Talk:Hunter Biden

“False allegations”

The sentence “ Since early 2019, Hunter and his father, Joe Biden, have been the subjects of false allegations of corrupt activities in a Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory.” Is very biased, misleading and funny enough, false. Allegations have been made. They have not been proven to be true NOR false. 2600:1007:A010:118A:B0EE:CA15:C3B2:FEA9 (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

See: Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree 119.56.102.151 (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Someone needs to send the Attorney General this wiki article. Apparently the allegations have already all been proven false. Not sure why they are even bothering investigating anything further. Really big waste of time to be investigating things incontrovertibly proven false already. Zaqwert (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

You don't know why they are investigating, still, after five years of investigations that turned up a couple of misdemeanors normally resulting in an interest penalty that he already paid? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

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

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/12/us/politics/democrats-hunter-biden.html

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

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

The editing of this article continues to give a strong apppearance of bias, which has a negative effect on its credibility and that of Wikipedia in general. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Bookworm, you appear to be "thumping the toadstool" here. Your concerns have been answered many times over. If you have specific additional -- i.e. new -- suggestions, please prevent them. SPECIFICO talk 15:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "thumping the toadstool" means. I was agreeing with the original comment and listed several New York Times articles that give a timeline of events and the allegations against Hunter Biden in response to the other comments above. Incorporate them if you wish as the New York Times appears to be one of the sources that is still deemed acceptable by Wikipedia. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what thumping the toadstool means - How mobius!. It's similar to WP:BLUDGEON but more tasty or toxic, depending on the luck of the draw. IOW, I think this issue has been resolved on each of the various occasions it's come up and it's time to move on to any other suggestions you might want to offer. SPECIFICO talk 16:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I've already made them. if anyone wants to take anything from the New York Times articles, feel free. The analysis notes the appointment of the special prosecutor and the ongoing investigation. I do not have the time or the energy to edit this particular article given the number of entrenched editors. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

For future reference, there's no basis to assert that there is an "ongoing investigation". Things are well past the investigation stage. The next step is either a trial or settlement. Statements like "ongoing investigation" may be misleading to talk page readers, because it suggests that the appointment was prompted by unanswered issues of fact, new suspicions, or as yet unrevealed crimes. There's currently no factual basis for any such speculation. SPECIFICO talk 21:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear (though I said this down below, it's important to emphasize it), Weiss' investigation is ongoing, but it relates to the tax evasion and gun charges, since he was appointed as a result of the plea deal about those falling through. It has no connection to the accusations made as part of the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory (in theory a special prosecutor can of course branch out, as we've seen in the past, but there's no suggestion in the sources that that has happened or is likely to happen here.) So nothing about Weiss' investigation has anything to do with the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory; they're separate issues, and using sources about Weiss to argue that the unrelated accusations in the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory are not false, when they make no such connection, would be misusing them. --Aquillion (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

exactly Why listed as false allegations, as opposed to accused of alledged criminal activity

The biases of Wikipedia or contributors, kills the 100.12.87.124 (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

: Yes it really should just say that it’s been alleged but not proven that there are wrongs. Not only would that be correct but it would be good for the credibility of Wikipedia because what if one day some thing is proven and then the whole article was wrong for years and it was wrong because of people who protected the article from edits by the public and went out of their way to not only remove truthful edits but to block even discussion of those edits on the talk page. Unfortunately this type of bias is what Wikipedia endorses and increasingly it seems exist to promote. I don’t honk there’s any saving it. Maybe maybe once it’s gone something better will emerge. 12.16.115.131 (talk) 09:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Struck through sock of Bagofscrews. Doug Weller talk 07:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: From USA Today yesterday:

• "the Justice Department's ongoing investigation of Hunter Biden".
• "The investigation is ongoing."

From CNN yesterday:

• "Garland’s order appointing Weiss said he is authorized to 'conduct the ongoing investigation … as well as any matters that arose from that investigation or may arise' as the probe continues."

What are you talking about? --Magnolia677 (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I stated it in my final sentence. Of course he is authorized. Just as Merrick Garland is authorized to investigate you, me, and the kitchen sink. SPECIFICO talk 22:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

It's always best in discussions to avoid stating personal opinions as facts. Thanks for your understanding. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

That's what I said. Your opinions are not helpful, and you are misreading the sources if you think that your opinion is verified by your bolded text extracts. SPECIFICO talk 22:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I've also read both the USA Today and CNN articles. Both refer to an ongoing investigation. Whether that will result in additional charges is yet to be seen. As far as I know Garland has no interest in investigating you, me or the kitchen sink. This particular investigation involves Hunter Biden, the subject of this article. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Strawman. See "authorized". SPECIFICO talk 18:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about "strawman"? Please respect the formality of this talk discussion. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

About speculation beyond the sourced statement in response to my post above. SPECIFICO talk 18:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

OK. what 'strawman' are you referring to? The latest articles are about Garland's decision to appoint a special counsel, David Weiss, who will have broad authority and the budget to conduct an investigation and will produce a report. The case could go to trial since the plea deal fell through. There is also an ongoing Congressional inquiry into Hunter Biden's financial dealings, mentioned in the articles, though it has not thus far turned up evidence of wrongdoing. So "ongoing investigation" is quite accurate here. Go to it if there's anything in those articles to add to the Wiki article. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

If white had total control and power, why they need to make him the special counsel 100.12.87.124 (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Weiss 100.12.87.124 (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Weiss was appointed in relation to the tax evasion and gun charges (as a result of the plea deal about them falling through), not anything to do with Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory (that is, the accusation that Joe Biden, while he was vice president of the United States, withheld a loan guarantee to pressure Ukraine into firing prosecutor general Viktor Shokin to prevent a corruption investigation of Ukrainian gas company Burisma and to protect his son, Hunter Biden, who was on the Burisma board.) In fact, the CNN one doesn't mention the Ukraine at all, and the USA today one doesn't relate it to Weiss' ongoing investigation, only mentioning it in passing as something Republicans are focused on in a "wide-ranging investigation" (rather than the specific conspiracy theory described here.) It's important to be specific about which accusations we're talking about where, otherwise we end up with a vaguely-defined cloud of doubt where any source can be used to say anything. The sentence doesn't say that it's false that Hunter Biden has ever done anything bad ever under any circumstances; it describes one specific conspiracy theory as false, which is well-cited and well-established by the sources. So if you want to change it, you need sources talking about that accusation specifically and not handwavy ones that indicate that investigations into some aspect of Hunter Biden's conduct exist somewhere. Note that we cover the other accusations against Hunter Biden (the tax and gun issues) in the final paragraph of the lead as well as elsewhere in the article, and neither of them are described as "false" in this way. --Aquillion (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  The text could be written more clearly. The "false allegation" was that VP Biden had the prosecutor fired in order to stop the Burisma investigation. The U.S. special prosecutor however will investigate other allegations of wrong-doing. Hunter's plea deal fell apart because U.S. prosecutors said it did not protect him from allegations of corrupt activity involving Ukraine. To be clear, these are at present allegations and nothing has been proven in court. However the allegation about why Biden fired the prosecutor has been disproven. TFD (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  There's no connection between Pres. Biden and his son's late tax filing or lying on firearms documentation. We should not be enabling discussion of whatever complaint gets the unrelated content onto this page for long circular discussions predicated in such a way that they will never contribute to article improvement. SPECIFICO talk 22:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  There's no connection between Hunter's taxes and firearms and the price of peanut butter either. What's your point? TFD (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  Well, if he was being investigated for the price of peanut butter, at least there would be some reason for inclusion in an encyclopedia. But, apparently, he is being investigated in the hope something can be found that isn't already known after five years of investigation by a DOJ prosecutor appointed by his father's opponent; a gun charge that the USSC has apparently ruled unconstitutional, and paying his taxes late, which normally results in an interest fee. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  That appears to be a personal opinion rather than a statement of the facts. The article states that there is some sort of ongoing investigation by a special counsel and a Congressional inquiry into his financial dealings that also has not concluded. The outcome has not yet been determined one way or another. It's certainly possible that he will be cleared of wrongdoing on all fronts but the cases have not concluded. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  Not a personal opinion at all. The Congressional inquiry has no place here as it is totally political and began with the assumption that he was guilty and continues to state so without proof of anything. Normally, an encyclopedia would wait for a five year investigation to come up with something in a WP:BLP. As far as financial dealings, he is assumed innocent. How do I know? Because you are innocent until proven guilty. He hasn't even been charged, much less proven guilty. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC){od}

  Beyond that, at the end of the day we have to go with what high-quality secondary coverage says. And reliable coverage hasn't been shifted by the congressional inquiry at all: The committee’s questions focused on the years that Archer spent on the Burisma board with Hunter Biden. Hunter’s time at Burisma has been at the center of a debunked conspiracy theory peddled by Rudy Giuliani that Hunter had convinced Joe Biden to advocate for removing the top prosecutor in Ukraine who was investigating the company. It’s that discredited theory that convinced then-President Trump to withhold aid to Ukraine in an effort to pressure President Vladimir Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden in the run up to the 2020 election, leading to Trump’s first impeachment for misusing the power of his office for personal political leverage. Especially for something clearly BLP-sensitive, when we're dealing with a bare unsubstantiated accusation that high-quality sources specifically describe as false, we have to make that clear whenever we mention it. --Aquillion (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  I read the op to try to get a feeling of how biased this article is, and It's clear that there is partisan shilling, because its clear even from the description of the article, that Hunter Biden was violating FARA (Foreign Agent Registration Act), and the Judge overseeing his plea deal decided to not accept it on that premise. I doubt that you can allege a federal judge to be engaging in a "conspiracy theory", for drawing legal conclusions from not disputed facts.

  https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/cnc/date/2023-07-26/segment/08 97.120.136.167 (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  The article does not state that he violated FARA and stating so here is a serious WP:BLP violation. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no indication that any additional facts or possible wrongdoing is currently under investigation. SPECIFICO talk 02:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The special prosecutor may investigate matters in "United States v. Robert Hunter Biden, as well as for any other matters that arose or may arise from that investigation."[1] So that seems to be narrow.

It's strange then that the plea deal fell apart because the prosecution would not agreed not to prosecute Hunter for anything that fell outside the current prosecution.

TFD (talk) 06:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, wouldn't you want these interminable investigations and accusations on Fox News to end and get back to your life? (This morning, after 19 people including the President were indicted and the ongoing disaster in Maui, Fox had three stories on Hunter Biden.) Congressfolk are repeatedly saying he "took money from foreigners". That's something most every major US corporation does. It's strange then that the plea deal fell apart.... Are you saying where there's smoke there's fire? Let's assume he's guilty of something because it's somehow strange that he no longer wants his life turned upside down? We should not make ANY assumptions based on a person wanting investigations to finally end and this is improper in an encyclopedia. More like watercooler talk. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

> Congressfolk are repeatedly saying he "took money from foreigners". That's something most every major US corporation does.

Under FARA, you cannot accept money for foreigners to influence government decisions or elections, without registering with the government and declaring who is giving you money, and what you are doing with the money. 97.120.136.167 (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Show me where he was found guilty of violating FARA. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

TFD, you've repeatedly posted irrelevant snippets of your OR here. All special prosecutors have a budget, various authorities, etc. This is not Area 51 stuff. Five years after an addiction-addled Hunter Biden's misdemeanors and victimless misrepresentation concerning his drug use, there is nothing to verify anything currently being investigated. Plea arrangements are not done piecemeal. They are done to resolve all issues so that all parties can move on to other things. The bizarre recission of the plea arrangement has yet to be fully explained, but "ongoing investigation" is not among the credible possibilities except on Newsmax and Fox television. SPECIFICO talk 16:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Conversations would proceed in a more productive way if you eschewed your proclivity to be offensive to other editors. I would suggest also that you avoid cryptic statements which invite requests for clarification. Also, before referring to policy first familiarize yourself with it. OR is about posting text into articles, and specifically states it does not apply to talk pages, where we are supposed to discuss article content.

Comparing allegations against Hunter Biden with Area 51 is a gross exaggeration. I wouldn't put ufologists in the same category with police investigators. TFD (talk) 02:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea why you are talking about urologists, etc. Please put any personal attacks on my talk page, not in mainspace. SPECIFICO talk 04:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain the relevance of Area 51 to this article? TFD (talk) 11:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO We're talking about ufologists, not "urologists". Dervorguilla (talk) 04:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, but we have to cover things the way secondary sources do; we can't speculate when it comes to BLP-sensitive theorycrafting. And right now, at least based on the sources presented so far, high-quality sources are not generally treating it as changing the fundamentally false nature of the core conspiracy theory about Hunter Biden, which means that we have to continue to say that it's false every time we bring it up. --Aquillion (talk) 17:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  As I said above, the "conspiracy theory" that VP Biden had the Ukraine prosecutor fired to protect his son was proved false. But you cannot say that about other allegations. OTOH, we shouldn't give them any credibility. Neutrality requires us to craft the text so that we convey this. TFD (talk) 02:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  Concur with @TFD. We must be scrupulous. Riposte97 (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Apparent political or personal bias in the representation of allegations against Hunter and Joe Biden narritive

NOTFORUM soibangla (talk) 13:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is my first time doing this so I beg some leniency if I am ignorant of WIKI procedure. Please correct me if I am presenting this wrongly. I have struck out the words I find the most egregious violation of WIKI's stated policy of neutrality in narrative representation of events. In hunter Biden's WIKI bio, the following line exists: "Since early 2019, Hunter and his father, Joe Biden, have been the subjects of false allegations of corrupt activities in a [[Biden–Ukraine conspiracy corruption theory]]. The accusations concern Hunter Biden's business dealings unusual monetary gains and appointment as a Barisma member of Board of Directors in Ukraine in 2014 and Joe Biden's anti-corruption efforts there." 75.237.110.175 (talk) 01:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC) The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, claiming that Joe got Shokin fired to protect Hunter, was refuted as false three years ago. No evidence has arisen since to un-refute it, despite people talking about it more recently. It was false three years ago and it's still false now, according to many reliable sources. Beyond that, Comer has not produced any evidence of unlawful wire transfers, actual suspicious activity in suspicious activity reports, no money laundering, no influence peddling, no links of Hunter business activity to Joe, regardless of what Comer incessantly says on Hannity, Bartiromo, Watters and Newsmax. Basically, after all this time, all that's been found is pictures and video of Hunter with sex workers. Hope that helps. soibangla (talk) 01:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Use of inappropriately biased language

I will just point out the current profile uses words like "baseless" and "supposedly" and "false and baseless," "falsely told," regarding controversies that actually have basis in fact, and some, as-of-yet, remain unproven but also not disproven. They cite to NYT and LA times, as well as the now debunked letter from 51 Intelligence Officers stating falsely that there was "Russian disinformation." See https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-biden-and-the-51-spies-of-2020-hunter-laptop-new-york-post-russia-disinformation-73072839 IN this case, the BASE for the claim is established that there was NO Russian Disinformation. This is a PROVEN fact. As is Anthony Blinken's pressure on them to modify the language in a manner to boost Biden's status. This is classic election interference.

As to the "baseless" Ukraine claims, even left-leaning CNN points to the truth of the BIden Family receiving $20 Million dollars. See https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/13/politics/fact-check-mccarthy-biden-impeachment-claims/index.html While that article correctly points out that there is AS OF YET no proof that Joe got any of that money, the STORY is neither baseless nor false. Merely unproven.

These perjorative phrases skew the truth of the matter reported on Wikipedia and skew the imaging in a matter at odds with the truth. There should be a removal of claims KNOWN to be incorrect from Wikipedia such as these. Although it is crowd-edited, someone needs to take responsibility for posting false information and phony information with regard to the fact that there was NO Russian Disinformation, that there IS proof of the Bidens benefitting in the Burisma transactions and other transactions in China in a manner at odds with the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, among other things, as well as the fact that Hunter Biden's Lawsuit regarding his laptop is PROOF of ownership of the laptop, despite any claim of tampering or misinformation while in the chain of custody of the DOJ under his FATHER's administration.

All I ask is that the emphasis be placed on presenting FACTS and TRUTH, rather than characterizations at odds with FACTS and TRUTH.

Here's the guideline ALL WIKIPEDIA posters should be held to: Distinguish between news material, opinion and analysis to avoid the pitfalls of speculation and propaganda. (As well as the other tenets of Journalistic Ethics, as posted by the Society of Professional Journalists and as posted in Al-Jazeera's Code of Ethics). See https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/2010-11/Journalism/index16e4.html?page_id=24 72.88.151.203 (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

NOTFORUM soibangla (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

PackMecEng I hatted this topic because I don't see any of the editor's specific points are mentioned in this article. Do you? Consequently, this is a generalized complaint that makes dubious claims of "PROVEN fact," including with the use of a WSJ editorial. "the now debunked letter from 51 Intelligence Officers stating falsely that there was "Russian disinformation" didn't actually make that claim, and it has not been debunked, despite efforts by conservative media to insist it has been simply because some of the laptop contents has been authenticated. I don't think it is relevant here. soibangla (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I carefully read through your post and do not see how it shows bias anywhere in the article. I also do not see how the Emoluments Clause is relevant as Hunter Biden was never the president. You cannot assume that the word "Bidens" includes the President. You would need to provide sentences in the article and how they are biased. I agree with the hatting of this section as it is yet another 'Wikipedia is biased' claim based on the poster knowing the 'truth'. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah but they have sources and legitimate concerns, we don't hat stuff because we don't like it. Heck out of the two Soibangla's response is just as ranty and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS so I don't really see the difference between the two except the IP at least tried to source their claims. PackMecEng (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The sources given by the IP are not sources to the claims made, unlike the sources in the article, thereby making it illegitimate. And what does the Qatari-state news channel's Code of Ethics have to do with this? And explaining a post is not a rant. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Removal

@PhotogenicScientist: I don't understand the rationale for removing this text. [2]. 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)

[3][4][5][6][7] 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)

traumatic brain injury?

we need a source for if hunter has a traumatic brain injury 100.36.55.194 (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

You see those little numbers inside brackets? Click 'em. Zaathras (talk) 21:19, 19 September 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)

Navy reserve section

The majority of the section is about how he was discharged. The word "discharge" is therefore WP:DUE in the section heading. Where is Matt? (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

That seems reasonable and perfectly neutral to me. The claim that this is "disparagement" is baseless. Similarly, if Biden is acquitted on all charges, I imagine we could use a heading like "Federal charges and acquittal". Politrukki (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

To add, the article is under "bold-revert-discuss cycle" page restriction (see the talk page header or the article's edit notice for details). It seems that both you and SPECIFICO have violated the restriction:

1. 22:08, 7 October 2023 original insertion
2. 02:40, 8 October 2023 revert by SPECIFICO
3. 17:58, 8 October 2023 reinsertion by Where is Matt?
4. 19:55, 8 October 2023 second revert by SPECIFICO

You should NOT make another revert, except to self-revert in case SPECIFICO decides to self-revert. If neither of you self-reverts, I don't know whether you two will be sanctioned. Maybe, maybe not. Politrukki (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I guess my reinsertion was a mistake. I was thrown off by SPECIFICO's deceptive edit summary of "fix".

Apologies for the mistake. Where is Matt? (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed the same thing. Using an edit summary is not mandatory, but a summary like that is only appropriate for uncontroversial or obvious edits. Politrukki (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I guess SPECIFICO did more than just revert my addition of the words "and discharge", since they also removed the word "service". The [current section] title "Navy reserve" is vague and should be clarified to better summarize the content of the section. Where is Matt? (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I elaborated on the problem in my edit summary. SPECIFICO talk 22:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The edit summary of your 2nd revert has been characterized in this talk as "baseless". I recommend that you self-revert and put this discussion out of its misery. Where is Matt? (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You did not make an edit after this discussion was started. I already referenced the edit summary of your second revert in this discussion (at 21:14). Do you have anything more to say? Politrukki (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)