Talk:Hunter Biden

Removal

@PhotogenicScientist: I don't understand the rationale for removing this text. [1]. Seems pertinent that he is charged with something that almosty never results in a charge. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Juxtaposing that article with the recent indictment seems like WP:OR. The point of that article, as I mentioned in my edit summary, is not to say "It's very odd that Hunter Biden was charged with this, because this crime doesn't get prosecuted a lot" - the point of that article was to say "this crime doesn't get prosecuted a lot." PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

This is a published analysis by WaPo, a reliable source, which specifically talks to the charge against Hunter Biden and how often it is prosecuted. That is clearly the point of the article and why there's a big picture of him at the top of the article. Since we don't work for WaPo, it is not WP:OR. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

It's an analysis piece from last June, when there was no indictment, and Hunter's lying on the form was only an allegation. With that article, WaPo was not making a comment on Hunter's indictment - just performing an analysis of prosecution rates. Tying it to his 2023 indictment seems like clear SYNTH.

Could you explain in greater detail why it's pertinent to mention this 2022 study right underneath mention of his indictment? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I lean toward PS's take on this. I do think our placement is making an implied claim that is not present in the source. It would help if this bit of analysis were mentioned more commonly in other sources. Anybody know of any? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

[2][3][4][5][6] O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The fact that this is rarely charged has accompanied just about every RS discussion of the matter since the plea deal was discarded. There's no other reason for prominent news discussion of whether a certain crime is almost never charged except when an instance of it arises. We don't see front page stories discussing why there aren't more citations for jaywalking. "Only an allegation is a red herring. The facts have not been in dispute. SPECIFICO talk 19:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both. I'd favor including the content, and I think we should rewrite it to make it clear that its not just the June 2022 data that support the charge being rare. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed - those are all much better sources. I also noticed they couldn't just be dropped on the current text, as it referenced the June 2022 report. I tried rewriting the sentence to incorporate all the sources. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

An improvement. I think it would be better just to say "Prosecutions for these charges are rare." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I considered that. But it seemed too abrupt to say only that without context. Ultimately, the reason the statistics are relevant are because legal experts and news orgs have done analysis on them, and linked them to this indictment. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Reminds me of jaywalking tickets, known in some cities as walking while black. There are more cites than the five I gave if needed. Most real news sources have reported this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Coming attractions: New and final plea deal. Charging is part of the negotiation, doing so will clarify the structure of the ultimate deal for both Fox viewers and the larger public. SPECIFICO talk 22:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICOare you disparaging groups of people on Wikipedia, the Fox viewers? Isn’t that against policy, @SPECIFICO? 65.195.242.118 (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Probably needs updating regarding those IRS things.

Those two guys, Ziegler and the other one i forget, who claim that the investigation was limited in scope. They aren't mentioned here, but I think thier accusations warrant some sorta mention. Specifically because thier absence would make attentive people suspicious and end up rabbit-holing (this happened to me. I don't trust others to be as media literate as me when that rabbit hole begins).

Anyway, here's some relevant links:

various relevant links. I particularly liked the first 2; the ones following i list because of relevance to the topic, instead of reliability. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66252781

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/09/15/hunter-biden-whistleblower-analysis/

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/12/opinion/hunter-biden-clarence-thomas-trump.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/11/us/politics/hunter-biden-legal-troubles-timeline.html

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/bidens-watch-lady-justice-weaponized-merrick-garland-thing

https://www.foxnews.com/media/speaker-mccarthy-pressed-potential-impeachment-proceedings-release-alleged-hunter-biden

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hunter-biden-irs-whistleblowers-joseph-ziegler-gary-shapley/

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/irs-whistleblowers-boss-pushed-removed-hunter-biden-investigation-

https://nypost.com/2023/09/27/hunter-biden-apparently-called-joe-familys-only-asset/

https://www.politico.com/minutes/congress/07-24-2023/weiss-dates-from-doj/

hope this helps! 140.232.8.185 (talk) 01:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

From looking at a couple of your links, I would agree. HillbillyWoman (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

False and baseless

"subjects of false and baseless claims"...should be "unproven claims" 2601:408:C001:F0C0:990E:19C0:A68F:657C (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

see reference #4 soibangla (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

That certainly would be a more objective/unbiased way of stating an issue. But I am not an intellectual. HillbillyWoman (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The wording reminds me of Gertrude's comment in Hamlet: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." The article loses the appearance of objectivity and doesn't help Hunter Biden. TFD (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

We are not here to help Hunter Biden. SPECIFICO talk 03:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

A lot of people are here writing this article to help Hunter Biden. I think @TFD was just observing that they are so blatantly biased that thankfully it shows through. It’s supposed to be an encyclopedia with no bias but it’s not. 65.195.242.118 (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

David Weiss “holdover” from Trump bs

Can we try to remove some of the pants on fire misinformation here? Like saying David Weiss is a Trump holdover without saying he was an Obama appointee is obviously something made to mislead. Why not say Davis Weiss, an Obama appointee who Trump allowed to remain in the job? 65.195.242.118 (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Please don't distort when making an edit request. Obama appointed Weiss as an only an acting and an interim Attorney. He became a full appointee under the Trump administration, so the characterization of a "Trump holdover," particularly as Weiss was the only one retained by Biden, is accurate. Zaathras (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Lead context problems

This article WP:LEAD fails to explain why the article subject is notable in the first paragraph. See MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE which discusses the first sentence, but we can even go beyond that and question why the first paragraph has no information about why the subject is notable. This subject is primarily notable for his contrast/relation to the President, his father. Primarily the article subject is known for his drug use and illegal activities. This needs to be in the first paragraph per policy. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

That's not why he is Notable. He's notable because Pres. Trump and the American Republican Party and its enablers promoted various false conspiracy theories and other misinformation and disparagement of him. SPECIFICO talk 20:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

the article subject is known for his drug use and illegal activities. About half of all Americans have used illegal drugs. The illegal activities include paying his taxes late and lying on a gun form. It’s very rare for anyone to be prosecuted for either and federal courts have ruled the gun statute unconstitutional. These do not make a person notable. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Rare

@SPECIFICO: Do you have sources stating that tax charges are rare? I have read the gun charges are rare, but not the tax charges. [7] edit that you added implies that tax charges are rare, and my OR is that tax charges are not rare, and criminal tax investigations are quite normal in fact. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

What's your OR? Tax charges resulting in prison have been used as a catchall for criminals they couldn't catch otherwise, as in the imprisonment of Al Capone. (Trump recently bragged that Capone was the best, but he only got one indictment while Trump got four.) (What's ironic is that the Republicans are attempting to erase gun laws and starve the IRS so they can't investigate people for tax evasion.) Fact is that he did pay the taxes, just late. So, what are your examples of indictments after people have paid? O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Absent willful fraud unpaid, such taxpayers are not prosecuted. SPECIFICO talk 02:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Prosecutions are common if people conceal income or even if they are late filing. They also receive penalties for late payment of taxes. But it is rare to prosecute them for not paying their assessed taxes on time. I don't think most people are even aware it is against the law. Lots of people owe money to the IRS and could pay them, by selling their homes and retirement investments, taking their children out of school or drastically cutting their living expenses, but choose to pay later. TFD (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, rather than OR we can see here at IRS summarized here that there were 1800 prosecutions in 2022. Its not rare. Second, I did look at the sources and only one of the sources referred to the tax prosecution as rare, all the rest referred to the gun prosecution as rare. This is in an WP:NPOV violation on a WP:BLP. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

The report is not for paying taxes late. It includes real crimes: Corporate fraud, Public corruption, Cybercrimes, General Tax Fraud, Abusive Tax Schemes, Employment Tax, Identity Theft, Refund Fraud, Money Laundering, OCDETF Organized Crime, Drug Enforcement Task Force. And yes, exaggerating this is an WP:NPOV violation on a WP:BLP. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

JBob, in the future -- if you're going to root around for information -- you'll do better to focus on secondary RS that address the specific question you are trying to investigate. Thanks for using the talk page. SPECIFICO talk 14:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Some secondary RS:

"Robert Nassau, a professor and tax law expert from Syracuse University, said that criminal - rather than civil - tax prosecutions are 'very rare'" BBC

“Criminal tax cases generally are very rare, said Beverly Moran, a tax law expert at Vanderbilt University. The average American has almost as good a chance of winning the lottery as being criminally prosecuted for tax fraud, she said, based on 2021 data from the Internal Revenue Service.” AP

“Legal experts said first-time offenders are rarely prosecuted for both the gun and tax charges Biden faces.”Forbes O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

JBob, also: 1800 (your number, which you erroneously associated with the Biden charges) is indeed a very small "rare" incidence of prosecutions. Consider: Say there are ~100 million personal tax returns filed per year. Now criminal fraud and underpayment would have (guessing) a 5-year Statute of Limitations. So the ratio you tried to estimate would be roughly 1800/500,000,000. That is about 3 incidences per million - or coincidentally, Six Sigma -- which is a widely acknowledged practical benchmark of what's vanishingly small. SPECIFICO talk 16:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh the desperate twisting and hiding of it all, SPECIFICO. 50.231.19.165 (talk) 05:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)