3 ms·

> Do you have a reliable source you can cite to back up your claims? For my first claim: The "smoking gun email" and its DKIM signature are publicly available,

> Do you have a reliable source you can cite to back up your claims? For my first claim: The "smoking gun email" and its DKIM signature are publicly available, and can be verified regardless of their original sources. I can guide you through the process if you wish. For my second claim: The fact that a PDF compilation of emails is not an original email file: http://www.pscs.co.uk/manual/email-file-types.html http://www.pscs.co.uk/manual/email-file-types.html For my third claim: Given Wikpedia's claim is already contradicted (or at the very least, not supported) by their cited article, I don't see why it's included in the first place. As far as I can tell it's just been made up by some editor. The original NYP article includes: https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/10/ComputerRepair-Invoice-Hunter-Biden-2.jpg https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/10/Comput... For my fourth claim: Again I feel it's a matter of the original source not supporting the claims made. I have no source for, and can't claim with certainty, that Mac Isaac has never said anything contradictory in any interviews (since that's akin to proving a negative) but I can point out that the original source presents no inconsistencies. > Wikipedia is the article anyone can edit, and, yes, they will embrace any point of view which comes from a reliable source. My IP range (and VPNs) are blocked, and the article is protected. If you have an existing account that meets the requirements then I'd appreciate if you could correct the article, at least on the matter of the third claim.

strenholme 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspiracy_theory/Archive_3#DKIM_email_verification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_con... The DKIM issue has been brought up, and there are legitimate reasons why that assertion is not included in the Wikipedia. Edit: If the Wikipedia article is making an assertion not backed up by the reliable source it cites, this is something which needs to be corrected. I don’t have time to look at it right now, but maybe I’ll have some time tonight to look at it and bring up the potential issue as needed.
- treesprite82 6y ago
  > The DKIM issue has been brought up, and there are legitimate reasons why that assertion is not included in the Wikipedia. Not even mentioning DKIM because of the unsupported possibility that Google's private key could be compromised (by hacker or rogue employee) is a weak excuse when opposing claims ("the shop had no contact information for its owner") just seem to be pulled out of thin air. Even if they don't want to state that it's verified (again I think the email has met a far higher standard than opposing claims already being stated definitively), at least a mention of the DKIM verification and its limitations (like how it doesn't say anything about context) is surely warranted. Also my main claim is that Wikipedia is wrong/misleading here. Something false being included in the article is still false even if they have policy reasons (like RS requirements) for doing so. I'd say that claim three does already violate their policy, but I'm not defending their policy as a perfect diviner of truth.

strenholme 6y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_conspiracy_theory/Archive_3#DKIM_email_verification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Biden%E2%80%93Ukraine_con... The DKIM issue has been brought up, and there are legitimate reasons why that assertion is not included in the Wikipedia. Edit: If the Wikipedia article is making an assertion not backed up by the reliable source it cites, this is something which needs to be corrected. I don’t have time to look at it right now, but maybe I’ll have some time tonight to look at it and bring up the potential issue as needed.

treesprite82 6y ago
> The DKIM issue has been brought up, and there are legitimate reasons why that assertion is not included in the Wikipedia. Not even mentioning DKIM because of the unsupported possibility that Google's private key could be compromised (by hacker or rogue employee) is a weak excuse when opposing claims ("the shop had no contact information for its owner") just seem to be pulled out of thin air. Even if they don't want to state that it's verified (again I think the email has met a far higher standard than opposing claims already being stated definitively), at least a mention of the DKIM verification and its limitations (like how it doesn't say anything about context) is surely warranted. Also my main claim is that Wikipedia is wrong/misleading here. Something false being included in the article is still false even if they have policy reasons (like RS requirements) for doing so. I'd say that claim three does already violate their policy, but I'm not defending their policy as a perfect diviner of truth.