Misplaced Pages

Talk:Hunter Biden: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:54, 29 September 2019 editBender235 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors471,674 edits →top← Previous edit Revision as of 12:47, 30 September 2019 edit undoGråbergs Gråa Sång (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers57,877 edits more pressNext edit →
Line 17: Line 17:
|author=Isaac Stanley-Becker |author=Isaac Stanley-Becker
|date=September 25, 2019 |date=September 25, 2019
|quote=The page has been viewed nearly 230,000 times in the past 30 days, more than the page for Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, or for Vice President Pence. Misplaced Pages dominates Google’s search results and helps supply the information spit out by Siri and Amazon Alexa. ]}} |quote=The page has been viewed nearly 230,000 times in the past 30 days, more than the page for Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, or for Vice President Pence. Misplaced Pages dominates Google’s search results and helps supply the information spit out by Siri and Amazon Alexa.
|url2=https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/computers/item/33525-wikipedia-editor-scrubs-citations-to-the-new-american-from-hunter-biden-page
|accessdate2=September 30, 2019
|org2=]
|title2=Misplaced Pages Editor Scrubs Citations to The New American from Hunter Biden Page
|author2=C. Mitchell Shaw
|date2=September 27, 2019
|quote2=One of the most recent examples of that — and one near to the heart of this magazine — involves biased editing of Misplaced Pages to remove damning information about Hunter Biden because of citations of The New American magazine.}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(7d) |algo = old(7d)

Revision as of 12:47, 30 September 2019

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages, 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!
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hunter Biden article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 7 days 
WikiProject iconBiography C‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconConnecticut C‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hunter Biden article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 7 days 

Viktor Shokin (former Prosecutor General in Ukraine) was fired by Joe Biden

Joe Biden meddled with Ukraine legal proceedings. Got gov't attorney fired for investigating his son/Burisma. 1, 2, → "... financial records showing just how much Hunter Biden’s and Archer’s company received from Burisma while Joe Biden acted as Obama’s point man on Ukraine. Between April 2014 and October 2015, more than $3 million was paid out of Burisma accounts to an account linked to Biden’s and Archer’s Rosemont Seneca firm, according to the financial records placed in a federal court file in Manhattan in an unrelated case against Archer." --93.211.213.120 (talk) 12:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a textbook example of what US foreign policy pundits like to call kleptocracy? Or does that term only apply to officials and oligarchs from countries the US has targeted for regime change? The Bidens are entangled in a Ukrainian corruption scandal: Joe Biden pushed Ukraine to fire a prosecutor seen as corrupt. BUT the prosecutor had opened a case into a company that was paying Hunter Biden. The Bidens say they never discussed it. Hunter Biden's partners recruited firms to diffuse Ukrainian investigations into an oligarch whose company was paying Hunter Biden $50k/month. The cases were closed in 2017, but 2019 they've been reopened. For 5 years, Hunter Biden was on the board of BURISMA, a gas company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch accused of enriching himself using his position in the Russia-aligned YANUKOVYCH gov't. Hunter Biden stepped down last month, as his dad was preparing to run for president.
FYI, Joe Biden says they never discussed it. Hunter says they did. Media is not investigating.https://dailycaller.com/2019/09/21/biden-discuss-hunter-biden-ukraine-deal/. CsikosLo (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Source on ukraine

Would the michael savage source be acceptable?

There was a government official who was commenting on this, but i forgot his name.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.197.234 (talk) 08:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

No. SPECIFICO talk 17:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

sept 2019 trump scandal news

I looked at this article after seeing the CNN Guiliani interview to try and find what substance there was to claims he seemed to be making. I found the section on Burisma to have a very confusing outlook. I tried to clean it up to read better and added a few more links to news. However my Internet connection was buggy and for one edit I deleted the whole article then had to revert to fix it. I tried to put everything back together but I ran out of time and may have missed some small detail. Also, I'm not sure if this news should be here or in other articles about Burisma, Trump, Guiliani, 2020 campaign... I suspect there is a lot of duplication and someone could clarify a lot by connecting all those properly. Also it would do to have someone with expertise weight in, I personally am just a reader of the news so have no expertise. Anyway, apologies if there are more mistakes I missed. Thanks for helping, everyone! Rusl (talk) 02:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

That's why the External link to the May 2019 New York Times piece is there. It contains an even-handed description of what happened and how an appearance of a conflict of interest is not a good idea even if nothing untoward actually happened. Even Fox News refers to it as a reasonable account. 68.199.42.57 (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

There is video evidence of Joe Biden threatening to cut $1 billion dollars from Ukraine until they fired the state prosecutor that was investigating Burisma Holdings. In this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCF9My1vBP4 minutes 1:20-1:41. So it seems strange that the intro to the article says that no evidence has been found of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.6.72.88 (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The article already explains what Joe Biden did, and we don't use YouTube videos from Russian propaganda outlets as sources. XOR'easter (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
The truth is that the prosecutor wasn't fired because he was investigating Burisma; he was fired because he wasn't investigating Burisma. It is the exact opposite of what Trump, Giuliani et al. have asserted:

"Trump and Giuliani have suggested that Joe Biden pushed for the firing of Ukraine’s general prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, in March 2016 to stop an investigation into Burisma. In Ukraine, government officials and anticorruption advocates say that is a misrepresentation. Neither Mr. Biden nor his son have been accused of any wrongdoing. Mr. Biden had called for the ouster of Mr. Shokin because he and others thought that the prosecutor wasn’t aggressive enough. The owner of Burisma, Mykola Zlochevsky, has been under the scrutiny of prosecutors. A minister of natural resources until 2012, Mr. Zlochevsky was accused of improperly granting gas extraction licenses to firms affiliated with him, and at times was investigated for alleged abuse of power, illegal enrichment and money laundering. Mr. Zlochevsky was never convicted of any crimes and denied any wrongdoing. His lawyer also denied that Mr. Zlochevsky ever benefited from his position in government. Mr. Shokin had dragged his feet on those investigations, Western diplomats said, and effectively squashed one in London by failing to cooperate with U.K. authorities, who had frozen $23.5 million of Mr. Zlochevsky’s assets. In a speech in 2015, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, called the Ukrainian prosecutor “an obstacle” to anticorruption efforts"

soibangla (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

-BBC News shows the video of Joe Biden "boasting" at a CFR forum about the firing the Ukranian prosecutor, so Joe Biden's video making the boast at CFR is reliably sourced. BBC News' take here is that the linkages between Joe claim, Hunter's actions and the firing, are not directly established legally, where BBC shows an unfamiliar (Ukranian?) NGO worker's opinion-.-Mike99501 (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC) — Mike99501 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I would appreciate if someone could cite specific damning language from that CFR talk, rather than simply reposting the video and asserting it as "proof" of something. Yes, he took credit for getting done what the entire Western world wanted done. He was the designated point man because of his extensive foreign policy experience over decades. soibangla (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
In technical terms: yup. XOR'easter (talk) 02:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Personal life

Numerous details regarding Hunter's personal life are being repeatedly deleted from this page due to their so-called "tabloid" character (most recently by user Gandydancer. This includes his struggles with addition (which he has discussed publicly), as well as the fact that he dated his deceased brother's widow, only to then elope with Melissa Coehn. Given his position as a central figure in current news stories, as well his father's presidential campaign, removing any mention of these events -- including objective, non-salacious accounts -- provides a myopic and, in effect, inaccurate picture of Hunter's personal life. Indeed, given the fact that Joe Biden himself regularly includes highly emotionally-charged details of his family's history as a part of his presidential campaign's stump speech, it seems odd to provide a whitewashed version of this history here. Gagaboatly (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gagaboatly. I guess your intention here was to write "addiction" rather than "addition". Am I right?
BTW, I came here because I didn't find anything in the article about his public confession regarding his struggle with addiction. And I find this weird.
I read about this issue in a German paper and I wanted more information. Meanwhile I have found some information in the MSM:
So there is no doubt that this issue has been widely discussed in MSM this summer and I don't understand why it was edited out of this Misplaced Pages article. 2003:CF:3F0E:9D3C:FC8A:7737:C24F:CF9F (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
That's why the External link to the July 2019 New Yorker piece is there. Much of it is based on Hunter Biden's own statements about his struggles. Even Fox News has referenced the piece favorably. 68.199.42.57 (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the purpose of External links is to remove reliably-sourced information that was previously part the article and hide it in a link. Specifically, WP:EL states such links are for material that "cannot be integrated into the Misplaced Pages article" or might "fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article". The New Yorker information and that from the other reliable sources listed above seem worth including. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 06:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Biden's alcohol and illegal drug use is widely reported in reliable sources such as The New Yorker. It should be included. 84percent (talk) 05:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

BHR Partners & Burisma Holdings

Here's my suggestion for how to improve the article.

BHR Partners teamed up with its strategic partner, China's AVIC Auto, in acquiring U.S. automotive supplier Henniges, through a joint venture structure. In August 2019, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley has called on the Treasury Department to investigate CFIUS's 2015 approval of AVIC's acquisition of Henniges.

Hunter Biden's company Rosemont Seneca received $3.4 million from Burisma Holdings.

Hunter Biden’s ties to Burisma Holdings was criticized as a conflict of interest in a New York Times editorial. The White House dismissed nepotism accusations against Hunter Biden.

References

  1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjXAxzddS4o
  2. "BHR and AVIC Auto Acquire Henniges Automotive". PR Newswire. September 15, 2019.
  3. "Grassley, invoking 'Uranium One,' probes Biden-linked sale of sensitive tech company to China". Fox News. August 15, 2019.
  4. "Senator wants inquiry into whether 'conflict of interest' led to US approval of deal involving Chinese state company and Joe Biden's son". Yahoo News. August 16, 2019.
  5. "Grassley Raises Concerns Over Obama Admin Approval of U.S. Tech Company Joint Sale to Chinese Government and Investment Firm Linked to Biden, Kerry Families". Senate Committee on Finance. August 15, 2019.
  6. "Trump's Ukraine controversy cast spotlight on Hunter Biden's business dealings". Fox News. September 24, 2019.
  7. ^ Vogel, Kenneth P.; Mendel, Iuliia (2019-05-01). "Biden Faces Conflict of Interest Questions That Are Being Promoted by Trump and Allies". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331.
  8. Board, The Editorial (2015-12-11). "Opinion | Joe Biden Lectures Ukraine". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331.
  9. Taylor, Adam (May 14, 2014). "Hunter Biden's new job at a Ukrainian gas company is a problem for U.S. soft power". The Washington Post. Washington DC: Nash Holdings LLC.
  10. "Who are Hunter Biden's Ukrainian bosses?". Deutsche Welle. 16 May 2014.


User:SPECIFICO obviously disagrees. SPECIFICO's edit summary: "rv poorly sourced UNDUE SYNTH insinuation and BLP smear." -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

SPECIFICO is right. In addition to violating WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE, this material also violates WP:NPOV by not mentioning how, for example, the New York Times looked into allegations of Hunter Biden's shady dealings with China and found them groundless, and the Washington Post fact-checkers deemed them "more like smoke than fire" . XOR'easter (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think this particular text is WP:SYNTH or WP:UNDUE : "Hunter Biden's company Rosemont Seneca received $3.4 million from Burisma Holdings". -- Tobby72 (talk) 07:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
You forgot BLP violation. You are quite aware that there is no consensus for reinserting poorly-sourced and irrelevant innuendo of wrongdoing. SPECIFICO talk 14:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
As stated at Talk:Trump–Ukraine controversy, calling Rosemont Seneca "Hunter Biden's company" also does not reflect the sources accurately. XOR'easter (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
You're right, it does not reflect the sources accurately, it should be reworded. What are the facts? In June 2009, Hunter Biden, Christopher Heinz—Senator John Kerry’s stepson—and Devon Archer co-founded Rosemont Seneca Partners. In 2012, Archer and Biden talked to Jonathan Li, who ran a Chinese private-equity fund, Bohai Capital, about becoming partners in a new company that would invest Chinese capital in companies outside China. In 2013, they created the fund, which they named BHR Partners. Burisma Holdings paid $3.4 million to a company called Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC from mid-April 2014, when Hunter Biden and Devon Archer joined the board, to late 2015. Rosemont Seneca Bohai was controlled by Archer. Bank records show that Rosemont Seneca Bohai made regular payments to Hunter Biden that totaled as much as $50,000 in some months. -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Bank records show... -- Sounds like a line from a cable TV true crime exposé. Tobby72, you need to stop inserting these insinuations of wrongdoing and shady dealings in every article a user might read for background on the current events. Cut it out. If you don't understand the problem, then don't edit these articles. SPECIFICO talk 11:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I have to agree with that.
So what if Hunter, Heinz, and Devon Archer co-founded a partnership? And so what if they created a fund called BHR Partners with Jonathan Li? "Hunter became an unpaid member of BHR’s board but did not take an equity stake in BHR Partners until after his father left the White House"your source.
There is no connection between the $3.4 million and Hunter Biden other than he joined the board of Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC around that time. He is not responsible for Burisma's actions. Also, there are no implications from having received up to $50,000 from Rosemont Seneca "in some months" your source.
He was paid well, so what? It seems he has never been implicated in a crime like his business partner - Mr.Archer whose conviction was overturned. Nuanced facts are being left out. Steve Quinn (talk) 11:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
My analysis basically parallels that of Steve Quinn. XOR'easter (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Bohai Harvest

There is reliably sourced text (Wall Street Journal) that is continuously being removed from this section. Please seek consensus here for removing it. Circulair (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The consensus has already been established that it does not belong. XOR'easter (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I have just blocked the above user for violating WP:1RR restrictions on this article. XOR'easter removed it earlier today with the edit summary: "Peter Schweizer is not a reliable source". I agree. I cannot remove it again or I violate 1RR. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I was not the first person to remove it. I concur with the edit summary of the IP who did so; see the section immediately above for more. XOR'easter (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Any content that begins with "Peter Schweizer, author of 'Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends'" is unacceptable on its face, and the title is innuendo in this context. Peter Schweizer is a far right political operative and by no means a reliable source. Cullen Let's discuss it 21:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes. And more generally, given that this is a BLP, the burden of proof is on the one who argues that contentious content should be included. We err less and serve the public better by being cautious. If further investigation by journalists or law enforcement finds that there's something to the matter, then we can report that. XOR'easter (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I did not realize it had been removed earlier, but I'm not surprised. Consensus is clear, Circulair. Next time, read the discretionary sanctions alert I gave you, as you would have seen that this article is under WP:1RR restrictions. Also, content being "long standing" or "reliably sourced" do not guarantee that it belongs on the page. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

New Yorker RE: Conflict of interest.

I removed the bit about Obama Administration officials criticizing Biden with respect to conflict of interest. The cited source only says that some officials were concerned about the appearance of Biden's having taken the role on Burisma's board. @Orser67: I believe that content, which you reinstated, misstates what's reported and that it's UNDUE and supports the BLP conspiracy theories that appear to be at the heart of the Republican strategy for quashing the investigation into Trump's conduct. Please either remove that or find a way to make it as soft as what the New Yorker reported. In my opinion, it was not an important part of that article, and by the time you tone it down to reflect the article it will be evident that it's UNDUE for this biography. SPECIFICO talk 19:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

You're right that it did need toning down, but I think that I have done so in a way that better reflects the legitimate concerns of some Obama administration officials. I also included some cites to concerns from Ukrainian anti-corruption advocates. Orser67 (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I think the tone in the current version (potentially creating the appearance of a conflict of interest) is OK. XOR'easter (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

BHR's activities in China

@Muboshgu:, @Boscaswell:, @SPECIFICO: This information has been reverted, with the following edit summary: "Content was objected to with a valid reason in the edit summary. BLP: contested info stays out unless consensus emerges to retain it", and this edit removed an alleged "UNDUE SYNTH insinuation and BLP smear". I think it is WP:NOTABLE. Please clarify how this is WP:UNDUE, besides simply not wanting this information in the article?

In 2013, Biden, Archer, and Chinese businessman Jonathan Li founded BHR Partners, a business focused on investing Chinese capital in companies based outside of China. According to reporting in The Intercept, among the companies BHR invested in was Megvii, a Chinese company that supplied the Chinese government with technology that was used to surveil Chinese Muslims.

BHR Partners teamed up with its strategic partner, China's AVIC Auto, in acquiring U.S. automotive supplier Henniges, through a joint venture structure. In August 2019, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley has called on the Treasury Department to investigate CFIUS's 2015 approval of AVIC's acquisition of Henniges. In a letter to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, Grassley wrote: "The appearance of potential conflicts in this case is particularly troubling given Mr. Biden’s and Mr. Heinz’s history of investing in and collaborating with Chinese companies, including at least one posing significant national security concerns."

References

  1. "Chinese Fund Backed by Hunter Biden Invested in Technology Used to Surveil Muslims". The Intercept. May 3, 2019.
  2. "Joe Biden's son invested in Chinese app that spies on Muslims, as US condemns China over 'concentration camps'". Fox News. May 4, 2019.
  3. "BHR and AVIC Auto Acquire Henniges Automotive". PR Newswire. September 15, 2019.
  4. ^ "Grassley, invoking 'Uranium One,' probes Biden-linked sale of sensitive tech company to China". Fox News. August 15, 2019.
  5. "Senator wants inquiry into whether 'conflict of interest' led to US approval of deal involving Chinese state company and Joe Biden's son". Yahoo News. August 16, 2019.
  6. "Grassley Raises Concerns Over Obama Admin Approval of U.S. Tech Company Joint Sale to Chinese Government and Investment Firm Linked to Biden, Kerry Families". Senate Committee on Finance. August 15, 2019.

-- Tobby72 (talk) 10:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I think this should be left out. It's very Grassley-heavy, and only marginally biographical. If there is some wrongdoing that Biden is alleged to have done, please cite mainstream sources that say so. It's misleading to suggest to our readers that that is the case based on loose associations and political grandstanding.- MrX 🖋 17:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
It's getting worse than that. The flaws in a dozen similar recent edits, to insinuate some SYNTH factual basis for an "investigation" of the Bidens, Hillary, Crowdstrike, who-knows-who-else, etc. are planting Trump talking point breadcrumbs in various articles for naive WP users to find and follow. The reasons for these edits' removals has been explained by multiple editors and it's time to find other ways to beef up these articles. SPECIFICO talk 18:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree. The only thing that counts is factual wrongdoing covered in reliable sources. Just because a senator or other politician is "calling for an investigation" doesn't mean there is any wrongdoing. I think, as often as not, nothing comes of it. In these cases, there seems to be a slant or the facts are skewed or perceptual bias takes over. Also, argument by authority (Grassley or anyone else being the authority) is not reliable. Steve Quinn (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
What the above three comments said. XOR'easter (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2019

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add Neilia Biden to "Parents" section in the infobox. Or maybe Neilia Biden (née Hunter)? Or Neilia Hunter? I don't know what the standard convention is. 168.149.143.52 (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC) 168.149.143.52 (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done She's listed as Neilia Hunter in the Joe Biden article's infobox, so we'll go with that. XOR'easter (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! 168.149.143.52 (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

BLP on Trump and neutral balance

Above, I RS'd (BBC) Biden's boast alleging about prosecutor's firing. This thing has many sides in both US and Ukraine. Below I try to rework neutral balance with a little less unowned partisanship - there are still sides in direct dispute, instead of the anti-Trump version alone.

"In 2019, President Donald Trump claimed that Joe Biden had sought the dismissal of a Ukrainian prosecutor in order to protect Hunter Biden and Burisma Holdings, where Trump has tweeted a video of Biden making a boast of this. A number of press reports and the Ukrainian government claim to have found no direct proof to support Trump's investigation request. Trump's investigation request in an overseas phone call, is alleged by Pelosi/Democrats to be an attempt to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate the Bidens by withholding foreign aid. The dispute triggered Pelosi's impeachment inquiry against Trump in September 2019."

Pelosi's personal statement of an "impeachment inquiry" is unusual or irregular in that there is supposed to be a vote to investigate by Congress, then an investigation assignment to a House committee. Also the Dem Speaker's impeachment inquiry or threatened vote has been long preceeded by the busted Russia collusion probes, Obama era spying, and the associated FISA violations. So there is partisan posturing that needs to be ironed out.-Mike99501 (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

This thing has many sides and the Trump side is 100% pure bullshit. It's a straight-up transparent smear job without any basis in fact, and I will work to ensure WP articles accurately reflect that. soibangla (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

$50,000 a month job for a board position that doesn't require any work is crony capitalism.

And the article should reflect that.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/28/hunter-biden-china-business-drawing-new-scrutiny/

It takes a deep level of delusion to believe Hunter Biden didn't get this $50,000 a month sinecure due to his father's political position. Reading the article it appears that the majority of editors are deluded or wilfully wish others to remain deluded.

JS (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Jayanta Sen, the Moonie Times is an unacceptable source, and there is zero evidence of wrongdoing on the part of either Biden. You, meanwhile, need to remain WP:CIVIL when addressing other editors here. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
It's true that Biden's position with Burisma raises legitimate concerns, but the article already includes his compensation and the fact that Biden was criticize for creating the appearance of a conflict of interest. As it stands, I think the article conveys what needs to be said about Biden's position. Orser67 (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
How did his compensation get back into the article? That's just furthering the false suggestion of corruption. Anyway, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Sara Huckabee Sanders, G.W Bush, Jeb Bush, Chris Wallace, Lynn Cheney, Rand Paul, and many other fine professionals have followed in their Fathers' footprints. That's no reason to disparage any of them. SPECIFICO talk 20:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Please see the edit history for this edit. Sources do not report he was paid a "salary," the NYT reports he was "paid as much as $50,000 per month in some months." Corporate directors are typically paid a flat annual fee. soibangla (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Good catch. SPECIFICO talk 23:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2019

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Why not add a link to the video of Joe Biden bragging about getting the Ukraine prosecutor fired? Ar is it one of those famous deep-fakes? What a sleazy operation Misplaced Pages is proving to be! 2602:302:D1E8:890:F497:26D1:A26B:F115 (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Not relevant. SPECIFICO talk 00:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Do you know why he got the prosecutor fired? Because the entire Western world knew the prosecutor was corrupt and he wasn't investigating the company Hunter worked for, and the West would not give Ukraine financial aid if they didn't clean up their corruption. Happy to help, tell your friends. soibangla (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

"by withholding foreign aid"

The rationales offered for removing this text seem specious to me. The first is the assertion that the Ukrainian government couldn't have felt pressured (we're not mindreaders); the second is that A claim this strong needs strong sourcing . But the sentence in question is reporting what the allegation is. Trump's telling Zelensky "the United States has been very very good to Ukraine" has widely been regarded as a "nice foreign aid ya got there" moment (a recent example). The allegation is that the threat of withholding foreign aid was behind Trump's request for favors . At the moment, this is merely an accusation, but we fail to serve the public if we don't report that it is among the accusations. XOR'easter (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

And by the time I was done typing all that, it had become obsolete. XOR'easter (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Categories: