Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10: 30 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.

The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Q: Why is this presented as a conspiracy theory when the New York Post and others say it is true?

A: The factual reliability of the New York Post has been discussed multiple times by editors, and there is a consensus that it is not a reliable source. The core components of the conspiracy theory have been known to be false since 2016.

Q: Didn't Joe Biden withhold US aid to get Ukrainian President Poroshenko to fire the Prosecutor General?

A: Viktor Shokin was widely regarded as corrupt. There were demands for his removal from within Ukraine as early as June 2015, before any international involvement. The US policy seeking his removal was bipartisan, and the US was joined by the European Union, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Shokin was removed after an overwhelming vote of the Ukrainian Parliament in March 2016. Extensive investigations showed no evidence of undue influence.

Q: But wasn't Shokin investigating Burisma?

A: No, the entire problem was that he was not investigating Burisma, or multiple other companies. The investigation of Burisma was on hold, and there is evidence that Shokin was pursuing investigations only when the companies refused to pay bribes.

Q: What about Hunter Biden's laptop?

A: The authenticity of the laptop has not been verified. The provenance of the laptop, its contents, and the circumstances of how the laptop came to public scrutiny is questionable. Repair shop owner Mac Isaac, a Trump supporter who passed the laptop to Giuliani and the FBI, was not able to identify Hunter Biden as the person who gave him the laptop. Mac Isaac’s accounts concerning the laptop have been inconsistent and sometimes contradictory. Hunter Biden is unsure whether the laptop is his, but said there could have been a laptop stolen from him, or that it could be that a laptop of his was hacked. No information purported to come from the laptop has implicated Joe Biden in any misconduct. The FBI acquired the devices via a grand jury subpoena in December of 2019, though it was unclear if the seizure related to an investigation of Hunter Biden. The law enforcement assumption is that the laptop is Biden's.

Q: Wasn't Hunter Biden unqualified for the Burisma job?

A: Hunter Biden had experience as a corporate lawyer, as executive vice president of a bank, and in government. He was hired to advise on corporate governance, although he did not have experience with Ukrainian regulatory affairs. It is not a stretch to assume he was hired in part due to his name, but this does not mean nepotism was involved – he was not hired by a family member.

Q: Didn't Hunter Biden have drug and alcohol problems?

A: This is well known and openly acknowledged - Joe Biden even discussed it in the first Presidential debate.

Q: Aren't you representing mainstream media as the truth, when conservative media says a different thing?

A: Editors measure the reliability of sources against a standard set of guidelines, including news organisations. A source's political orientation, liberal or conservative, is not a factor. Editors then aim to give due weight to sources that are known to be reliable, while avoiding giving undue weight to sources that are known to be less reliable (for more information, see WP:WEIGHT). Our policies do not state that extraordinary claims and fringe theories, such as the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, need to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity (see WP:VALID).

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

On 14 September 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Joe Biden–Viktor Shokin–Burisma conspiracy theory. The result of the discussion was not moved.

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

Ukraine Low‑importance

	Ukraine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative views Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Presidents / Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Presidents of the United States (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

International relations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Before requesting any edits to this protected article, please familiarise yourself with reliable sourcing requirements.

Before posting an edit request on this talk page, please read the reliable sourcing and original research policies. These policies require that information in Wikipedia articles be supported by citations from reliable independent sources, and disallow your personal views, observations, interpretations, analyses, or anecdotes from being used.

Only content verified by subject experts and other reliable sources may be included, and uncited material may be removed without notice. If your complaint is about an assertion made in the article, check first to see if your proposed change is supported by reliable sources. If it is not, it is highly unlikely that your request will be granted. Checking the archives for previous discussions may provide more information. Requests which do not provide citations from reliable sources, or rely on unreliable sources, may be subject to closure without any other response.

Biden Bragged on video

Joe Biden as vice president, bragged on video that he was withholding loan guarantees UNLESS the prosecutor, Shoken who was investigating corruption at Bursma, was fired. This is the same company where his son, Hunter was on the border of directors, while having no experience in energy. youtu.be /UXA--dj2-CY?si=e Mfih1NRCzfy1_Iz (Copy and remove spaces) 45.92.229.24 (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We've been over this for years. He was bragging about firing the prosecutor who WASN'T prosecuting Burisma. Which he did at the behest of Europe. Just read this. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's outrageous that Raskin can expound for pages on the extent of corruption throughout Ukraine that Shokin was supposedly covering up, while willfully ignoring the egregious corruption inherent in a Ukrainian company lining the pockets of Biden's son for a performance-theater job. Fx6893 (talk) 10:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Biden was brought in to a Ukrainian energy company for his legal experience. If it was nepotism that got him that job, I'm sure you're just as mad about Kushner and Ivanka's roles in the first Trump term, Lara Trump being co-chair of the RNC, and etc. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on if people were being fired for investigating years of corruption. Nothing to do with simplistic nepotism. 86.22.43.187 (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is misinformation and extremely naive. 158.47.225.233 (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No source on “confidential informant”

Having the confidential informant mentioned a few paragraphs in but no source will beg questions. If it’s accurate provide a source. Edit: see now it’s been discussed and going to happen

45.24.65.254 (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disingenuous Framing.

WP:OR, no WP:RS, and possible WP:BLP violations O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This framing as a right-wing "conspiracy theory" is selectively disingenuous, because it obscures the evolution of public knowledge and attempts to rewrite or sanitize how the issue was initially treated by media and political elites.

1. Media and Democratic Response in 2019–2020: Denial, Minimization, and Suppression.

Initial Reaction: When early reports surfaced about Hunter Biden’s role at Burisma, particularly during the Trump impeachment hearings, many mainstream media outlets and Democratic-aligned voices characterized the entire topic as:

A “right-wing smear campaign” A “Russian disinformation operation” A “debunked conspiracy theory”

These were not just denials of wrongdoing—they were denials that the basic facts (e.g., Hunter being on Burisma’s board) were even relevant or newsworthy.

Public Messaging:

For example:

In October 2020, dozens of former intel officials signed a public letter saying the Hunter Biden laptop story “has all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation”—a line amplified uncritically by numerous news outlets and political figures. This was later shown to be misleading: no evidence was ever provided that the story was “disinformation,” and core claims were later confirmed by outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post in 2022.

Media Complicity: Twitter and Facebook censored links to the original New York Post reporting. Reporters who questioned the consensus (e.g., Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi) were vilified or deplatformed in certain spheres.

So yes—there was a coordinated ecosystem of denial, some of which involved knowingly false claims (e.g., the story being "debunked" before any vetting had occurred).

2. Retrospective Narrative Enforcer You are simply reflecting the consensus of elite media institutions. As a result, the story is now confidently frameing the entire Hunter/Burisma story as a right wing "conspiracy theory" — without acknowledging that many of the “conspiracies” were simply facts inconvenient to one political side, and suppressed rather than disproven.

You are treating later confirmations (e.g., yes, Hunter was on the board; yes, he was paid exorbitantly; yes, he traded on his father’s name) as if they had always been acknowledged, when in fact they were actively hidden or denied at the time.

That retrospective cleanup is a form of narrative laundering—it repaints what happened to conform to current media positioning, even if it contradicts the record.

3. Where “Conspiracy Theory” Becomes Gaslighting.

Calling the entire Hunter/Burisma issue a “conspiracy theory” implies: That those raising concerns were irrational or malicious. That there was never a basis for suspicion. That all criticisms were based on falsehoods.

But in fact: The core facts were true. The appearance of corruption was legitimate. The cover-up of these facts by powerful institutions was real and arguably more damaging to public trust than the alleged “conspiracies” themselves.

Thus, this article is not just reframing — it is gaslighting in the sense that those who raised valid concerns were painted as cranks or liars, only for their concerns to later be quietly admitted as true.

This article collapses all layers of the controversy into a blanket dismissal; ignores the real-time suppression and denial of truth by legacy media and Democratic operatives; and, delegitimizes critical scrutiny by reframing justified skepticism as “disinformation.”

This type of framing erodes public trust, precisely because it refuses to admit when power has lied or misled—intentionally or otherwise. 158.47.225.233 (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]