“A Magnet for Conspiracy Theories”: Wikipedia Kills Entry for Hunter Biden’s Investment Company

YouTube screenshot

Wikipedia editors are under fire this week for removing the entry for Rosemont Seneca Partners, the investment company connected to Hunter Biden and his alleged multimillion dollar influence peddling schemes. The site bizarrely claimed that the company was “not notable.” The timing itself is notable given the new disclosure that Hunter Biden’s business partner, Eric Schwerin, made at least 19 visits to the White House and other official locations between 2009 and 2015. That included a meeting with then-Vice President Joe Biden despite Biden’s repeated claim that he knew nothing about his son’s business dealings. Schwerin was the president of Rosemont Seneca.

Wikipedia has been accused of raw bias in removing the entry at a time when interest in the company is at its peak, including the possibility of an indictment of Hunter Biden over his financial dealings.  Rosemont Seneca is one of the most searched terms for those trying to understand the background on the Biden business operations.

Yet, an editor “AlexEng” wrote that the company was simply “not notable” — an absurd claim reminiscent of the recent claim by Atlantic Magazine’s writer Anne Applebaum that she did not cover the scandal because it simply was “not interesting.”

Alex wrote: “This organization is only mentioned in connection with its famous founders, Hunter Biden and Christopher Heinz.” That itself is an odd statement. It is mentioned as one of the key conduits of alleged influence peddling money. Alex added that “keeping it around” ran the risk of the page becoming “a magnet for conspiracy theories about Hunter Biden.” It is that last comment that I found most concerning as part of this decision.

Any Wikipedia page could be a magnet for conspiracy theories, including the page on Hunter Biden himself. The fact is that this is a real company with real dealings that are the subject of a real criminal investigation. Indeed, various Republican members have already pledged to conduct investigations into this and other companies if they secure either house of Congress after the midterm elections.

So Wikipedia killed it just as a United States Attorney is drilling down on financial dealings of Hunter Biden, including money received from foreign sources through Rosemont Seneca.

The bias in the reference to the “conspiracy theories” is glaring. While some clearly misstate the facts of the Hunter Biden dealings (on both sides of the controversy), the central role of the company in these dealings is no conspiracy theory. I have long criticized Hunter Biden and his uncle for engaging in raw influence peddling — a practice long associated with the Biden family.

I have also been highly critical of how media and social media companies killed the Hunter Biden story.  Much like Wikipedia’s explanation this week, they claimed the Hunter Biden laptop story was merely conspiracy theories and Russian disinformation before the election. We are now approaching the midterm elections and suddenly Wikipedia is killing the page on this key company.

Republican senators claim that Hunter Biden was a partner in Rosemont Seneca with Chris Heinz, the stepson of future Secretary of State John Kerry, and their friend, Devon Archer. Archer was recently sent to prison for fraud in a matter that did not involve Hunter Biden.

In 2013, Rosemont Seneca entered into a business partnership with a Chinese investment fund called Bohai Capital. There are references in these transactions to Bohai Harvest RST. “RST” stood for “Rosemont Seneca Thornton,” a consortium of Rosemont Seneca and the Thornton Group, a Massachusetts-based firm.

Hunter Biden’s counsel insists that he did not have an equity interest in RST. However, Rosemont Seneca and RST feature greatly in the controversial transactions with foreign figures. Moreover, the Wall Street Journal reports that

“Prosecutors have focused in particular, those people said, on the payments from Burisma, which first flowed to a company called Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC before going on to Mr. Biden. Between 2014 and 2019, Hunter Biden held a Burisma board seat for which he was paid around $50,000 a month.”

The company has been tied to a series of payments to Hunter Biden from car purchases to cash transfers that are under investigation. Wikipedia does not (and should not) take sides in such allegations. Rather, it can serve as a conduit for those searching the company as part of a major and ongoing controversy.

Yet, “Alex” does not consider any of that “notable” and dismisses references to the company in a federal investigation as mere “conspiracy theories.”

Wikipedia was founded on lofty and even revolutionary goals of empowering the world with free access to sources of knowledge. The key minds behind Wikipedia saw the danger of bias creeping into this work and emphasized the need for strict neutrality.

Larry Sanger declared “Wikipedia has an important policy: roughly stated, you should write articles without bias, representing all views fairly.”

Likewise, Jimmy Wales insisted “A general-purpose encyclopedia is a collection of synthesized knowledge presented from a neutral point of view. To whatever extent possible, encyclopedic writing should steer clear of taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view.”

I have long been a fan of Wikipedia and its noble purpose. For that reason, I am saddened by this move which seems to reject the essential pledge of the company. Wikipedia’s editors have been increasingly accused of bias in such decisions. However, this move is particularly raw and inexplicable. Wikipedia will lose the trust of many if it goes down the path of companies like Twitter in allowing staff to use its platform for their own political agendas.

Wikipedia or WikiMedia should immediately reverse the decision of Alex on the Rosemont Seneca page.

161 thoughts on ““A Magnet for Conspiracy Theories”: Wikipedia Kills Entry for Hunter Biden’s Investment Company”

  1. Like every encyclopedia, Wikipedia is merely a place to start. Every assertion is supposed to be referenced by an article somewhere else. The combination of your search engine and Wikipedia provides a good start for the factually minded.

    1. David Benson – how would you know who was factually minded? You are still 225 weeks behind in owing me over 30 citations.

        1. David Benson – do you keep having mini-strokes or TIAs when I ask about my long-lost citations?

            1. David Benson – what you scribbled or drooled from your keyboard is not in the Cyrillic alphabet. And what does Einstein, who was German, have anything to do with your keyboard drools?

                1. Don’t need that in Cyrillic to understand that one…. my wife calls me that all the time 🙂

                  1. Jon – it is a fun card game. You just don’t want to be the loser.

    2. Reading Turley’s article then scrolling down to comments like this from DNC Trolls is like entering the Twilight Zone. The cognitive dissonance between the articles and posts from DNC Trolls is painfully strange. This whole article is replete with specific factual references to Wiki’s DNC/Progressive bias/lies/disinformation then the DNC trolls like this Benson just type the word “Wikipedia” twice ignoring every bad reference in the article and state that it’s a “good start for the factually minded.” True, but only if you’re a progressive troll with blinders on and head in the sand!

      1. Wikipedia is biased on many political entries because there are well organized groups who police entries and edit them to reflect their ideology. Dissident views are removed, and if reinstated these organizations are dedicated enough to return and change the entry again.

        1. Brendon Trainer —- As I stated above, every assertion in a Wikipedia article is to be based on a reference elsewhere; there is to be no original content in Wikipedia. Of course some slips by but attempts to compare Wikipedia to more traditional encyclopedias find Wikipedia is as good as the best.

  2. Wiki has limited value. For instance, look up “wound healing”. Might not look like it, but fascinating. Where else can a layperson find stuff like this with a mouse click? The rest: Hunter, climate change, global warming, President Dementia, forget it.

  3. Nobody should trust Wikipedia. All Wikipedia content is carefully monitored to censor all facts and information deemed objectionable by the Globalists and the agenda set by the World Economic Forum, of which Wikipedia’s Jimmy Wales is a member, along with such other WEF media overloards as Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Larry Page, Mark Zuckerberg, etc., etc. See this article featuring Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger, who explains why nobody should trust Wikipedia:

    1. Wikipedia itself tells people not to treat Wikipedia content as reliable:

      It’s a flawed source. It is still sometimes useful.

      “All Wikipedia content is carefully monitored to censor all facts and information deemed objectionable by the Globalists and the agenda set by the World Economic Forum” is a conspiracy belief.

      1. Ah, so the fact that you disagree must mean that my statement is a “conspiracy belief.” Are you one of those people who believe that the 911 crimes were not the result of a conspiracy? Perhaps you are right and the “Single Plane Theory” best explains the events of that day, which posits that a single pilot and and single plane caused all of the damages that day. Or are you one of those “conspiracy nuts” who believe that many individuals were involved in committing the 911 crimes?

        1. “so the fact that you disagree must mean that my statement is a “conspiracy belief.””

          No, the vast, vast majority of the things I disagree with aren’t conspiracy beliefs.

          You’ve got the directionality wrong.

          That I disagree with something does not imply that it is a conspiracy belief
          something being a conspiracy belief does imply that I’ll disagree with it.

      2. Some conspiracies are true.

        If you have ever tried to correct left wing nut errors in a wikipedia peice you would KNOW the remark is correct.

        Even in domains not related to politics some editors and their tribes have made it impossible to correct well know factual errors over things such as the height of buildings.

  4. I don’t know what the answer is.
    I do know that it’s sad but affirmative that the regressive progressives know that only low information voters would read that and call it a day. You’ll quite often hear MSM parrot phrases that are meant for the naive and lazy.

  5. An information source that presents a report on the blood engorgement of a male turkey’s caruncles and snood during coitus, which may be of interest to a half-dozen people (if that) in the whole country; yet dismisses information that may prove the utmost corruption related to and by a U.S. “president” and his similarly suspect family as being of no value is incredibly and undeniably laughable!
    Since Wikipedia has not only eschewed neutrality but taken a side, there is virtually nothing to trustworthy to be expected on the site anymore.
    They constantly ask for donations … well, they better hold on to that last nickel I gave several months ago because I will never pay one cent to the accursed site again.
    AlexEng, hiding behind a pseudonym, along with the gutless Sanger and Wales should take their damned alms cup to the DNC.
    The least the “Marxist party” can do is leave a $20 bill on the bureau after being serviced by Wikipedia.

  6. Conspiracy theory like wikipedia deleting the article the day whitehouse visitor logs show Eric schwerin of rosemont Seneca visiting 19 times. I am sure it is just a coincidence.

  7. Since we all know about JT here, perhaps a good test for Wikipedia performance and bias is their written piece on JT. Any criticism of it?

  8. Please see Larry Sangers’ new effort to build an decentralized, federated alternative called Encyclosphere. He already has is registered as a true US non-profit under the Knowledge Standards foundation. From my understanding, it will be a network of encylopedias that anyone can curate with whatever rules they want.

    I also really wish Turley would mention AltTech alternatives that exist in the BigTech censorship stories. Like many that are very viable for many years now for video and social media

  9. I just unsubscribed from the Wikimedia mailing list and will not donate again.

  10. This is nothing new. While learning about the Trusted News Initiative I realized Wikipedia does not have an entry for it either

    1. So become an editor and create a page for it!

      Wikipedia is only improved when people pitch in to improve it.

      1. That is not how wikipedia actually works.

        Most pages are maintained by a tribe, violate the norms of the tribe and you will be destroyed.

        This is absolutely true of every controversial matter – it is also true of some non-controversial issues – like the height of buildings.

        1. John, you seem fond of alleging things without evidence. And even when you’re presented with evidence that your claim is false — such as here: https://jonathanturley.org/2022/04/23/destroying-democracy-to-save-it-court-advances-effort-to-block-gop-candidates-from-ballots/comment-page-2/#comment-2177258 — you seldom acknowledge your mistakes.

          I don’t care what you allege without evidence.

          I know what my experience is with improving WP pages, and it’s not what you describe.

  11. Same thing over and over by the Trump cult, if someone writes or says anything they don’t like then it’s not real and therefore discounted. All they do is to yell at the top of their lungs, TELL US WHAT WE WANT TO HEAR………..FACTS BE DAMNED…..

Comments are closed.