Talk:Viktor Shokin

Opening summary should not use the word "falsely" in second paragraph.

Already discussed and resolved elsewhere The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

We don't know whether or not Joe Biden was motivated by his son's business dealings when he pushed for the ousting of Shokin. European diplomats and the Obama administration giving an official reason is not mutually exclusive with Joe Biden having his own personal reasons. There is no way of knowing whether the allegations of corruption are true or false since we can't know his motivations. That is why, normally in this situation, someone would declare their conflict of interest and recuse themselves instead of demanding that a prosecutor be fired. Naruto running (talk) 03:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

no, it's false. soibangla (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The facts are that Shokin was investigating a company that hired Hunter Biden for political clout. Joe Biden is known to have benefited from his son's overseas business dealings (10% for the big guy). This is a clear conflict of interest. In situations involving conflict of interest, it is impossible to know whether someone is acting impartially or for their own benefit (i.e. corruption). That is why it is standard practice to recuse oneself whenever a conflict of interest arises.

You cannot state something is false when it would literally require omniscience to know. We do not know that corruption claims are false because we do not know why Joe Biden sought to have Shokin fired. Only Joe Biden knows that. Naruto running (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

we do not know why Joe Biden sought to have Shokin fired in fact we do, because many reliable sources explicitly explain why. see reference #43 in particular. btw, 10% for the big guy was a proposal from some guy negotiating a deal with Hunter in China, it was rejected, the deal never happened, and Joe didn't get any 10%. soibangla (talk) 03:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Reputable sources cannot read people's minds. The fact that 10% for the big guy is even a thing shows that Joe Biden either benefits from or could potentially benefit from Hunter's business dealings which leads a conflict of interests.

Will you deny that Joe Biden pressuring a country to fire an anti-corruption prosecutor who was investigating a company which hired his son who had no relevant experience or expertise is a conflict of interest?

If not, then how can you, with 100% certainty, ascribe impartial motivation to Joe Biden when this clearly would have benefited him and his family?

Do you understand the concept of "conflict of interest" and why it is so important for elected officials to avoid? Or are we just talking in circles? Naruto running (talk) 03:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Shokin was actually not investigating Burisma and the entire Western world wanted him gone because he was seen as corrupt soibangla (talk) 04:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Really he wasn't investigating Burisma? Then why not just state that outright in the "Investigation into Burisma Holdings" section? You could make it a lot shorter if you did.

Again, it doesn't matter what the "Western World" or anyone else wanted. If Joe Biden stood to gain from getting Shokin fired, then that's a conflict of interest. End of story. A conflict of interest opens the door to allegations of corruption, misconduct, abuse of power etc... because you can't know the individual's motivations.

You can't say allegations of corruption are false when someone puts themselves in that position. That is why it is normally avoided. Naruto running (talk) 04:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Lots of people like to speculate if Joe had ulterior motives, but here we rely on reliable sources and there are many that explain very clearly why Shokin was sacked. The speculation has recently resumed due to efforts by Comer, Hannity and others, which naturally brings folks here to speculate. Reliable sources have not changed, and that's what we go with here. soibangla (talk) 05:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

It is also speculation to say that the claims against Joe Biden are unequivocally false. I am merely suggesting that you change "false" to "unproven" since that is the reality of the situation we're in right now. This is a question of intent and conflict of interests. "Reliable sources" cannot read minds. Naruto running (talk) 05:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

We go with what reliable sources say and they say false and that is the reality of the situation we're in right now soibangla (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Please explain to me how a reliable source (a completely arbitrary distinction btw) could possibly know what Joe Biden's intentions were when he sought to fire the prosecutor who was investigating the firm that hired his unqualified son? Naruto running (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Mr. Biden sternly lectured lawmakers to put aside their own self-interests and to transform this former Soviet republic into a model of democratic change ... Biden called for an overhaul of the office of prosecutor general. Hunter was not hired for energy expertise, he was hired for corporate governance expertise, as a Yale-trained lawyer and board-level consultant. Those sorts of guys make large money, it's a common path to wealth. That's all I got here. Nice speaking with you. soibangla (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

You haven't resolved anything. Hunter himself speculated that he could have been hired due to his last name, not his expertise. If you were going to hire someone for corporate governance, then why not hire a Ukrainian or someone who isn't a crack addict or someone who wouldn't present a massive conflict of interest?

It doesn't matter what Biden said or called for. Again, when there is a conflict of interest, it becomes a question of intent which is impossible to know. That is why it is standard practice for officials to recuse themselves in this situation. You keep citing "reputable" sources for something that is impossible to know. Please help me understand this.

How could these sources be omniscient to the point that they knew exactly what Biden's intent was when he called for the firing of the prosecutor that was investigating his son's employer?

If you cannot resolve my concern, then I will wait for someone with a working understanding of the terms "conflict of interest" and "intent". Good day. Naruto running (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

None of this is appropriate for wikipedia. Andre🚐 19:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not appropriate to state something is false which cannot proven either way. This article is currently claiming to know the reason Joe Biden sought to have Shokin fired. If he sought to have him fired to protect his son, the allegations would be true. If he sought to have him fired other reasons, then the allegations would be false. We don't know the reason so we can't say the allegations are false. There are "unproven" or "unsubstantiated". Naruto running (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. We state what reliable sources say. If the sources state it we will do the same. You are doing Wikipedia:Original research, which is forbidden here. Andre🚐 20:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

So using your brain to come to the conclusion that 1 + 1 = 2 is original research?

Stating that the allegations are false (as opposed to "unproven" as I have suggested) should automatically disqualify a source from being considered reliable because that is an obviously biased statement. You can't just say they are false when a conflict of interest exists and the validity of the allegations depend on intent which can't be proven either way. Naruto running (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Bias and reliability are separate on Wikipedia. A source may be biased, and it may be reliable. A source may also be unbiased and unreliable. Regardless, you should brush up on the basics of WP:RS policy before you wade in further on this discussion path. If someone calls something false, we do it too if the source is reliable. Andre🚐 20:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

How can a matter that hinges on the intent of a particular individual be declared false by a third party (i.e. reliable sources)? Naruto running (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

This has been exhaustively discussed at Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory#‎The allegations being "false" needs to be removed from the introduction. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2023

It should be added that US Assistant a Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, sent a letter to Shokin dated June 9, 2015 that “The ongoing reform of your office, law enforcement, and the judiciary will enable you to investigate and prosecute corruption and other crimes in an effective, fair, and transparent manner," Nuland added. "The United States fully supports your government's efforts to fight corruption."

I mention this because it is a relatively quick turn in the US position on Shokin during the latter half of 2015.

(Letter from FOIA request here: https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-01/F-2021-04113%20--%20FL-2021-00525%20December%202021%20Production.pdf ) 96.42.153.99 (talk) 02:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Not done. We base content on (1) reliable sources (RS), primarily (2) secondary, not primary, sources. This is not a RS (Justthenews and Solomon are both unreliable, and you shouldn't trust them), and it's a primary source, so we don't know what weight to give this information. Find reliable secondary sources that place this in context. When you have found such sources, then return with those sources and we can determine whether this should or should not be mentioned. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Victor Shorkin removed by Biden.

Biden has admitted that he was responsible for Shorkins dismissal. Subsequently his son Hunter was handsomely rewarded $$$$. 2600:1008:B0A9:6D0A:B0EB:B5C1:9D15:C8B3 (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

it's on video! smh soibangla (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)