Talk:Conspiracy theories related to the Trump–Ukraine scandal

Splitting Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to Split Elijahandskip (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

---

<Start of discussion>

I propose that section Biden-Ukraine Conspiracy Theory be split into a separate page called Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. The content of the current page seems off-topic as the article is mainly Trump-Ukraine scandal. Also newly uncovered emails by the NY Post bring it back into the light. Might be good for an article just for it. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Support. Aviartm (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

If no one opposes within a few hours, I will begin the split. Enough new light has been brought to it that it needs its own article. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose: I may support if Rudy and/or his associates are indicted for their activities in this matter. soibangla (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC) I vehemently object to this cram down without consensus. soibangla (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Also just stating for the record that soibangla undid the revisions which said "DO NOT MODIFY". The vote went on for 24 hours and this topic has been in the news the entire time. If other editors wanted to vote, they should have in that time period. Also for the record, the new article Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory was created and worked on by multiple editors BEFORE the "DO NOT MODIFY" was removed. Due to all that, I am re-locking this discussion. If anyone wants to discuss it more, we can start a new section. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

You are making a major decision without consensus. soibangla (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

<End of discussion>

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For the record, all of Soibangla's edits have been after a "DO NOT MODIFY" was added. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Two people over a period of a few hours is not a "consensus". There was no urgency to this discussion. This was the wrong decision to make. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

24 hours without opposition seems reasonable to me. Lev!vich 01:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Not everyone is on the same schedule. 36 hours minimum. Gotta wonder if there would have been such haste if today was November 4th. soibangla (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

NY Post is unreliable source

Fox News is now deprecated for political news, per

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

Elijahandskip, please revert your edit. soibangla (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Elijahandskip, Simply removing the reference is inadequate. The content based on the reference must be removed as well. soibangla (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and do it COMPLETELY. -- Valjean (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Valjean and Soibangla - you know full well that Fox News is not deprecated for political news - it was a no consensus decision. Furthermore, WP:RS/P is merely a supplement, not policy, not a guideline and it is not vetted by the wider community. Atsme 💬 📧 03:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Valjean and Soibangla I am not going to remove it completely as I am replacing the "unreliable" sources with reliable sources. (Yes, I am checking that list and making sure they have a green checkmark). Elijahandskip (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Fox is not deprecated for political news. Fox is a use with care with respect to political news. Given the nature of these claims this would be a case where caution should be taken. The supporting sources are generally unreliable per WP:RSP. As such, this content is not sufficiently sourced. Additionally, even if it was, simply stating a meeting occurred begs the question, "why should the reader care?" This seems to imply a conspiratorial activity occurred but doesn't say it. Absent some clear statement of why this matters to the overall wikipedia article it should be removed even if Fox wasn't "use with care" with respect to politics. The Daily Mail and NY Post are not considered reliable and should not be used to imply/support conspiratorial claims against people. Springee (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Springee that is why I added 2 reliable sources to "back up" the Fox News. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

My concern regarding "so what" still applies. This isn't meant to be a tabloid and we are talking about BLP subjects. This seems to be implying something dirty was going down. If we can't say what with reliable sourcing then pull it. If you put content into the article that obviously leads the reader to a negative inference that isn't supported by RSs then it needs to go. Look at it another way, why should the reader care that this meeting occurred (taking it as a fact that it occurred)? Springee (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Elijahandskip is using reliable sources to confirm that NY Post reported this, not to confirm the report itself. This has the effect of verifying the report in Wikipedia voice. As no other reliable sources are yet confirming what NY Post reported, the reporting is extraordinary, from an unreliable source, and UNDUE. The content should be removed unless it can be confirmed by reliable sources. soibangla (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with the contention that NY Post is an unreliable source. The source of the article is the hard drive on Hunter Biden’s computer. The NY Post simply used these emails as the actual source of the story. Is there an indication from reporting that the emails and source materials for the subject NY Post story have been deemed unreliable? Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

NY Post is unreliable per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources and there is no corroboration it's even Biden's laptop, or his emails, or if they're even emails at all. They are images. It would take me ten minutes to fabricate convincing-looking emails in Photoshop. soibangla (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The corroboration comes from the repairman who kept the laptop after it was abandoned, and additional emails have been made available. The emails were further corroborated by one of the recipients as genuine. Moreover, I see nowhere in the discussion you direct me to that a consensus has been reached regarding the NY Post as an unreliable source. Stating that the emails “could” have been invented is as unfounded as stating an anonymous and untrustworthy source existed for the Nixon story and subsequent impeachment. Do you have any evidence in any way that displays the NY Post invented or created these emails and text messages? Otherwise, I can simply not agree with your points. It would serve as a total block to posting any Wiki article on this site if news outlets’ sources were placed under such a test for sourcing.Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The emails were further corroborated by one of the recipients as genuine asserts Fox News, citing an unnamed source. There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable. A tabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication. soibangla (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

And it appears that Fox News passed on the story because of credibility concerns. The emails may be genuine in that they may have been acquired when Burisma was hacked in January. The laptops may not be genuine. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Yachtsman1, the Trump-voting repair man who can't swear to identify Hunter Biden whose shop is in Delaware when Hunter Biden lives in California? That repair man? The one who kept contradicting himself when the news media started asking questions? Guy (help! - typo?) 23:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The visually impaired repair man who wouldn't be able to identify Hunter Biden and only identified the laptop as his because it had a sticker from Beau Biden's organization pasted on it. An organization that I assume is based in Delaware, where Beau Biden lived and worked and where the repair shop is. Unlike Hunter Biden who lives in California and would have taken a broken laptop to a repair store maybe a bit closer to where he lived.

Plus, I lived 20 years in a NYC suburb and we all knew the Post was a tabloid. But Wikipedia acknowledges this as well. In fact, the author of the Post laptop story refused to have his name associated with the article so they used the byline of another reporter who had nothing to do with the article at all. It all pretty much stinks of unreliability. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Why no reference to Politico article?

I’m a little surprised to see this is not at all mentioned in the context of this page. This article was written back in 2017 so it’s something of an open secret as this point that there was a connection between Ukrainian officials and the DNC. Is it truly a conspiracy ‘theory’ when you have an article documenting those efforts? https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Where in that Politico article do you draw the conclusion that there was a connection between Ukrainian officials and the DNC? Where does that come from? It sure couldn't be the line Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump because that is quite not what you said. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Anyway that "Ukrainian-American operative" was Alexandra Chalupa, who I just discovered has a wiki article. There's plenty of info there. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I had not seen the Chalupa article and my only question was why there was no mention of the Politico story here. It does relate to this page, does it not? I wasn’t intending to edit the page as much as ask the question as to why it had not been referenced in the context of the entry. I will check out the Chalupa article however, my only interest was whether or not pertinent information had been omitted. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 02:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

meh

This does not feel like a serious wiki Page. So is wikipedia doing "counter narrative" pages? 2A02:8109:86C0:51FC:1078:27CC:FA71:3D74 (talk) 11:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

This is a very serious page. Read the sources.

When RS justify documenting counternarratives, we do so. See Russia investigation origins counter-narrative where we document Trump's false conspiracy theory/counternarrative. The Steele dossier was not the trigger for the Russian interference investigation. It was actions by Trump's own campaign that raised suspicions, so Trump invented a lie about the origins of the investigations.

See also Links between Trump associates and Russian officials for lots of evidence of the collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians, often known intelligence agents. They were planning this from early on. The first proof that Russians knew of Trump's plans, long before he announced his candidacy to Americans, is this tweet: https://twitter.com/alferovayulyae/status/426103699572678656?lang=en See that date? 2014! Russian intelligence was already active in 2014 in many ways, preparing the way for Trump's election win, and Trump and his campaign knew it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Valjean, no reliable sources seem to have attached any significance to that tweet, which I would hardly call "proof" of anything, especially considering that Trump's presidential ambitions had been reported on since 2011. (In fact, as someone well-versed on this topic I have never seen that obscure tweet referenced by anyone other than yourself on Wikipedia.) For the record, Mueller did not in fact allege Russian support for Trump's candidacy prior to 2016. You are, of course, free to indulge in personal theories, informed speculation, and the like on talk pages, but I should emphasize that original research is strictly prohibited in article space—and if we cannot use that tweet in article space, is it really a good use of our time to talk about it here?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging, that is not true. RS and the Mueller report have mentioned her and the email. The Mueller Report mentions that email in Footnote 2510: "Klyushin and Klyushina, along with Klyushin's associate Konstantin Rykov, were active regarding the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. 2510" The Footnote cites the tweet as part of the evidence:

"Tweet, @AlferovaYulyaE, January 22, 2014. On January 22, 2014, Klyushina wrote on social media that, "I'm sure @realDonald Trump will be great president! We'll support you from Russia! America needs an[] ambitious leader!"; On January 28, 2015, Klyushina announced on Twitter that Trump would be running for President of the United States. Tweet, @AlferovaYulyaE, January 28, 2015. The Committee has no insight into the nature of Klushina's knowledge of these matters or what prompted these statements." (then blacked out)

So Mueller directly cites the tweet as evidence of Russian foreknowledge and promise of help to the 2016 campaign 18 months before he told anyone in the U.S.A.. Yulya Alferova, a real beauty, was then named Klyushina, like Artem Klyushin, her ex-husband. He is an interesting character who is likely Russian intelligence (Mueller: "the Committee has significant concerns regarding Klyushin."). I have studied their tweets and he follows me(!) on Twitter. Artem Klyushin is a Russian billionaire who also follows this guy and claims he put Trump in the White House: "Without my intervention, Trump would not have won."[1] (Note that I am not claiming that Medium is a RS, but it contains some interesting stuff. Artem is also alleged to be the one who offered the five prostitutes to Trump.[2]

She worked for Emin Agalarov and spent a lot of time with Trump during the 2013 Miss Universe pageant (she helped organize the pageant), and this is described in the Mueller Report. (Search for Alferova and Klyushina). After the Miss Universe contest, in 2014, Russian intelligence and the Trump campaign started secretive contacts all over Europe. (See Links between Trump associates and Russian officials#2015-2016 foreign surveillance) Several allied intelligence agencies noticed and were concerned enough to let the CIA and FBI know.

The Russian hacking and social media efforts also started in early 2014. They had a potential candidate they knew would benefit Russian interests in general, and specifically Russian activities against America, and who would cooperate with them, and they started working toward the end of installing him in the White House. History shows he performed as they expected and desired.Trump handed Putin a stunning victory. After the election, Russians went wild and very publicly said they had elected Trump. They knew what Trump tried to deny.

RS that mention her tweet: [3][4][5]. See also this opinion article and a Daily Kos (not RS) article. So it hasn't gotten lots of attention, but that is not a requirement for short mention at Wikipedia. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

You should know that Wikpedia does not consider Daily Kos a reliable source - WP:DAILYKOS and an opinion article wouldn’t be considered reliable either. Further, the filing by John Durham recently [6] sheds additional light on the matter "CIA found data alleging Trump-Russia connection not 'technically plausible,' was 'user created'" 71.190.233.44 (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

That's what I said about DK. Read more carefully. I also provided three RS that can be used here, plus an opinion piece that could be used with attribution if necessary. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Update following Durham Report and Biden Family Bank Records

Surprising that this article hasn’t been updated to reflect the revelations of the Durham Report and the evidence of the millions that Hunter, Joe, and the rest of the Bidens received from Burisma in exchange for then VP Joe Biden leveraging a Billion dollars of (US taxpayer) to get the Ukrainian government to fire the prosecutor investigating Burisma. What exactly do you call “conspiracy theories” that turn out to be true? 132.147.145.127 (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Please show us where the Durham Report presented any evidence of that sort. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The Durham Report documented that the Trump Dossier and Trump-Russia conspiracy theory (debunked by the Mueller investigation) were fabricated by former British Intelligence officer Christopher Steele through Fusion GPS financed by and for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. Knowing it was fabricated and unverified, a number of top FBI Officials used it as the pretense to get the FISA Court to approve covert surveillance of several Trump campaign individuals. This warrant was renewed several times by FBI leaders knowing it was false.

The Biden financial records along with other evidence including email and phone communication as well as witness testimony has emerged (and been released in several reports) over the past 6 months by the House Oversight Committee investigation. It’s understandable if you’ve never heard about any of this if your news sources are CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, the NYT, etc. They just don’t report it. Here’s just one of the committee’s press releases. Maybe you’ll dig a little deeper and do some research on your own. Maybe you’ll just deny it and stick your head back in the sand. Your choice.

Regards 132.147.145.127 (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

BS. Stop repeating conspiracy theories here. The news sources you mention are RS. They report the facts your sources ignore. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)