. That's how we treat unreliable sources here. They do not get the last word in their own biography, and they often don't get any word elsewhere. Greenwald's due weight has been reduced to a negative number. Sad. -- Valjean (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@MonsieurD: See also: Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory#Glenn Greenwald Article on Hunter-Biden Emails. As I said there, A self-published post of an article that a reliable source refused to publish is not a reliable source.... If you want to use the article itself as a RS, we cannot—in fact, The Intercept has explicitly said that Greenwald balked after being "asked to support his claims and innuendo about corrupt actions by Joe Biden with evidence". GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I think this is clearly a case that justifies WP:IAR. It is quite disconcerting to read the responses that are discounting or discrediting, not just a Pulitzer winner, but the journalist who founded The intercept. Why are editors approaching this important event in such a non-neutral manner, and actually taking sides? Is it WP:POV creep? I don't see any justification to target, polarize and discredit two notable award-winning journalists; in fact, it's a BLP vio, and one that can be easily argued because there is credibility all the way around, including the rebuttal by The Intercept, the events published by Matt Taibbi about Glenn Greenwald. What Taibbi presented to the public is highly credible, and it's corroborated material, not some discredited grudge post on social media. I'm of the mind that this deserves our attention from a NPOV. Atsme 💬 📧 17:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Greenwald appears to be discrediting himself. Editorial oversight is not "censorship". What has Taibbi presented that is "credible" and "corroborated"? That's not snark, I haven't read his Substack or seen any news coverage of Taibbi's coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

We don't expect the accused to admit to wrongdoing. Whistle-blowers deserve respect, especially when it's the founder of the The Intercept, who is concerned that the principals upon which he founded that publication have been compromised. He is echoing what I've been saying for quite some time now - it's opinion journalism and propaganda - and those who believe the propaganda will argue in favor of it - it's expected. The beauty about WP is the fact that we have diversity, and our project has not become homogenized, at least, not yet. Opposing voices are still allowed to express their views. Atsme 💬 📧 18:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see Greenwald as a "whistleblower" in this situation. I don't see any media sources calling him a "whistleblower". We can include Greenwald's opinions on Wiki of course, but why here? It should be on his article, on The Intercept's article, and maybe others. But does Greenwald quitting The Intercept over this really important enough to Hunter Biden's bio to include here? At this point, I don't think so. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

It certainly doesn’t rise to the ludicrous level of IAR. soibangla (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agree. It belongs at Glenn Greenwald and The Intercept, but unless his claims are verified by some reliable sources (rather than discredited by one RS, which is currently where we're at), it doesn't make sense to mention them here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) No, it is not a case that justifies throwing out our reliable sourcing policy. Greenwald was once a credible journalist; many reliable sources (NYT, The Hill, etc.) have described his drifting over the past few years towards making appearances on self-admitted non-credible right-wing talk shows and uncritically repeating Trump talking points. If reliable sources with editorial oversight find any credibility in his accusations, then we can consider repeating them; for now, reliable sources have commented on Greenwald's accusations but have not been able to back them up. There is no way we should IAR and publish what could be a journalist "throwing a tantrum" over being asked to back up his accusations and insinuations rather than a revelation of some vast media conspiracy. Let's not forget that Betsy Reed and Jeremy Scahill are accomplished journalists also. I don't disagree with you that whistleblowers deserve respect, but this is not about respect, it is about not publishing unverified allegations by a journalist who seems to be doing everything he can to ruin his own credibility. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I have seen no RS describing Greenwald himself as a "whistleblower", only false positives in stories that mention his role in the Edward Snowden story (e.g., here). Nor, personally, do I find it likely that they would: he quit his job after a difference of opinion, "exposing" no violations of the law. XOR'easter (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't personally see Greenwald as a whistleblower either, I was mostly responding to Atsme's general point. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Greenwald declining to abide by the journalistic standards of the Intercept and thus stepping down is of no relevance to a bio of Hunter Biden. ValarianB (talk) 19:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I concur with Atsme above regarding WP:IAR. WP editors here need to temporarily set aside the lawyering and just take the time to read this Pulitzer prize winner's self published posts on the subject. He is actually performing journalistic quality control, which is fundamental to the concept of a RS. He is functioning as a de facto editor for wayward editorial teams. In Greenwald's judgment, the Democrat-favoring media outlets have gone beyond the pale in refusing to talk about (at this point proven, and cryptographically authenticated) facts that are notable and relevant to the election. This is an exceptional situation, and the reasons why it is exceptional are tangible and capable of being articulated clearly. Wikipedia must not choose the side of partisan censors turning away from proven, notable, attention worthy facts. Wookian (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

IAR is for improving an article. Adding Greenwald's opinions to this article is not an improvement. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting adding Greenwald's opinions. I'm saying Greenwald articulates the case for putting certain established facts in the public view that have emerged from the laptop and Bobulinski, rather than falsely claiming these well established facts are somehow fringe or Russian disinformation. The facts I'm referring to are the evidence in the emails and Bobulinski's testimony that seem to contradict Joe Biden's official statements. When Greenwald calls censorship of these journalistic malpractice, that needs to be taken seriously in our conversation here about RS's. To put it bluntly, what if all the usual preferred left leaning RS's around here are united in practicing journalistic malpractice? Why should Wikipedia follow them when we have RS's that in this case are better because they're not committing journalistic malpractice? To put it bluntly another way, nobody here should be repeating the thoroughly debunked assertion that the laptop constitutes Russian disinformation. Even though some RS's assert that, contextually the proper response at this point is to laugh and choose different RS's for that question. WP editors are perfectly capable of exercising appropriate discernment to that end, the only question is whether they are willing to do so. Wookian (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

When Greenwald calls censorship of these journalistic malpractice, that needs to be taken seriously in our conversation here about RS's. Why? It's an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, and Greenwald's personal opinion on that (when not published by a WP:RS with a reputation for high-quality fact-checking and accuracy) isn't nearly enough to justify giving that opinion such seismic weight. We could, at best, briefly mention Greenwald's opinion on an appropriate article, in an appropriate section, with it properly attributed to him, but even then we would have to be cautious with how we handle it to avoid giving it WP:UNDUE weight. If anything, the fact that he was unable to get his opinions published by the Intercept is even more reason to treat them cautiously, since the Intercept itself is both high-quality and famous for its willingness to publish things that challenge the mainstream consensus when it can properly verify them. --Aquillion (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Wookian, what "established facts"? Reporting from the Wall Street Journal (hardly left-leaning) skewers the idea that there are any "facts" here, just innuendo and guilt-by-association from a right wing fever swamp that at the same time is not reporting Trump's own financial entanglements with CVhina, his massive personal foreign debts, nepotism and all the rest. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG, there seems to be a consensus here that the laptop is Russian disinformation (even though that theory has been officially debunked and there is literally zero evidence of it). To present facts that counter that narrative is allegedly to push a fringe conspiracy theory and violate BLP (even though the Russian theory directly or indirectly implies that Tony Bobulinski is a Russian agent again with literally zero evidence, which seems like a huge BLP violation; but what do I know). At any rate, perhaps we can pick up the discussion after the election, since that also seems to be making some editors unwilling to touch this. I think many of the relevant facts can be pieced together for the article's purposes through the reporting of the NYT. Anyhow, much like Atsme below, I'm not seeing a consensus for the added materials I'd like to see, so I'm stepping away for the moment. Wookian (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems Wookian has left the building but I'd point out that for anyone in close contact with what they described as Rudy Giuliani is a very strong source here as a commentator and secondary source analyzing the emails and texts could easily be a conduit for a Russian military disinformation campaign without themselves being a Russian agent, given that even White House staff was told to stay away from Giuliani. (Note that according to that source both John Bolton and his successor Robert C. O'Brien told their staffs to stay awy from Giuliani.) --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 01:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• Except that the vast majority of mainstream reliable sources are treating Greenwald's version of events skeptically - they're not treating him has a "de-facto editor" but as a disgruntled contributor whose piece failed verification when it made sweeping accusations without evidence to back them. That fact isn't "lawyering", it's central to determining how we handle and represent sources. The same is true for most of the other stuff you offer as justification - that's simply not verified by WP:RSes the way you say it is. Greenwald himself (and the sources you're, I assume, relying on for your framing of events) are not reliable sources for something this WP:EXCEPTIONAL, so your argument that we should WP:IAR amounts to saying that we should just trust unreliable sources over reliable ones. --Aquillion (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Wookian, if you truly believe that there's a case to be made that we should make sourcing decisions based on the possibility that "all the usual preferred left leaning RS's around here are united in practicing journalistic malpractice", you're going to need a hell of an RfC, not a singular conversation on one article's talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I also think Aquillion has it right here. XOR'easter (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Aquillion has succinctly hit the nail on the head with this comment, and likewise, JzG and GorillaWarfare are absolutely correct regarding both their characterization of Greenwald and that this certainly doesn't warrant IAR. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised to see the amount of tilting at windmills here by established editors. There's no reason to continually call into question our reliable sourcing policies (and said sources which it supports). It's a bit tiresome. Similarly, the suggestion that we dispense with our usual policies for the sake of such an exceptional (and fringe) claim made by a generally discredited source is prima facie ridiculous. Rather than such things being repeatedly regurgitated here, I suggest that those editors take these sorts of grievances (and/or that suggestion) to the appropriate noticeboards or policy pages, as is the standard practice. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually, this begs a question that probably should be addressed, and I wouldn't mind hearing what other editors think: Given the amount of conspiracy mongering on the BLP (and related articles), should FRINGE discretionary sanctions be applied here? I know that our general BLP policies and the AP DS notices might be sufficient in most cases for keeping such claims out of the article (aside from describing such ideas as conspiracy theories), but perhaps it might be useful for the sake of dealing with potential disruption by SPAs. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Symmachus Auxiliarus, good question, and one which might justly be addressed to WP:AN Guy (help! - typo?) 00:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Not sure I understand what FRINGE DS would authorize that APDS and BLPDS wouldn't. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: indeed, and I defer to your experience and judgement here. But from what I've seen, it would at least expedite the removal, hatting, and/or archiving of forum-y comments, or edit requests that suggest we insert fringe claims without adequate reliable sourcing. Not that people aren't already doing this to some limited extent, but it would at least make these sorts of "brush offs" essentially non-controversial. A brief reply as to why it's not being done (or why it won't be discussed [again]), and then hatting citing DS. It's only a lay editor's observation, but it seems that applying FRINGE DS appears to make such housekeeping a bit easier. At least, from what I've seen on other talk pages, it usually helps keep conversation more focused on improving the article, and helps to avoid long exchanges and policy discussions that aren't really suited to article talk pages. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't often find myself in articles prone to WP:FRINGE all that often, so my experience may well be lacking on that point. No objections to an AN discussion if others think it'd be useful, was mostly asking for my own curiosity. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

those editors take these sorts of grievances (and/or that suggestion) to the appropriate noticeboards or policy pages which at least one editor has done for perhaps years, to no avail, and for good reason, and so persists doing it on article Talk pages. It's a bit tiresome is a huge understatement. And now the call for IAR, "going nuclear" in the days before an election, is just over the top and shows that action should be taken to put an end to it. soibangla (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, no, that would be a very silly thing to do. Greenwald failed to persuade the editorial board of the merit of his argument to such an extent that not only did they refuse to publish it, but they rebutted his flounce at some length. We absolutely should not include a self-published source that was explicitly rejected by the journal the author worked for, especially when the reasons for rejection were as stated by The Intercept. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Pssst...Guy - I'm not commenting here anymore. I've got more pressing matters. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 00:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Some editors, who articulated the opposing view regarding the inclusion of 'debunked conspiracy theories', are choosing to step away from the article, as is their right to do so. Their view on the wording as it stands is held by a not-insignificant number of editors, evidenced by comments made here and the number of good faith edit requests received at this talk page that questioned the wording, prior to this page's unfortunate lock-down. My question: Can a small number of highly active editors in agreement on a locked talk page, pass the threshold for consensus? RandomGnome (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest the answer is yes when the argument is based on policies and the vast quantity of reliable sources. Any other language so far suggested is clearly intended to lend credence to accusations nobody has backed up in RS. See argument about Greenwald above as yet another example of "look at how this previously reliable source refuses to conform to the editorial standards they themselves previously held." Any argument in support of Greenwalds opinion is a knife to the concept of RS and a promotion of WP:FRINGE in his profession otherwise only supported by explicitly deprecated and unreliable sources. The argument seemingly being "maybe this time they are not wrong?" Which would be fine for an RFC at Reliable Sources noticeboard anyone is free to take up. Koncorde (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Greenwald's leaving was called by all a resignation, but it looks to me like he was pushed out for failing to meet (and wanting to push contrary) editorial standards. It was a courtesy all around that it was handled like a resignation, but that he is not free to publish anywhere else was, to me, telling. Also, if it met standards, I think he would have a case to force publication (because he was a member of the organization where there was an agreement about what would be published). The better conclusion is that it was not published because it was bunk.76.91.245.105 (talk) 09:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Undue weight in lead

Half of the lead is just talking about the conspiracy theories; this is completely undue for the lead. BLPs should not introduce people by listing conspiracy theories about them.  Nixinova   T   C   22:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

He doesn't have any notability otherwise. Koncorde (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Not strictly true; this article dates back to 2008, long before all the conspiracy-theory stuff. Here is what it looked like in 2018, before his father became likely to win the Democratic nomination and before Trump started spreading conspiracy theories about him. We might consider beginning to pare some of the more breathless election-specific things back down towards that, since in retrospect it doesn't seem to have amounted to much. --Aquillion (talk) 13:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The article may have existed, but what was possibly notable about Joe Biden, the Vice Presidents, son. Wait, I have an idea... Koncorde (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Koncorde: What was possibly notable about Tiffany Trump whose article started when she was a 12 year old girl? That’s the problem with this website. Trillfendi (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

That's one problem with this site, rather than the sum of all problems. But it also has to be said that one is even more egregious. It looks like it got PROD a few times too. Koncorde (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The problem on here™ generally is the belief that everybody deserves an article especially if their parent is famous or even if their child is the one who becomes famous despite no independent notability preceding that. It’s like termites. Trillfendi (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

In reply to Aquillion's point about paring back, I wouldn't object in principle to that, particularly since we have Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory to put material in. XOR'easter (talk) 06:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

References to White House and the Like

Since Joe Biden will be President, references to the White House and administration maybe should always be clarified to whose to prevent confusion. That is, for example, "the Trump White House" or "Trump Administration," never just White House or Administration76.91.245.105 (talk) 09:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Provide Content That Article Currently Disparages

Our article currently states, "When Johnson released the final report on the investigation, it contained no evidence that Joe Biden had pushed for Shokin's removal in order to benefit Hunter or Burisma.[65][66]"

So that readers can make their own assessment of the report without sole reliance on the negative commentary we are providing from the New York Times and the Washington Post, please add a <ref> after "final report on the investigation" to give readers access to the 9/23/2020 U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and U.S. Senate Committee on Finance Majority Staff Report titled "Hunter Biden, Burisma, and Corruption: The Impact on U.S. Government Policy and Related Concerns." The link to the report: https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/HSGAC%20-%20Finance%20Joint%20Report%202020.09.23.pdf

Thank you in advance for support of NPOV. Canhelp (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:SECONDARY, this doesn't seem necessary. XOR'easter (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

XOR'easter, I just visited your user page, and it's clear you are the elephant and I am the ant in terms of our contributions to Wikipedia over the years. Even so, I think this Hunter Biden situation poses a significant test to Wikipedia's commitment to NPOV. The paragraph containing the sentence I quoted uses as its secondary sources Politico, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and CNN. I have not interpreted WP:SECONDARY as a mechanism to exclude (suppress?) the Senators' report, which itself is a secondary source.Canhelp (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

No, the Senate report is a primary source. XOR'easter (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't a Senate report. It was a Senate "Majority Staff" report." I'm probably defeated here by a more powerful editor, but I encourage anyone interested in this topic to click on the link in the first post of this section and read the report. Canhelp (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Canhelp, this is not a 'more powerful editor' issue. It's completely an issue of policy. —valereee (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

If we don't enforce policies uniformly, we risk deviating from NPOV. Our article on Rudy Giuliani contains six citations to a 2019 House Intelligence Committee (Democrat) report, and the cited reference (#323, currently) offers up the 298-page report in its entirety -- https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/the_trump-ukraine_impeachment_inquiry_report.pdf Canhelp (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I see there is a Wikipedia:Competence is required reading-comprehension issue, as that is not a "Democrat" report, but instead is signed onto by all members of the House Intelligence Committee, Republican and Democrat alike. It is a report of the actual House Intelligence Committee - as opposed to what you linked previously, which is partisan rant created only by the staff of one particular party, attempting to trade on the name of a committee under false pretenses. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

The only signature I am seeing on the House Intelligence Committee report is the signature of Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (Democrat). My understanding of developments on this Talk topic thus far is that WP:SECONDARY is the reason not to honor my request for a reference link to a report we currently disparage in the Hunter Biden article "[s]o that readers can make their own assessment of the report without sole reliance on the negative commentary we are providing...." I gave the Giuliani example as evidence that this policy is not universally applied. Canhelp (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Again you seem to have a Wikipedia:Competence is required issue in this regard. The staff and committee members involved in this report are listed on pages 1-5. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

By Senate Majority Staff, you mean Republicans. The same people who currently treat the election result the way wizards treat the name of Lord Voldemort in the Harry Potter books.

I would like the prior unsigned comment ("By Senate Majority Staff, you mean Republicans. The same people who currently treat the election result the way wizards treat the name of Lord Voldemort in the Harry Potter books.") be removed on the basis of WP:NOTAFORUM. It is opaque and disparaging. I reviewed the edit history for the page, and see that it was added by IP User 82.20.240.157 at 03:45, 17 November 2020 (four edits total history). Thank you for considering my request.--FeralOink (talk) 10:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)