Talk:Hunter Biden/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Salary was $ 83,888 per month

There are multiple sources now that show Biden was paid $ 83,333 per month the edit used 2

• https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hunter-biden-ukraine-idUSKBN1WX1P7
• https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-biden-paid-80g-per-month-while-on-board-of-ukranian-gas-company-report

The article is currently incorrect since it shows

receiving compensation of up to $50,000 per month in some months. -- Current article wording

This strange wording is based on the New York Times which looked at his partnership bank account that received $ 83,333.33 per month and reported that he withdrew upto $ 50k in some months

Rosemont Seneca Bohai was controlled by Mr. Archer, who left Burisma’s board after he was charged in connection with a scheme to defraud pension funds and an Indian tribe of tens of millions of dollars. Bank records submitted in that case — which resulted in a conviction for Mr. Archer that was overturned in November — show that Rosemont Seneca Bohai made regular payments to Mr. Biden that totalled as much as $50,000 in some months. -- NYT article paragraph that article wording is based on

There are two primary sources, the Rosemont Seneca bank account which shows $ 83,333.33 and is reported by The Hill and NYT and Ukrainian Prosecutors who show the payments going out of the Burisma bank account reported by Reuters and others. It is clear and widely reported that $ 83,333 was paid every month by Burisma to Biden's partnership. The $ 50k amount originated in the NYT and is not his salary but the amounts that he withdrew from the partnership bank account. It should be shown and explained in the article which is what the [1]edit that was reverted did. RonaldDuncan (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

That's not a salary, any more that the gross revenue of Apple Computer is Tim Cook's salary. By the way, this is yet another example of Fox News reporting false information. - MrX 🖋 20:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, "Reuters was not able to independently verify the authenticity of the documents or how much money Hunter Biden received" even in their own article they outline that they cannot verify what was paid to Hunter. And in particular the idea of a "salary" is very different to consultation fees. The 83k would be paid to the company, he would then be paid a proportion of that as a salary from Rosemont. That might have been more, or less, depending on the split between himself and his business partners. Koncorde (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

When you get paid $ 83,333.33 every month it is salary. The payments are highlighted in yellow - https://creativedestructionmedia.com/investigations/2019/11/12/here-are-the-payments-to-hunter-biden-leaked-from-ukraine/ there are some other amounts which are fees, but every month there are 2 payments of $ 83,333.33 from the Burisma to Rosemount, one for Archer and one for Biden.

Since you object to Fox as a source how about CNBC https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/18/reuters-america-what-hunter-biden-did-on-the-board-of-ukrainian-energy-company-burisma.html RonaldDuncan (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

CNBC says the same as Reuters because it is quoting Reuters; "Specifically, the records show 18 months in which two payments of $83,333 per month were paid to Rosemont Seneca Bohai for consulting services. The two sources said that one of those monthly payments was intended for Biden and one for Archer. Reuters was not able to independently verify the authenticity of the documents or how much money Hunter Biden received."

You have a company. You sell professional services. I pay your company for those services. That is not a salary. None of your provided articles say that this was a salary. In fact they explicitly state that they have been unable to verify the claim regarding the initial payment accuracy, nevermind what Biden was paid as a salary by Rosemont.

You have a company Ronald, you should know this. Koncorde (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Koncorde is correct, and these correct points have been repeated ad nauseam by several others on this Talk page for months now. I think it's well past time to WP:DROPTHESTICK on this one, RonaldDuncan. Really. soibangla (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The draft edit is being paid $83,333 per month. it does not specify if this is salary directors fees or consulting. The facts that the sources agree on are that every month $ 83,333.33 was paid from Burisma to Rosemount for both Biden and Archer, since they were both directors it is WP:SKYBLUE that this was their salary/directors fees, but the draft edit does not state this just this was the amount paid. The other amounts were additional consulting fees/expenses. It is also clear from the bank accounts of Rosemount that the random amounts taken out by Biden are drawings from a partnership account. The NYT which came up with the $ 50k figure is very clear that it is not a salary just regular payments. RonaldDuncan (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I understand that the fees are contentious, but as long as the article is incorrect, and since there are new sources that point to the error. I think it is worth raising again. Especially as Trump is now saying he was paid over $ 100k per month (which is unsupported by any evidence anywhere) RonaldDuncan (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

You cannot claim to know that the money being paid was for anything other than consultation fees as this is the only evidence given in the articles you have provided (without us trying to read into a primary source and synthesise our own evidence somehow). If we want to say Rosemont was paid 2 x 83k a month and to say that this was a salary you are going to need a source that actually says those words.

It is not a case of WP:SKYBLUE if Reuters themselves are saying that they cannot verify it. Trump being wrong is a case of WP:SKYBLUE. Citing every instance of his misinformation is utterly needless in another person's biography. Koncorde (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• Report it as a report. It doesn’t matter on whether anyone here feels it was a salary, Just Follow The Cites and say what they said. In other words, just attribute it as ‘Reuter’s reported... ‘ without saying it as true or false. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Markbassett I think that would be best to put in Reuter's reported 'that he was paid £83,333 per month to his partnership account' and NYT reported that 'the partnership made regular payments to Mr. Biden that totalled as much as $50,000 in some months.' RonaldDuncan (talk) 10:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

We cannot say what Reuters does not say. For the third time now, Reuters stated in their article:

"Reuters was not able to independently verify the authenticity of the documents or how much money Hunter Biden received."

You cannot state "he was paid" anything because Reuters has not stated it. You need a reliable source, on the record, stating the facts. This is why the NYT used the 50k value, and because they verified that amount it is why we are currently using it. Koncorde (talk) 11:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Just convey the cites. Reuter’s and CNBC and Forbes are reporting the Burisma records, so include that in conveying the coverage. I think a valid paraphrase might be something like ‘reports of the varying amount paid range from NY Times report of $50,000 per month to Reuter’s reporting Burisma records of 18 months at $83,333 per month. ‘ WP should not be conveying just NYT or portraying it as ‘true’ any more than Reuter’s - we are simply paraphrasing reports here of the coverage and an amount that varied, where neither NYT nor Reuter’s is saying it was a fixed, confirmed amount. (Or we might mention instead the amount by millions total.) In the end, the exact varying amount or total seems a detail and not the point - a great deal of money in all accounts - but in trying to convey the coverage, differing accounts should be reflected. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Saying that Reuters reported Burisma records of 18 months at $83,333 per month without indicating that they were not able to independently verify the authenticity of the documents or how much money Hunter Biden received is not actually conveying the sources. I see no reason to change this passage in the article at this time. XOR'easter (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

POTENTIAL SOLUTION: How about just changing the text from "up to $50,000 per month" to "at least $50,000 per month" since numerous reliable sources (including Reuters) indicate Biden earned between 50k and 83k per month.Circulair (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Who says that he received more than $50,000 in any month? Sources please? SPECIFICO talk 02:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hunter-biden-ukraine/what-hunter-biden-did-on-the-board-of-ukrainian-energy-company-burisma-idUSKBN1WX1P7 -- Here is Reuters — Preceding unsigned comment added by Circulair (talk • contribs) 02:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

More than one editor has previously explained to you that reference says no such thing. Time to drop it. SPECIFICO talk 03:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be a persistent inability by a few editors to comprehend what these sources have actually written. The solution to that is not to invent new information out of thin air, or to repeat the same faulty arguments that have been repeatedly rejected. I suggest someone close this discussion. Then, if this type of POV pushing continues, a trip to AE for some topic bans is probably warranted. - MrX 🖋 13:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I support closing. XOR'easter (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I reverted the early close. The bank accounts from the Burisma side have been published here https://creativedestructionmedia.com/investigations/2019/11/12/here-are-the-payments-to-hunter-biden-leaked-from-ukraine/ and show the payments of $83,333.33 per month, that Reuters refers too.

The bank accounts from the Rosemount side are available due the Devon Archer court case, and are referenced in the Hill article https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/436816-joe-bidens-2020-ukrainian-nightmare-a-closed-probe-is-revived back in April. The Hill article states.

U.S. banking records show Hunter Biden’s American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, received regular transfers into one of its accounts — usually more than $166,000 a month — from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015

and goes on to say

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. The bank records show that, on most months when Burisma money flowed, two wire transfers of $83,333.33 each were sent to the Rosemont Seneca–connected account on the same day. The same Rosemont Seneca–linked account typically then would pay Hunter Biden one or more payments ranging from $5,000 to $25,000 each. Prosecutors reviewed internal company documents and wanted to interview Hunter Biden and Archer about why they had received such payments, according to interviews.

The NYT accessed the same bank account records as the Hill, and the $50k figure comes from a month were Hunter Biden got 2 x $25k payments. I think we should report the facts as reported by the sources that his partnership was paid two payments of $83,333.33 per month one for Archer and one for Biden and he withdrew "one or more payments ranging from $5,000 to $25,000 each" the Hill "totaling $50k in some months" NYT.

The Trump side of the argument reports payments over $ 100k per month ( which is true since it was $ 166,666.66 plus other fees per month, and false since it was two payments ). Wikipedia should have the correct figure supported by verified sources, which is $ 83,333.33 per month from Burisma to Rosemount and multiple payments of $ 5,000 to $ 25,000 from Rosemount to Biden totaling $ 50,000 in some months.

Anyway, this is a topic that matters for the article and not a discussion that should be terminated early because it does not support your POV. RonaldDuncan (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

This is not terminating it "early". It was terminating it at the point where you had been told repeatedly no and the reasons why, only for you to return without seemingly reading the responses or tackling the issue with the POV you are pushing. We have no POV. We are clearly explaining to you the repeated issues that you seem to be having with basic things like reading sources and accurately representing them.

This article is not about what Donald Trump has claimed, or reconciling it with his statements. It is clear money was paid from Burisma to Rosemont. That is easily referenced. It is easy to assume some of that money was paid then to Hunter but it is largely an irrelevance.

"Man in well paid job is well paid" is yet another utterly tired redundancy. If you have a relevant suggestion that would improve the section then I suggest you rewrite the paragraph here. Koncorde (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Koncorde I brought this discussion back because the facts have changed. There was a new set of sources for the $83k figure following the Reuters article and various follow ups including pulling the bank account records from the Burisma side. The bank account records from the Rosemount side were already in the public domain because of the Archer court case.

My suggested edit is to change the current

Biden served on the board of Burisma until his term expired in April 2019,[41] receiving compensation of up to $50,000 per month in some months. to

Biden served on the board of Burisma until his term expired in April 2019.[41] Burisma paid $ 83,333.33 per month into his Rosemount Senica account and he withdrew multiple amounts of $ 5,000 to $ 25,000 totaling up to $ 50,000 in some months.

I think the above reflects what the NYT, Hill and Reuters state in their articles, and very happy for improved wording obviously :) RonaldDuncan (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

RonaldDuncan, you are engaged in persistent SYNTH and OR. I concur with MrX: I suggest someone close this discussion. Then, if this type of POV pushing continues, a trip to AE for some topic bans is probably warranted. soibangla (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Soibangla WP:SYNTH - there are multiple sources so clearly there is a possibility of SYNTH, I do not think there is SYNTH, but clearly the key is that whatever wording is adopted reflects the sources. Do you have a better wording or a specific concern about SYNTH?

WP:OR - I do not see any original research using published sources that are accepted as reliable by Wikipedia, if you feel there is OR then please point it out. On the topic of OR I am happy to carry out some verification of the bank account information to check if what the published sources have stated is consistent with the actual bank information. I would regards this are verification of the sources rather than original research and clearly this could not go into the article unless backed up by a accepted reliable source.

Topic bans threats - I am open about my real world identity, so it is easy to see I am not a US citizen, and apart from this article have minimal interest in US politics. I do not contribute to any other US political articles. My concern with this article came from looking at the article and seeing that when I checked the sources there was an obvious error in the section on payments to Hunter Biden.

My general conduct on Wikipedia is to create and contribute to articles and not get into wiki lawyering talk page discussions. This article is an exception, because it is currently wrong on something that is easily verifiable - how much Biden was paid since the bank accounts are in the public domain now that multiple sources have reported both the payments and published the bank accounts. I do not see anything contentious about discussing this, and I accept if other editors disagree with me about what should or should not go in the article. I will also bring up any new evidence to reopen/start a new discussion. RonaldDuncan (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

This is the closest equivalent statement that could match your request. This is unique, distinct, and not synthesis and does not infer something that isn't supported.

Biden served on the board of Burisma until his term expired in April 2019. Financial records show Rosemont Seneca were paid two lots of $83,333.33 per month for the consultation services of Biden and Archer from X to Y.

The $50k remark from the NYT is a stated reliable source. There are other sources (Bloomberg, CNBC) that state the payments were "at least $50,000". Getting into what he withdrew from the account (or what was paid by Rosemont as a salary, or disbursement, as the withdrawals may be for any number of purposes without OR'ing the purpose) is a step too far into attempting to rationalise primary sources. As and if or when more detail comes out, or NYT / Bloomberg / CNBC and equivalents revise their statements we can get into that detail, but the current detail is solid (although may be worded differently I expect). Koncorde (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Koncorde I would be happy with your proposed wording. RonaldDuncan (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

That wording is undue detail and not about Hunter Biden, so it's not suitable article text and will be reverted just like previous attempts. SPECIFICO talk 16:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I personally have no objection to its inclusion as representative of the source. How it fits and if it fits or is appropriate is another issue entirely. I was just summarising for accuracy. Koncorde (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

IMO, the work of summarizing for accuracy has only emphasized how poorly it would fit. XOR'easter (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Is there are wording you would support, or do you object to the amount on principle? RonaldDuncan (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@XOR'easter: How would you like it changed so that it would fit? RonaldDuncan (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Nobody has convinced me that the current article needs to be modified at this point. I said almost a week ago that this discussion should be closed. I'm sorry to be blunt about it, but nothing that has happened since then has been productive. XOR'easter (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Duncan, there's clear consensus against this. Just drop it now. It's at the point where repeated talk page posts are disruptive. SPECIFICO talk 17:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I do not think there is clear consensus yet. A number of editors have suggested ways of incorporating the $83k amount, and others are clear that they do not want the article changed. It is probably time to get some fresh eyes on the issue. RonaldDuncan (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

The smartest thing you could do is sit back and let somebody else do that, if indeed anyone agrees with you. SPECIFICO talk 01:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 January 2020

Please remove the phrase "debunked right-wing conspiracy theories", & say instead something that is factual, informative & specific. (Because: "debunked right-wing conspiracy theories" is merely a "MEME" or ^talking point^ which is DISMISSIVE of ^something^ w/o saying ^WHAT^, ^by WHOM^ or ^WHY^.) 199.192.87.166 (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources that say that these theories are not conspiracy theories and are not debunked and are not right wing. But reliable sources now in the article say they are. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Burisma's board

The current opening sentence of the Burisma Holdings sections says nothing about Hunter Biden, but this article is about Hunter Biden, not about Mykola Zlochevsky or Burisma Holdings. However, if we assume that it may be relevant for the context, it includes some opinions which may or may not be true. In the current wordings it states that "In the aftermath of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution, Ukrainian oligarch and former politician Mykola Zlochevsky faced a money laundering investigation". However, the investigation what is referred was launched by the Serious Fraud Office of the United Kingdom because of the suspicious money transfer. Launching this investigation had nothing to do withe the Ukrainian revolution as the bank has an obligation to report about all similar transactions. The first sentence also states that "...Burisma ... assembled a "high-profile international board" in response" to the money laundering investigation. Actually, we don't know the reason why changes in Burisma's board took a place that time. It may be because of the money laundering investigation or not. As a such, this claim is an opinion and not a fact. For example, The Washington Post claims that "Bringing aboard a son of the U.S. vice president was part of a broad effort by Burisma to burnish its credentials that had started before the 2014 uprising."[2] Also the current chairma of board, investment banker Alan Apter joined the board already in 2013. Therefore, I propose new wording for the first sentence as following:

• In April 2014, Biden joined the board of Burisma Holdings, one of the largest independent natural gas producers in Ukraine owned by an Ukrainian oligarch and former politician Mykola Zlochevsky who faced a money laundering investigation that time.

Beagel (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 January 2020

CHANGE THIS: In July 2019, Trump ordered the freezing of $391 million in military aid[55] shortly before a telephone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in which Trump asked Zelensky to initiate an investigation of the Bidens.[56][57] Trump falsely told Zelensky that "[Joe] Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution" of his son; Joe Biden did not stop any prosecution, did not brag about doing so, and there is no evidence his son was ever under investigation.[58] On September 24, 2019, the United States House of Representatives initiated a formal impeachment inquiry against Trump on the grounds that he may have sought to use U.S. foreign aid and the Ukrainian government to damage Joe Biden's 2020 presidential campaign.[59][60]

TO THIS: In July 2019, Trump ordered the freezing of $391 million in military aid[55] shortly before a telephone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in which Trump asked Zelensky to initiate an investigation of the Bidens.[56][57] Trump falsely told Zelensky that "[Joe] Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution" of his son; Joe Biden did not stop any prosecution, did not brag about doing so [though he did admit to successfully pressuring the Ukrainian government to fire prosecutor Shokin] and there is no evidence his son was ever under investigation.[58] On September 24, 2019, the United States House of Representatives initiated a formal impeachment inquiry against Trump on the grounds that he may have sought to use U.S. foreign aid and the Ukrainian government to damage Joe Biden's 2020 presidential campaign.[59][60] Parson10 (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Paternity Suit

Should we mention the ongoing paternity suit? It certainly seems newsworthy. https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2020/jan/22/appear-in-court-explain-judge-orders-hu/ 108.183.22.133 (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

We already have this: "Biden is also the father of a child born out of wedlock in Arkansas in August 2018." -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't mention the ongoing suit. 108.183.22.133 (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Suit seems to have ended. There are sources stating that Biden has agreed to pay child support. [3][4][5]. I tried adding a revised short sentence but was told it was WP:UNDUE. Feel free to discuss or use according. TJMSmith (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

If you believe this is a noteworthy event, it's up to you to gain consensus for that view. I think it's a personal detail of no encyclopedic interest in the life of this rather ordinary individual who happened to have his 15 minutes of fame recently. SPECIFICO talk 19:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

debunked

WP:NOTFORUM. This has been discussed at length on the talk page. There's no consensus and repeat appearances of old rejected arguments do not contribute to article improvement. The article talk page is not for broadcasting debunked political smears.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please name the name of the Report for which the US Government or specifically the State Department, clears Hunter Biden and can be considered Debunked... Why would we consider the opinions of journalists as fact? The opinion of a writer should not be considered as fact without proper investigation clearing the person... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.197.124.2 (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC) References 1, 2, 3, and 7 say debunked. Do any say baseless? Gah4 (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC) RS say "debunked" and reflect scrutiny and falsification. Baseless could be misinterpreted as opinion, e.g. a synonym for ridiculous. SPECIFICO talk 16:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC) I'm not sure I agree on the connotations there (connotations being a notoriously tricky thing, of course). I don't have particularly strong feelings on the matter, but so far I still agree with my edit summary: the sum total of the references (one of which goes so far as to call the conspiracy theories "fantasies") makes "baseless" a slightly better choice. I'll put extra emphasis on the slightly part, though. XOR'easter (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC) Well, "fantasies" is a subjective evaluation of those who propagate these stories, but the stories themselves are "debunked" "disproved" "false" etc. I think we should just reflect what descriptive sources say w/o getting into flowery deprecation of the false theories. SPECIFICO talk 20:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC) baseless is more encyclopedic - debunked has resulted in a lot of misinterpretation by readers, and regular entries on this talk page. Thanks XOR'easter and IagoQnsi for the suggestion. RonaldDuncan (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC) Please explain what's more encyclopedic about the English word "baseless" as opposed to the "debunked" used repeatedly by the highest quality Reliable Sources? What misinterpretion results from "debunked?" Thanking colleagues is fine, but we already are considering their views. If you have any points that would advance the conversation, please explain them. SPECIFICO talk 20:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC) Just to move things along here, is the problem that "dubunked" is a somewhat unusual or colloquial-sounding English word? There are also the simpler words "disproved" or "false" that also reflect mainstream sources. SPECIFICO talk 00:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC) Just my view that baseless is more in line with WP:IMPARTIAL than debunked and a better description (stronger) than "disproved" or "false". RonaldDuncan (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC) For what it's worth, I came to this article curious about the origins of the impeachment inquiry and found the verbiage that the theories were "baseless" to be somewhat slanted. The theories certainly have base in reality, this article even says as much further down "Because Vice President Biden played a major role in U.S. policy towards Ukraine, some Ukrainian anti-corruption advocates and Obama administration officials expressed concern that Hunter Biden's having joined the board could create the appearance of a conflict of interest and undermine Vice President Biden's anti-corruption work in Ukraine." While the allegations/theories have since been debunked/disproved, I wouldn't call them "baseless" as there was certainly reason to suspect foul play, given that memebers of the Obama administration had voiced concerns.--Dabluecaboose (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC) There might be some question about Biden, but there is also the e-mail servers. It seems that this was started by the Russians to distract from the idea that the Russians interfered in 2016. As well as I know, this is reasonably debunked, if it ever made sense in the first place. If one really wants one, it is much easier to take the hard drive, which has all the information needed. I believe in this case it is a server farm with multiple servers, much more difficult to move out of the country and otherwise hide. The description doesn't require all theories to be debunked (new ones will appear faster than that), but only some of them. Gah4 (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC) OK, on live TV, just seconds ago, the server theory is baseless. I don't know how to cite live TV, though. Gah4 (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC) We don't cite content to Democratic Congressman prosecutors. Let's stick with the longstanding, RS-cited content until such time as editors reach a consensus to change the wording. SPECIFICO talk 23:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC) So far, I haven't seen any WP:RS that says baseless, but maybe there are some, and just haven't been cited. Even though live TV isn't an RS, I thought it interesting to hear it during this discussion. Gah4 (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC) A theory can be both baseless and debunked, or it could be baseless and not debunked or it could be debunked but not baseless. However "debunked" describes these theories that were widely circulated in the right-leaning media, promoted by Russian intelligence, and repeated by Trump and his circle. They were widely circulated and then debunked. SPECIFICO talk 01:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC) I agree with SPECIFICO, a debunked but not baseless theory is that the Earth is the center of the solar system. There was reason to believe it once, but further evidence has shown it to be untrue. A baseless theory is that the Earth's government is controlled by secret lizard people, as there is literally no reason to suspect that is the case. --Dabluecaboose (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC) In any case, we need a WP:RS for it. If I counted right, three of the references say debunked and none say baseless. The non-RS, live TV, was where I first heard baseless. Gah4 (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC) This article couldn't be more biased if it was written by Hunter Biden himself. First, it refers to "right-wing conspiracy theories concerning his business dealings in Ukraine". Is it a right-wing conspiracy theory that he and his business partner were given jobs on the Board of Directors of Burisma, making $1 million / year ($83,000/month) each? https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/27/hunter-bidens-reported-burisma-payout-was-far-above-comparable-board-compensation/ explains that "Among S&P 500 companies in the energy industry, board members were compensated with a median $213,000 a year, with those in the 75th percentile of the salary range still only bringing in $289,000." Hunter had no prior experience in the energy sector, or in the Ukraine. He didn't speak the language. His only apparent qualification is that his father was the Vice President of the United States, and the point-man on Ukraine policy. Is it a conspiracy theory that his father, was caught on tape bragging that he had a prosecutor (who was investigating Burisma) fired, threatening to withhold $1 Billion in US loan guarantees? But Wikipedia will tell the world, there's nothing to see here folks... move along. Using the word "debunked" is completely misleading and false. What exactly was debunked? Referencing several liberal newspaper articles, who frame the question the way they wish, doesn't close the door on the matter. No official government / law enforcement investigation was concluded or made public, and so at the moment we don't know the extent to which Joe Biden may have sold access to his office or Hunter Biden may have used his influence with his father in return for a ludicrously high salary on the board of Burisma. This article is doing Wikipedia no favors. It is clearly not written from a Neutral Point of View. This article needs to be debunked. The contributors to this article seem remarkably incurious about the money that changed hands, and how that may have influenced decisions in the Obama Administration. According to one source (a Ukrainian member of Parliament), payments totaled $16.5 million. https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/press-conference/625876.html Tvaughan1 (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC) See also https://johnsolomonreports.com/latvian-government-says-it-flagged-suspicious-hunter-biden-payments-in-2016/ And before responding, make sure you watch Pam Bondi's presentation to the US Senate here... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zHPfxOR0-E?t=12897, so you are more fully informed. It's full of references to sources that are strangely missing from this article. Tvaughan1 (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC) Tvaughan1, the entire Biden "scandal" that the right wing is trying to fabricate has been debunked. No evidence has surfaced of any wrong doing, such as "selling access". John Solomon's "reporting" is what created the hoax notion that kicked off this whole thing.[6] He is not credible. "... for some of his biggest stories on Ukraine, he has relied on a prosecutor with a history of making inconsistent statements who is now under criminal investigation." I'm also not interested in the disinformation pushed by Pam Bondi in the impeachment trial. She's hardly unbiased. (What would you say if I told you to watch Adam Schiff's statements?) We reference "newspapers", not "liberal newspapers". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC) Muboshgu You label anyone who has concerns about Hunter Biden selling influence as "right wing"? That's a double logical fallacy... an ad hominem attack, as well as questioning motives. Shouldn't we Assume good faith? You claim that John Solomon is not a credible source, and so anything he writes must be ignored entirely. Nonsense. He is well respected. Obviously John_Solomon_(political_commentator) also needs some debunking (conspiracy theories!). And then you basically accuse a former Attorney General of lying to the US Senate. Well, thanks for showing your cards. Pam Bondi laid out all the relevant facts, citing her sources. These facts need to be included in an encyclopedia article on the topic. They're relevant, and newsworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvaughan1 (talk • contribs) Tvaughan1, Hunter Biden "selling influence" is your baseless accusation, with nothing at all supporting the notion. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC) Muboshgu Unlike you, who dismissed Pam Bondi's presentation in the US Senate as "disinformation", I made no baseless accusations. There is a widespread, highly public, legitimate concern that members of Joe Biden's family have enriched themselves unjustly. There are many documented facts that tend to support this concern that are relevant to this article. It's not WP:NPOV to summarize this concern as "right-wing conspiracy theories", nor is it WP:NPOV to say that this legitimate concern has been "debunked" (which leads readers to believe there was no basis for any concern).Tvaughan1 (talk) 04:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC) Tvaughan1, there is zero evidence of either Biden "selling access", it is a baseless conspiracy theory. If you're concerned about "selling access", I'm sure you'll be worried about all of the foreign dignitaries pumping money into the Trump International Hotel in Washington for access (Zelensky name dropped it on that "perfect" call), the Trump Tower Moscow project, Ivanka's Chinese patents, and Trump pressuring the head of state of a nation at war with Russia for some priceless political dirt on ab opponent in exchange for aid he was illegally holding up after it had been appoved by Congress. Cheers. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC) Muboshgu You're moving the goal posts. I've never suggested including anything other than relevant facts in the article. In this discussion, I've pointed out that many people have legitimate concerns that the facts paint a concerning picture. Even Hunter Biden's business partner wrote a letter to the State Department disavowing any involvement https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/john-kerrys-son-cut-business-ties-with-hunter-biden-over-ukrainian-oil-deal It seems to me that the crack team of Hunter Biden reputation defenders has been remarkably successful and should be congratulated on their work on this article. Not only are embarrassing, widely publicized incidents banned from inclusion, but legitimate concerns about the prima facie appearance of a conflict of interest, widely acknowledged by political analysts on all sides are blocked. Those with such concerns are WP:LABEL "right wing" and the legitimate concerns are labeled with the contentious words "conspiracy theories". Wikipedia editors who feel qualified to categorize all who hold such concerns about Hunter Biden's qualifications and unusually high pay as "right wing" are editorializing, violating WP:NOR. This is a widely reported, highly publicized concern held by a majority of Americans, according to a Harvard/Harris poll... https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/468585-poll-majority-say-hunter-bidens-role-on-ukrainian-energy-board-was-bad "Right Wing" doesn't belong here. It should be replaced with "conservative". "Conspiracy theories" should be replaced with "concerns". These concerns are widespread and real, and as such, the weasel word "debunked" should be removed. Tvaughan1 (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC) No. Bad =/= concern. Concern =/= conspiracy theory. Right wing =/= conservative. There may be legitimate concerns, but conflating those concerns with actual debunked conspiracy theories (the root of which are often shared, or feed into each other) is misinformation. Casting aspersions against editors is also a great way to win friends and influence people. I don't care about Biden, his reputation, or anything thereof - I am concerned about wikipedia being used to spread incorrect information and repeat unfounded allegations, or fail to represent sources stating that allegations are not merely unfounded but have been debunked. Koncorde (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC) Tvaughan1, Koncorde is right. You can be "concerned" all you want about Biden being corrupt. It doesn't make it so. His board role in Ukraine can "look bad" without actually violating any laws. The whole thing is a right wing conspiracy theory without any factual basis to support it. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC) It is widely documented that Hunter Biden's employment with Burisma created, at a minimum, the appearance of a conflict of interest. This was the focus of Pam Bondi's presentation on Day 7 of the Trump impeachment trial (see the transcript here- https://www.c-span.org/video/?468552-3/senate-impeachment-trial-day-7-defense-opening-arguments-raskin-philbin-bondi-herschmann It's not acceptable to ignore these concerns in this article, or to summarily dismiss these legitimate, widely-held and widely publicized concerns as "conspiracy theories". This article is clearly and obviously not written from a WP:NPOV. The only people conflating legitimate concerns with conspiracy theories are those trying to keep those legitimate concerns, and any associated facts, out of this article. Tvaughan1 (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC) Tvaughan1, "appearance of a conflict of interest" = nothingburger. If there was evidence of corrupt actions taken, we would've heard about them at some point in the last six months. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 😂 It's widely documented that Bondi is a Trump operative.[7][8][9][10] She is not remotely a reliable source, least of all for information about Trump's attempt to extort a foreign power to investigate his political rival in pursuit of a debunked conspiracy theory. - MrX 🖋 02:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC) Also, in case there is any confusion, the element surrounding the "concern of a conflict of interest" is in the article from the relevant authority at that time - Obama and his administration. Subsequent concerns are the conspiracy theories, not actual concerns about the supposed conflict. Koncorde (talk) 07:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC) Here is the Today Show (NBC), promoting "conspiracy theories". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQTR7JcPLEM&t=198 I guess the Today Show is "right-wing" now. Don't they know that this has been "debunked"?Tvaughan1 (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC) Just took at look at https://www.c-span.org/video/?468552-3/senate-impeachment-trial-day-7-defense-opening-arguments-raskin-philbin-bondi-herschmann&start=4674 the prosecution uses Baseless in its 400 mentions of Burisma and Biden. Clearly this is the case against Biden as part of the defense so it as far from NPOV as possible, but is clearly the best summation that they could come up with against Biden and Burisma. My view is that the conspiracy theory sentence should be removed from the lead, and be a separate section in the article.RonaldDuncan (talk) 11:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC) Agreed. "Conspiracy Theory" is effectively a weasel phrase. It creates an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. It's a biased characterization of the legitimate public concerns about Hunter Biden's employment with and extremely high compensation from Burisma. It doesn't matter that a number of left-leaning articles have all characterized any such concerns as "conspiracy theories". There are many neutral or right-leaning sources that characterize these concerns for what they are - poor judgement, and the appearance of a conflict of interest, at best. The concerns are widely publicized and therefore notable. No one is suggesting that the article be edited to reach a conclusion about Hunter Biden's employment with Burisma. But it's time that the the legitimate concerns about this situation not be summarily dismissed with the phrases "right-wing", "conspiracy theories" and "debunked".Tvaughan1 (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC) Well sure, it was bad optics and HB has acknowledged as much. But that doesn't get around the fact that many have exploited those bad optics to claim extortion and influence peddling, in order to concoct a political smear, and for which there is no evidence, which is why RSs have characterized it as a "conspiracy theory." soibangla (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC) Summation and proposal There are very frequent posts to this talk page about "debunked conspiracy theories". These tend to be long debates. A proposal is that a section be created in the article with the debunked conspiracy theories so is is clear what they are to any reader of the article. RonaldDuncan (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

military service

He was in the Navy Reserve for 1 MONTH from the statement

"In May 2013, Biden's application for a position in the U.S. Navy Reserve was approved.[25] Biden was accepted as part of a program that allows a limited number of applicants with desirable skills to receive commissions and serve in staff positions.[26] He received an age-related waiver and a waiver due to a past drug-related incident, and was sworn in as a direct commission officer.[25] Joe Biden administered his commissioning oath in a White House ceremony.[14] The following month, Biden tested positive for cocaine during a urinalysis test and was subsequently discharged"

But yet it says Years of service 2013–2014 in his BIO how is 1 month 2 years ? This discredits people who actually served 4+ years and got honorable discharges.

This isn't hard to understand. A service member doesn't get discharged immediately after failing a drug test. It takes several months for a service's legal and administrative processes to work - a re-test to make sure the first result is right, commanders at each level considering available responses and selecting one, approval of a course of action, legal review, final approval, and implementation. In this case, the end result of the processes was Biden's separation from the Navy. But those steps don't happen overnight.

Billmckern (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

PS - Read the references and you'll see that he was discharged near the end of 2014, so technically, his Navy service lasted about a year and a half.

Billmckern (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

RFC Hunter Biden salary - "receiving compensation of up to $50,000 per month in some months" or "Financial records show Rosemont Seneca were paid two lots of $83,333.33 per month for the directors fees of Biden and Archer."

There are multiple sources for Hunter Biden's fees from Burisma with different amounts. Which figure or figures should be displayed

• NYT - $ 50,000 or
• Reuters - $ 83,333.33 per month

and how should this be described in the article.RonaldDuncan (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Potential alternative wordings

Please add any other wording for discussion

• receiving compensation of up to $50,000 per month in some months
• Financial records show Rosemont Seneca were paid two lots of $83,333.33 per month for the directors fees of Biden and Archer
• Financial records show Rosemont Seneca were paid two lots of $83,333.33 per month for the consultation services of Biden and Archer
• Financial records show Rosemont Seneca were paid two lots of $83,333.33 per month for the consultation services of Biden and Archer. Biden withdrew multiple amounts of $ 5,000 to $ 25,000 totaling up to $ 50,000 in some months.
• Burisma paid $ 83,333.33 per month into his Rosemount Senica account
• Burisma paid $ 83,333.33 per month into his Rosemount Senica account and he withdrew multiple amounts of $ 5,000 to $ 25,000 totaling up to $ 50,000 in some months.

The Career section currently cites sources which contradict the claim that the money laundering theories have been debunked. Money laundering theories are, by there very nature extremely difficult to prove or disprove. Awhodothey (talk) 05:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Please add any additional sources

upto 50k

• https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/us/politics/biden-son-ukraine.html

Rosemont Seneca Bohai was controlled by Mr. Archer, who left Burisma’s board after he was charged in connection with a scheme to defraud pension funds and an Indian tribe of tens of millions of dollars. Bank records submitted in that case — which resulted in a conviction for Mr. Archer that was overturned in November — show that Rosemont Seneca Bohai made regular payments to Mr. Biden that totalled as much as $50,000 in some months. -- NYT article paragraph that article wording is based on

83k

Sources for Burisma side of payments ( Ukrainian investigation )

• https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hunter-biden-ukraine-idUSKBN1WX1P7
• https://creativedestructionmedia.com/investigations/2019/11/12/here-are-the-payments-to-hunter-biden-leaked-from-ukraine/ - bank records for Reuters

Sources for Rosmount Senica side of payments ( US Court Case against Devon Archer also discussed by NYT )

• https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/436816-joe-bidens-2020-ukrainian-nightmare-a-closed-probe-is-revived

U.S. banking records show Hunter Biden’s American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, received regular transfers into one of its accounts — usually more than $166,000 a month — from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015

and goes on to say

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. The bank records show that, on most months when Burisma money flowed, two wire transfers of $83,333.33 each were sent to the Rosemont Seneca–connected account on the same day. The same Rosemont Seneca–linked account typically then would pay Hunter Biden one or more payments ranging from $5,000 to $25,000 each. Prosecutors reviewed internal company documents and wanted to interview Hunter Biden and Archer about why they had received such payments, according to interviews.

Looks like he just settled with the mother. Back child support etc. However, I’ve seen reported that not final judgment yet but temporary. F. L. (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

The NYT's wording of Rosemont Seneca Bohai made regular payments to Mr. Biden that totalled as much as $50,000 in some months was based on investigating the Bank Accounts of Rosemont Seneca Bohai and was a classic misdirection since those accounts showed that every month 2 payments of $ 83,333.33 came in from Burisma and there are irregular amounts of $ 5k to $ 25k paid from this account to Biden. Biden and Archer were both Directors of Burisma and thus paid the same monthly directors fee every month of $ 83,333.33. RonaldDuncan (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

This is merely continued rehashing of a point that has been hashed to death already. I see no reason to change what the article currently says on this topic. XOR'easter (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

No. Out of principle now I am revoking any prior attempt to discuss this with you. Do not attempt to use my words to suggest why I support incoprorating your interpretation of the words, particularly in the utterly transparent attempt to again rehash a dead argument.

1. You are wrong in your analysis. This is Original Research. Stop.
2. You are pushing a POV. You are not contributing to Wikipedia, you are now resembling little more than a single purpose account. The figures will be updated as and when a reliable source clearly, and without the need for parsing or inferring from primary sources what money was for what purpose.
3. The use of terms like "classic misdirection" should be struck as flagrant violations of BLP. You do not say, or make such claims ever, at all.

Stop Ronald, this is disruptive if I am being exceptionally generous. Koncorde (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Koncorde that is clear. Your wording was great and helpful and I appreciate that although we disagree about what should be in the article. By "classic misdirection" or "lying by omission" I am talking about the NYT article's authors rather than fellow editors. I opened the RFC to get some fresh eyes, and stop my involvement in the discussion.

The current wording is Compensation - which normally means salary - I would support just payment and not infer anything that is not in reliable sources.

We have two sets of sources and the norm would be to report both sets of sources with appropriate weighting. At the moment we only use the NYT article and its coverage of the payments from Rosemount to Biden. I think this is a serious omission since the NYT article does state that $ 3.4 m is paid in circa 18months from Burisma to Rosemount, which agrees with the other sources.

The other point is that Rosemount is a partnership so the partners own all the money paid in rather than a company which would own the money, so the payments from Burisma to Rosemount are payments to the partners Biden and Archer, and the withdrawals are drawings from the partnership. I have a couple of partnerships so I understand partnership capital accounts, share of profits and drawings and am happy to explain the details if required. This is not in the sources so it is not for the article but useful background information for editors.

2 x 18 x $ 83,333.33 is $ 3m ($ 2,999,999.88 for the picky :) ) by the NYT logic Biden got less than 18 x $ 50,000 = $ 900,000. It is very obvious that there is a missing $ 2.5m to anyone used to looking at figures in the 18 month period.

My view is that NPOV is to report the payments from Burisma to Rosemount either as the NYT figure of $ 3.4m or the Reuters/Hill figure of $ 83,333.33 per month. Personally I prefer the $ 83,333.33 per month since there are 2 directors 2 payments and they happen every month which is a good indication of the directors monthly income, and I would drop the $ 50k figure as irreverent/misleading since the NYT wording is clear that this is an exceptional amount. RonaldDuncan (talk) 09:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

No. Stop. This is original research. It does not matter what is paid by Burisma to Rosemont, no source states that this is income direct to either Archer or Biden that does not also say "we can't verify this". The $50k figure, regardless of your opinion of the NYT's motives is still the only figure a reliable source is sticking to - we will change it as / when someone from a reliable source actually reports some other figure.

In short, the amount of compensation to Rosemont, or to Biden, is utterly irrelevant. The focus upon it by yourself is obsessive, disruptive, and based upon no rational common sense. Stop. Koncorde (talk) 10:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I concur that this is original research, and I am sticking by what I said two weeks ago. The proposed changes are inadmissible, and the discussion should be closed. XOR'easter (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Please do not put another hat template on whilst the RFC is in progress in makes a complete mess of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=935812310 and I have already had to apologise twice for the mess. We can disagree about what should be in the article, but our disagreements should not result in the disruption of wider work in the wikipedia. Other editors can take a view on what is reasonable to include in the article and hopefully provide a fresh point of view, since we have established that we are in disagreement but not a consensus on the way forward.RonaldDuncan (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

There isn't an RfC in progress. Instead you are re-hashing the exact same rejected content. The consensus is clear and has been clear since you started: $50k is supported by the reliable sources. Anything else, such as the $83k is unsupported speculation even by the sources own admittance, or requires original research. We will change the amount of the page as and when a reliable source updates their amount or it is reported upon in a reliable source at a point in the future.

The subject of the discussion here is not important, significant, relevant, or proportionate to the significance of the change requested. Give it up. Koncorde (talk) 06:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the figure of $50,000 should be displayed, since that is based on a reliable source (NYT article). The Reuters article says that Reuters could not verify how much money Biden received. The other sources saying $83k seem to be based on Reuters - Fox says the info is from the National Review, and the National Review says the info is from Reuters. --Cerebellum (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Cerebellum I assume you looked at the Hill article which was the other original source for the $83k, and yes the others are based on Reuters.RonaldDuncan (talk) 10:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what they are based on Ronald, they do not say what you keep on trying to suggest. All the sources state money was paid from Burisma to Rosemont of 2 X 83k. The sources also state that these have been described as payments for "consultation services". Subsequently all sources say Biden withdrew certain varying amounts. Stop. Koncorde (talk) 11:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Koncorde. My personal opinion is that Biden probably was getting $83k a month, but the sources don't say that. Verifiability, not truth. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Cerebellum Verifiability, not truth is the core of this discussion. Koncorde and I agree that money was paid from Burisma to Rosemont of 2 X 83k, we disagree on the "consultation services" (Reuters) point since NYT and Hill just describe payments and do not say why. The sources agree that Biden and Archer were directors of Burisma. For me it is wp:skyblue that 2 directors 2 payments of the same amount every month is the directors fees, it is not wp:skybluefor everyone else and the sources do not say it is for directors fees. Hence all the various proposed wording so say what the sources say that Burisma made payments to the partnership and Biden withdrew amounts from the partnership. The current article wording of "compensation" is not in any of the sources so I think we should drop words like "compensation/salary/fees" and just record the sourced payments.RonaldDuncan (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Duncan, you're going to need to explain to the assembled editors here why you think the exact compensation details are germane to the life story of Hunter Biden. This is his biography, not an article about Burisma, Rosemont, or the Biden conspiracy theories. SPECIFICO talk 15:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I think accurate payment details are germane to this article. I just looked at the Burisma Holdings talk page and the group of editors yourself SPECIFICO included that is against the $ 83k here are against putting the $3.4m total of the payments from Rosemount to Burisma source (the same NYT article) there. One of the arguments on the Burisma page is that the figures should be here :). Clearly, I agree with that sentiment or I would have edited the Burisma page. RonaldDuncan (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, so all you've done is to repeat yourself. We already knew that you think accurate payment details are germane to this article.. So you're apparently unable or unwilling to explain why in a reasoned, policy, source, and content -based way. It really doesn't matter whether you're unwilling or unable, you still just need to stop repeating your insistence with no constructive responses to the many other editors who have patiently explained this to you. SPECIFICO talk 19:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I think I already explained.

My view is that NPOV is to report the payments from Burisma to Rosemount either as the NYT figure of $ 3.4m or the Reuters/Hill figure of $ 83,333.33 per month. Personally I prefer the $ 83,333.33 per month since there are 2 directors 2 payments and they happen every month which is a good indication of the directors monthly income, and I would drop the $ 50k figure as irreverent/misleading since the NYT wording is clear that this is an exceptional amount. RonaldDuncan

It is clear that we disagree, and that so far only Cerebellum has joined in the discussion since the RFC started, and Cerebellum was clear in supporting the current $ 50k, so unless things change it stays as is, and we can retire this discussion. PS I am not proposing to hat it. Just let it expire :) RonaldDuncan (talk) 08:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Not sure, but it is possible that all of the sources are correct. The NYT does not state which months it is referring to. So it could be a matter as simple as different sources looking at different months. Instead of fighting with each other, please consider that. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The Hill seems pretty clear that there were two sets of payments -- payments to Rosemont Seneca, followed by irregular payments from Rosemont Seneca to Biden.[11] So my guess about "different months" was wrong; rather, it was different payments in the same month. At the same time, this explains how it is possible that different WP:RS came up with different numbers -- they were looking at different payments. So our task is to come up with a wording that is consistent with all of the sources. Not sure what that should be. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant. See above. SPECIFICO talk 16:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Adoring nanny the following draft wording Financial records show Rosemont Seneca were paid two lots of $83,333.33 per month for the consultation services of Biden and Archer. Biden withdrew multiple amounts of $ 5,000 to $ 25,000 totalling up to $ 50,000 in some months. matches the sources. The NYT is true, just there were very few months where 2x$ 25k took place so it is a not a good representation of the payments. The draft wording makes this clear. Please improve as you think best. RonaldDuncan (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The amount of heat here is certainly remarkable. I haven't arrived at any wording yet. Already I have someone praising me and someone else saying my posts are irrelevant. But my main point was simply that there is no contradiction among the sources, and they are all likely correct. Hard to see how that is irrelevant . . . or praiseworthy. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Do your fellow editors the courtesy of reviewing the many talk page comments on this issue. "Hard to see" suggests you have not made that effort yet. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Also not a case of contradiction. The issue is that there is money moving. One reliable source describes $50k Biden withdraws as his payments for his work for Rosemont. Other sources say that $83k x2 is paid to Rosemont for consultation services. A single source, Reuters, states they have been unable to verify the suggestion that these payments were for Archer / Biden. Most other sources quoting the $83k are quoting Reuters who say that they cannot verify it. Inferring anything beyond this is a mix of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. As / when someone clearly states what the $83k is without backtracking the claim, we will state that in the article clearly. Koncorde (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Reuter's report citing $83,000 payment only covered 18 months. The New York Times reported that it was "up to" $50,000 in some months, which could mean he earned less in some months. What is clear to me in all these sources is that the monthly fee cannot be specifically identified or that there was no fixed monthly income. I suggest to just include all the reported information. It will not strain credulity if all these are true since Biden was with Burisma for five years. Darwin Naz (talk) 10:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Indiscriminately including every figure that every source has reported for every type of payment is not, I think, a path to clarity. XOR'easter (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

No one is disputing that as Directors of Burisma, Hunter Biden and Devon Archer were each paid $1,000,000 per year, in the form of monthly payments of $83,333. The money was paid to a firm controlled by Devon Archer, Hunter Biden's business partner. It's a red herring to be concerned with the timing of payments from Rosemont Seneca to Hunter Biden matters (as if the firm took a meaningful cut, or Devon Archer was paid more than Hunter Biden). The facts as Reuters reported should be in this article.Tvaughan1 (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Reuters: "According to payment records reviewed by Reuters that two former Ukrainian law enforcement officials say are Burisma’s...Reuters was not able to independently verify the authenticity of the documents or how much money Hunter Biden received." Plant fake documents in the press? In Ukraine? Nah, couldn't happen. Show us the documents! soibangla (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7592235/Hunter-Biden-paid-83-333-month-Ukrainian-gas-company-ceremonial-figure.htmlTvaughan1 (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6003585-Rosemont-Seneca-Bohai-Bank-Records-Listing.htmlTvaughan1 (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Neither of those are reliable sources. - MrX 🖋 14:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The Hill https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/436816-joe-bidens-2020-ukrainian-nightmare-a-closed-probe-is-revived is a reliable source and the article was back in May 2019, before the heat started on Hunter Biden. It also references the same court verified bank records that the NYT uses, and the NYT article references the Hill article. Because the bank accounts are available for both Burisma and Rosemount it is easy to check that the $83k figure is true. The issue is Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth as previously discussed. Reuters is a reliable source, and whilst Reuters was not able to verify the payments. The Hill was able verify the payments, and we can check the bank accounts to see if Reuters was in error or not, so we have 2 independent reliable sources for the $ 83k(which we can check if true, but the key is sourcing).RonaldDuncan (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Read the talk page and archives to learn that we don't use Solomon's discredited conspiracy theories and why. SPECIFICO talk 19:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I looked at the John Solomon article, a good example of how editors attack some with a different point of view breaking WP:BLP and WP:NPOV.

The lead goes from before he published the article on Hunter Biden

He is known primarily for his tenure as an executive and editor-in-chief at The Washington Times.[2] He has been accused of biased reporting in favor of conservatives, and of repeatedly manufacturing faux scandals.[3][4]

to after he published the article on Hunter Biden

He was formerly employed as an executive and editor-in-chief at The Washington Times.[2] He is primarily known for having been accused of biased reporting in favor of conservatives, and of repeatedly manufacturing faux scandals.[3][4][5][6]

The John Solomon talk page has editors making the point that opinion pieces are not normally the basis for a lead accusing someone of bias.

Anyway the John Solomon article is irrelevant to this discussion. It is not policy, and the Hill is a reliable source so the article is a reliable source for this discussion.RonaldDuncan (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

RonaldDuncan, The Hill is reviewing and annotating Solomon's old columns.[12] I don't know if they've completed this yet. Solomon columns are absolutely not RS. They are conspiracy theories based on discredited Ukrainian prosecutors, Shokin and Lutshenko. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Muboshgu For the $50 vs $83k debate the Hill article is based on the same Bank Account analysis as the NYT, rather than Ukrainian prosecutors RonaldDuncan (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

New source C-Span https://www.c-span.org/video/?468552-3/senate-impeachment-trial-day-7-defense-opening-arguments-raskin-philbin-bondi-herschmann&start=4674 has

ABC - Saying Biden was paid $ 1m per year

Reuters - $ 83k

Pam Bondi highlighting the bank accounts and 17 months of payments of $ 83,333.33

I think it is now well sourced that Biden was paid $ 83,333.33 per monthRonaldDuncan (talk) 11:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

RonaldDuncan, Pam Bondi isn't a reliable source either. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no way Pam Bondi could even remotely be construed as a reliable source, and this discussion is a month past stale. XOR'easter (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Accepted than Pam Bondi is as biased in this case as possible. Question is C-SPAN regarded as a reliable source or not? RonaldDuncan (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

N.o. SPECIFICO talk 18:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

RonaldDuncan, you mean C-Span's broadcast of Pam Bondi? That's not RS for a claim like this. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Pam Bondi is the former Attorney General of the State of Florida. As a lawyer, and an "officer of the court", she has a sworn duty not to lie. As a member of the President's defense team during the impeachment trial, she has the same duty. A video with transcript of a session of the United States Senate is most certainly a reliable source for Wikipedia. It's understood that sources may themselves have some political bias, one way or the other (and this is certainly true for most of the sources cited in this article). But to say Pam Bondi's arguments before the US Senate was untruthful is itself a conspiracy theory.Tvaughan1 (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Tvaughan1, lol, "officer of the court". Lawyers lie all the time; it's a trope. You're telling me that Bondi was 100% honest in everything that she said and therefore is a reliable source? That doesn't hold water. So then Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler were also 100% honest, I'm sure you'll agree (even Rubio and Alexander admitted they proved their case). The video of Pam Bondi speaking only verifies that she says the things that she said, not that any of the things she said are accurate. It's a primary source. We want secondary sources, which do pick apart the ways in which the Trump defense team was disingenuous, at best. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, it is quite an absurd suggestion that statements made by lawyers can be considered RS and factually accurate because they have "a sworn duty not to lie". Saying Pam Bondi's arguments are untruthful isn't a conspiracy theory, it is the unambiguous position of actual Reliable Sources. (e.g. "Pam Bondi pushes debunked conspiracy theory, contradicts herself in Trump's defense" AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 06:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Is C-Span a reliable source? Yes. C-Span didn't lie about what was said. If you're arguing that Pam Bondi lied in her presentation to the US Senate, the burden is on you to prove she was lying. Prove it with facts that contradict her presentation. No one that I'm aware of - not the House impeachment managers, not Joe Biden, not Hunter Biden - is disputing the facts she laid out. Red Herrings like "lawyers lie all the time" aren't an acceptable argument to discredit sworn testimony before the US Senate that nobody in the world is disputing (by the way, if a lawyer lies, he/she loses his license to practice law... like, for example, Bill Clinton). Opinion articles, like the one referenced above claiming she pushed a conspiracy theory, are another Red Herring, designed to divert attention away from the facts. The discussion here is about what the facts are, and what facts are notable and relevant to include in the article. No one is suggesting the inclusion of any theories, except those who wish to keep certain facts out of the article.Tvaughan1 (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Thankfully, we have a reliable secondary source on this subject, the New York Times article mentioned in the current article and in the subject line of this section. I would recommend that you become aware of it before attempting to discuss this RfC concerning it, as it is where the up to $50k per month figure comes from. Also, to whom do you refer by "those who wish to keep certain facts out of the article."? --Noren (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The article I cited, which states unequivocally that she pushed a debunked conspiracy theory, is not an "Opinion article" but an actual piece of news published by a reliable source. C-Span is reliable for reporting what she said, but her statements are not a reliable source for statements of fact. Reliable sources (like the one I linked to) explicitly say that her testimony pushed a debunked conspiracy theory, and was not factually accurate. Whether she was lying or just mistaken is immaterial, she may very well believe what she is saying, but that doesn't make her statements true. Reliable sources have repeatedly covered the claims she made and determined that they were not true. We report what those sources say. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 05:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden withholds aid to Ukraine until they fire the prosecutor charging his son.

Go to 52:30

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0_AqpdwqK4&feature=youtu.be — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.26.2.169 (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

You guys just don't quit. Joe Biden went to Ukraine to push for official US policy, which was also the policy of all our western allies -- get rid of this prosecutor because he's corrupt and won't pursue wrongdoing by well-connected Ukrainian businessmen. In other words, DO LESS CORRUPTION or you don't get the defense aid!

What Trump did was go after a new, less corrupt Ukrainian government with calls to fake "dirt" on Trump's likely opponent, with the threat of blackmail to back it up. In other words, DO MORE CORRUPTION, or you don't get the defense aid!

If there was REAL "dirt" on Hunter Biden, Russia wouldn't have made up a lie, and Trump's supporters wouldn't continue to push that lie.

Those are the facts. Now please move on.

Billmckern (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Senate investigation into Hunter Biden's activities in Ukraine and China

Further attempts to publish non-RS smears of Bidens in this BLP.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Multiple reports today confirm an ongoing investigation: https://nypost.com/2020/02/06/republican-senators-request-hunter-biden-travel-documents-for-probe/ https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/05/politics/republican-senators-hunter-biden-secret-service/index.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/06/us/politics/senate-republican-investigation.html https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/481737-gop-senators-request-details-on-hunter-bidens-travel-for-probe The facts... Two Senate committee chairmen have requested Secret Service documents on information regarding Hunter Biden’s travels to China and Ukraine during his father Joe Biden’s tenure as vice president Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) sent a letter to Secret Service Director James Murray on Wednesday asking for “all dates and locations of travel, international and domestic, for Hunter Biden.” The letter to Murray stated that the committees “are reviewing potential conflicts of interest posed by the business activities of Hunter Biden and his associates during the Obama administration, particularly with respect to his business activities in Ukraine and China.” In late November, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) sent a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo requesting any documents on the vice president and his son regarding their work in Ukraine. Regardless of whether some journalists (such as those who wrote the first 7 articles cited on Hunter Biden) believe the concerns or investigation to be unwarranted, Senate Republicans are investigating. This is notable and verified, and ought to be reflected in this article. Given that we don't yet know the results of this investigation, it's obviously premature and WP:OR and not WP:NPOV to mischaracterize the concerns being investigated as "conspiracy theories", or to claim that the concerns have been "debunked". The opinions or conclusions of journalists who did their own amateur unofficial investigations do not override the fact that there are widespread, highly publicized (notable) concerns, and an ongoing government investigation into the matter. Journalists can't subpoena witnesses or government records. The US Senate can. This article should accurately reflect that many Americans, including US Senate Republicans, have concerns about potential conflicts of interest, and that those concerns are being investigated. There may also be a US Department of Justice investigation into the Bidens (as Senator John Cornyn tweeted), but that is unclear. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/464401-cornyn-makes-waves-with-tweet-about-justice-investigating-biden Tvaughan1 (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC) No thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC) The Senate can investigate these things. I imagine it'll go similarly to the House investigating Benghazi and emails. So what would we add to this article? We're certainly not going to say it's not a conspiracy theory just because the Senate is investigating it as though it isn't one. They are acting from their political best interests of having Trump reelected. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC) The article should have a section labeled "Senate investigation", listing the facts that we know them (in bullets above). Senators Blackburn and Kennedy were interviewed tonight by Sean Hannity, confirming that the Senate wants to get to the bottom of this concern (transcript not yet available). Senator Blackburn confirmed that hearings will be held. So more will be coming in the days ahead. For now, we know that travel records were requested from the Secret Service, and "Suspicious Activity Reports" (bank records) were requested from and provided by the Treasury Department. I'd contribute this edit myself, but I'm slightly shy of 500 lifetime edits on WP. Tvaughan1 (talk) 04:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC) I don't understand why you keep bolding concern as if it somehow invalidates conspiracy theory. If they do something actionable, like schedule those hearings, we might include that. But it might belong in a different article. If they set up a select committee, that's get its own article. For now , that "concern" you saw tonight on Hannity is just hot air. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC) Hunter Biden is under investigation by the US Senate. That's clearly a highly notable, extremely relevant fact. As you know, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The Hunter Biden article should be encyclopedic, including all notable, relevant information about the subject. It doesn't matter whether you or anyone thinks that this investigation is unwarranted, or misguided, or anything else. Those are opinions. Let's stick to the facts. The man is under investigation by the US Senate. That's not a trivial thing. That's not something that can be swept under the rug, or ignored. That fact, and the underlying facts about the investigation should be in the article. It also doesn't matter where Senator Blackburn and Kennedy chose to appear tonight. Their statements provided additional relevant facts.Tvaughan1 (talk) 07:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC) I would add... Senate Investigation U.S. Senators Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Finance committee, and Ron Johnson (Wisconsin politician), chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee, sent a letter to the US Treasury Department in November requesting "suspicious activity reports" on Hunter Biden, saying they were investigating "potentially improper actions" during the Obama administration. According to a spokeswoman for Senator Ron Wyden, the US Treasury Department complied with that request. Grassely and Johnson announced in a letter they are also seeking “records of Hunter Biden’s travel while he was under U.S. Secret Service protection."Tvaughan1 (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC) @Tvaughan1: There is no "concern", no real "investigation". There is only a conspiracy theory generated by Russian intelligence and propaganda agencies. It is designed to both deflect attention from Trump's actual corruption and injure a Trump political rival. It's a disgrace that the "liberal" media and hyper-partisan Republicans like John Kennedy, Ron Johnson, Chuck Grassley, and Lindsey Graham repeat this Russian propaganda as though it's credible. The facts are that as vice president, Joe Biden went to Ukraine with the message, sanctioned by the Obama administration and all major US allies, that Ukraine had to have LESS corruption in order to receive aid. Trump sent his emissaries with a message that was contrary to official policy. Official policy was still "do less corruption if you want to receive US aid". The message from Giuliani and Co. was "do MORE corruption by making up stuff about Biden if you want to receive US aid". Everything else about this non-controversy is irrelevant. It seems to me that you should stop arguing in favor of including Russian propaganda in the Hunter Biden article. How a Russian disinfo op got Trump impeached. Billmckern (talk) 09:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC) References

Details of drug use

It seems that the current version of the article makes short mention of drug use, but whitewashes the details away. For the article to be comprehensive, it should include all noteworthy incidents, such as the rental car that was returned on October 28, 2016 with a crack pipe and cocaine. This seems especially relevant given that it was during his tenure as a member of the Board of Directors of Burisma, as it speaks to his lack of qualifications for such a position. See https://www.scribd.com/document/410496005/Hunter-Biden-Docs-Final-Redacted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvaughan1 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

it speaks to his lack of qualifications for such a position It may mean he had a drug problem, but it doesn't mean he was unqualified. There are numerous high-performing and highly-compensated Wall Street executives who smoke crack/meth. Ask Larry Kudlow, he knows. soibangla (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Hence the qualifier "speaks to". A drug problem, on its own, doesn't mean he was unqualified as a member of the Burisma board of directors. But it's a relevant fact which should be included in this article. Tvaughan1 (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Tvaughan1, "speaks to" is your WP:OR. Plenty of people work high pressure jobs while doing drugs. Just look at Wall Street and many high power law firms. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu No, it isn't WP:OR. It's common sense that every employer would prefer employees who don't have a cocaine habit. Drug use is a relevant fact when there is public, widespread concern about whether the son of a government official was given a high-paying no-show job for his connection to his father, or whether it was for his actual abilities and contribution. Would the Wikipedia editors defending this article from uncomfortable facts feel the same if the subject were Donald Trump, Jr.?Tvaughan1 (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

"It's common sense..." absolutely is your own WP:OR. Saying "It's not original research, it's common sense" is like saying "It's not sweet, it's sugar." AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 07:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

It's also irrelevant detail, just as it would be irrelevant detail in DT Jr's article. The notable facts are that he has admitted drug addiction issues, and that he was forced from a position with the Navy Reserve. Anything beyond that is speculation as to who / what / where and how other people should feel about it, or how we feel they should feel about it. The investigative report outlines no guilt of any party, which is presumably why no action was taken. I have no objection to its inclusion as an element within his biography, but it should only be within the context of a reliable source covering the incident or combination thereof Koncorde (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Are Wikipedia editors arguing that smoking cocaine is not relevant to an employer (especially at the very highest level of a company - the board of directors), or to the question of competence for the position?Tvaughan1 (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Koncorde: Actor and comedian Tom Arnold claims to have firsthand knowledge that Trump snorts Adderall. Shall we include that allegation in the Trump article on the grounds of something something employer something whitewash?

My guess is that you'll say no.

Billmckern (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Billmckern: I think you pinged the wrong person there. The only way this gets in an article is if significant coverage is provided by the weight of reliable sources summarising Bidens career or incidents in his career. In comparison an accusation by Tom Arnold is probably relevant to Tom Arnold more than anyone! Koncorde (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Koncorde: You're right. I meant to ping Tvaughan1. Sorry.

Billmckern (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Tvaughan1: There are plenty of reliable sources covering Biden's drug/alcohol use, it is currently mentioned in sentence at the end of personal life. It could be expanded to a sub section and cover the various incidents mentioned in the sources. Drug use would normally disqualify anyone from being a director of a listed company. Burisma is not a listed company and he was obviously appointed because he is the son of Joe Biden US point person for Ukraine, rather than for any qualification he or Devon Archer brought to Burisima. I do not think it is appropriate to mention in the Burisma section. Anyway if you want to expand on the drugs etc. Feel free. It will need to be well sourced e.g. New Yorker article is pretty comprehensive and accepted as a source on this page. However Devon Archer was dropped from the board of Burisma when he was found guilty of a bond scam, so there might be a point that Biden was not dropped over the rental car, however a normal company would never have appointed him, and would have dropped Archer when indicted rather than on conviction. RonaldDuncan (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your original research on the hiring practices of "normal companies". Would a normal company hire most of the 5-6 billion people on earth? Probably not. It all depends. That's why we stick to specific narratives of the preponderance of relevant mainstream reporting. SPECIFICO talk 19:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Reflexively saying that anyone I disagree with is conducting original research (and using logical fallacies in your response) is childish. Please stop. Also, Wikipedia articles should include relevant facts, not "narratives". What functioning adult doesn't know that cocaine use would be a concern to a company for a member of their board? A publicized run-in with the law is relevant to the article, and it's relevant to the wide-spread, highly publicized concerns about Hunter Biden's employment with Burisma. According to a Harvard/Harris poll ~86% of people in the USA do share this concern. https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/HHP_October19_Topline_RegisteredVoters.pdf - page 184Tvaughan1 (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

More Original Research. BTW, What functioning adult doesn't know that cocaine use would be a concern to a company for a member of their board? -- Knowledge common to every functioning adult need not be stated in an encyclopedia. Remember. Hunter Biden is only WP:NOTABLE because he's been the target of a debunked conspiracy theory. WP does not chronicle irrelevant personal details in such cases. SPECIFICO talk 01:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Hunter Biden was WP:NOTABLE with his own article prior to joining the board of Burisma, and long before your debunked conspiracy theory. The debunked conspiracy theories that are sourced in the article are mainly totally mad things that have been circulated rather than the info that has been discussed in this talk page. Yes it is WP:SKYBLUE That you do not have convicted criminals or drug addicts as non executive directors of companies. Burisma did remove Devon Archer when he was convicted, but appointed Hunter Biden with a known recorded drug problem. Non executive directors are clean, good names that give confidence in a company. Biden is none of these, but was beneficial to Burisma, anyway drugs is something for his personal life section. The Burisma section would be massive if we put in all the reasons why it was inappropriate for Burisma to offer the position and Biden to accept the position. RonaldDuncan (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

RonaldDuncan, I agree with you, both in that he was notable before the conspiracy theory, and that his drug use belongs in his personal life section, not the Burisma section. But, it's already mentioned in the personal life section. So, what exactly are we discussing here? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu I think the proposal at the start of this discussion was to increase the drug usage from a sentence and possibly ??add it to the Burisma section?? There are plenty of sources for a sub section on drugs in the personal life, but this has not really been discussed above. It got off topic into the wider topic of general bias/debunked and we agree drugs are personal life not Burisma. RonaldDuncan (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

George Kent

Shouldn't this be included in the article? Two RS report on George P. Kent raising serious concerns related to Hunter Biden's work for Burisma.[13][14]...According to WaPo "Kent raised the issue with Biden's office, he was told the then-vice president didn't have the bandwidth to deal with the issue".Circulair (talk) 23:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I see no reason not to do it. We already deal with the bad optics (the appearance of a conflict-of-interest), which Hunter gave as the reason why he resigned his position. We deal with this in the body of the article and in the lead. BTW, only your first source is a RS. The Post is definitely not a RS.

"Kent...is the first known example of a career diplomat who raised concerns internally in the Obama administration about Hunter Biden’s board position....The first time the aide recalls Hunter Biden’s involvement surfacing as an issue was in December 2015, when the vice president traveled to Ukraine to deliver an anti-corruption speech and the New York Times wrote about his son’s role. Hunter Biden’s board appointment had been publicly announced the previous year and reported by the media at the time."

It should be possible to boil that down to one sentence in the body, together with the mention of the appearance of a COI. Go for it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah agree with BullRangifer, go for it when ever the extended protection comes down --TomaHawk61 (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

TomaHawk61, it's not likely to "come down" from extended confirmed protection any time before the election, especially if his father becomes the nominee. Someone who can edit this page should add it. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, Oh I'm aware it's not going to be taken down anytime soon, that was by design, and I imagine Biden is going to be the nominee. So my question is , who has the ability to edit this article? I assume maybe only Admins? I mean its an encyclopedia, facts are facts, if we have reliable sources it should be added, especially since this page will be viewed more and more, even more so if Joe Biden becomes the nominee. Thats my 2cents --TomaHawk61 (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

TomaHawk61, irrespective of Kent's testimony, it's already in the article, with four refs:

Because Vice President Biden played a major role in U.S. policy towards Ukraine, some Ukrainian anti-corruption advocates and Obama administration officials expressed concern that Hunter Biden's having joined the board could create the appearance of a conflict of interest and undermine Vice President Biden's anti-corruption work in Ukraine

soibangla (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

It's nice to see acknowledgement that there widely publicized concerns of a possible conflict of interest, and multiple active Senate investigations into these concerns. Now that we've acknowledged that in the article, isn't it time to remove the clearly biased "debunked right-wing conspiracy theories" and replace them with "concerns of a possible conflict of interest"? Tvaughan1 (talk) 21:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Tvaughan1, no, because it's still a debunked right-wing conspiracy theory. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I can't believe we are still having to explain this to grown adults. Koncorde (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

KoncordeYour response doesn't assume good faith. There is a difference between an accurate summary of the concerns about Hunter Biden and an inaccurate characterization. It is widely acknowledged (and a more accurate summary to say) that there are concerns of a possible conflict of interest. That is not a conspiracy theory.Tvaughan1 (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe you are contributing in good faith. Your prior edits to this article, and this talk page have revealed a need to parrot Trump / Republican claims verbatim despite sources to the contrary, and you are continuing here. Koncorde (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Tvaughan1, there were perceptions of a possible conflict of interest, as there still are, that some might not perceive if they scratched beneath the surface to see that Hunter was hired to consult on corporate governance, in an effort by Burisma to eliminate corruption to advance their international expansion strategy with Western firms who would need confidence Burisma had cleaned up its act. Alas, some don't want to scratch beneath the surface because doing so would demolish the transparent political smearjob they're promoting. soibangla (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Soibangla That's putting it mildly. Many would say that given his father's role as point man on the Ukraine in the Obama administration, Hunter Biden had a conflict of interest (and that he created one for his father). But it's universally acknowledged by everyone including Hunter Biden, his former partner Christopher Heinz and many key Democrats that accepting this role, at a minimum, created the appearance of a conflict of interest. All I'm arguing for is a summary at the top of the article that characterizes these concerns from a neutral point of view.Tvaughan1 (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Clearly the proposed addition should be added to the article. But I'm not expecting that to happen any time soon. I mean, seriously. Wikipedia's politically involved admins disgrace themselves with this one. We even have a statement referenced solely by the CNN Factchecker. *rolls eyes* It's laughable. I imagine, though, that now I've pointed that out, keyboard warrior defenders of the uber-corrupt will be rushing to find "suitable" additional supposedly responsible sources. There's one good thing about all of this, however, in that readers with just an ounce of common sense can see just how biased the article is and come to their own conclusions. Boscaswell talk 23:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I mean, you could add it Boscaswell? Koncorde (talk) 00:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

As I explained earlier, the proposed addition already is in the article. *rolls eyes* soibangla (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I've been arguing in favor of a more accurate NPOV summary of the concerns about Hunter Biden's acceptance of a highly paid position on the Burisma Board. These concerns are widespread, notable, and verifiable. It's a Red Herring to characterize the widespread concerns about a possible conflict of interest as "debunked conspiracy theories", in order to get away with a highly biased summary at the top of the article. First, you cherry pick to find the most extreme version of your political opponent's arguments/accusations. Then you say (as the writers of the first 7 articles cited did) that you checked and couldn't find any evidence that these more serious accusations were true. Then you claim the full authority to declare those arguments debunked. Then you claim that there are no concerns remaining to be found! If we want to list the more serious accusations listed in the first 7 articles, saying that they remain unproven, that's fine. But it's not a conspiracy theory to say that Republicans / conservatives have concerns about a possible conflict of interest. It's a fact. It's a far more accurate summary than what is in the article now. It's laughable that certain Wikipedia editors continue to defend a summary at the top which dismisses any and all concerns as "debunked right-wing conspiracy theories" as NPOV when it is so clearly biased.Tvaughan1 (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Tvaughan1, you're not trying to make this NPOV. You're trying to "both sides" this, as though the allegations against Hunter Biden hold water. The allegations aren't "unproven", they are "baseless". It's a disservice to our readers to say anything less. I'm sure there are Republicans who "have concerns". That doesn't mean those concerns have any merit. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu Wrong. I'm trying to make this NPOV. Everyone defending the current summary keeps changing the subject from the widespread, acknowledged concerns about a possible conflict of interest to the more serious accusations listed in the first 7 cited sources (look over here! I found a red herring!). The only people who want to reference the more serious accusations in the article are those who want to summarily dismiss them without listing them, and thereby avoid acknowledging that there are any concerns at all. I'm asking for a NPOV summary of the concerns about Hunter Biden taking a position on the Burisma Board. "concerns of a possible conflict of interest" is more accurate and more NPOV than "debunked right-wing conspiracy theories". "concerns of a possible conflict of interest" isn't conclusive as to whether there was or wasn't a conflict of interest. It merely summarizes the controversy around Hunter Biden's Burisma board seat accurately. Tvaughan1 (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually I take back the "concerns" part. If Republicans / conservatives had legitimate concerns about the Bidens acting corruptly, without any evidence of corruption, they'd see the corruption in Trump / Giuliani's attempts to get dirt on the Bidens by withholding congressionally approved foreign aid. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu Another red herring.Tvaughan1 (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Tvaughan1, no it's not. It shows the "concern" depends on the political affiliation of the accused. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

It is also widespread, notable, and verifiable that many would say Hillary Clinton is the ringleader of a global child sex abuse and cannibalism cult, and many of them attend Trump rallies. soibangla (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Is this the Hunter Biden talk page, or the "we'll counter every proposal we don't like with a ludicrous logical fallacy" page? That is a nonsensical straw man argument, with zero basis in fact. Kind of like the one below.Tvaughan1 (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

It is an extreme analogy to illustrate the nature of the argument you’re making. And the extreme arguments seen here for months to advance The Dear Leader’s narrative call for an extreme response. soibangla (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Russia: Let's start a rumor that Hunter Biden is corrupt. That'll take attention away from Trump's corruption AND hurt Trump's opponent at the same time.

Republicans: Look how corrupt Hunter Biden is.

Russia: Mission accomplished.

Joe Biden: If you don't stop the corruption, we'll pull your defense aid.

Trump: If you don't do corruption, I'll pull your defense aid.

Republicans: Look how corrupt Biden is!

Billmckern (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Per above, but also the red herring is not how his "highly paid position" raised "concerns about a possible conflict of interest". The red herring is how "highly paid position" = "conflict of interest" = "corruption" = "Joe Biden was demanding action on corruption to protect his son from the corruption he was part of" = "Trump was legitimately trying to stamp out corruption" = "convenient cover story for attempting to force an ally to create dirt on a political opponent". Something Trump has admitted. Giuliani has admitted. Parnas has admitted. The witnesses all corroborated. Geeing up the "highly paid position" element is utter tripe and not "NPOV". Koncorde (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2020

In the first paragraph describing the "debunked right-wing conspiracy theories" the articles used for citations are all very left-leaning news sites that don't even discuss the actual theory held by the right. The citations do not actually debunk anything that was pushed by the right-wing. The sentence should read, "He has been the subject of right-wing theories and accusations concerning his business dealings in Ukraine." Nothing has actually been debunked by NBC or the New Yorker (those were cited) considering Congress is still investigating the theories. 149.136.25.252 (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The conspiracy theories have been debunked. The sources are mainstream, not "left-leaning". None of the allegations have any evidence to support them, and using that sentence you suggested implies they could be true. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The firing of Viktor Shokin

This article claims there is "no evidence" that Viktor Shokin was fired to stop investigations into Hunter Biden but Viktor Shokin himself states otherwise.

That should be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.135.81.85 (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC) — 74.135.81.85 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No, it shouldn't, because Shokin's self-serving claims are not evidence, and no reliable source has treated them as such. XOR'easter (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Wow. "But Viktor Shokin himself states otherwise"... – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Double standards. In this case, Shokin made "self-serving claims" and so they must not be in the article. Elsewhere in the article, we have Hunter Biden making a *self-serving claim* about the positive cocaine test which saw him thrown out of the US Navy Reserve, that the positive test resulted from smoking cigarettes given to him by other smokers which were laced with cocaine. There is no evidence to support that self-serving claim, so either (a) it should be deleted from the article forthwith, or (b) the above claim by Viktor Shokin should be added in straightaway. Otherwise, hypocrisy rules. I wonder what will come of this, BullRangifer, TomaHawk61, Tvaughan1. Boscaswell talk 00:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Boscaswell, I'm not sure why you pinged me, but we do include Shokin's self-serving claim (and repeated by Trump and Giulliani). It doesn't need to be added because we already cover the subject from all the angles covered by RS (bolding added):

Shokin in May 2019 claimed that he was fired because he had been actively investigating Burisma, but U.S. and Ukrainian officials have stated that the investigation into Burisma was dormant at the time of Shokin's dismissal. Ukrainian and United States State Department sources have maintained that Shokin was fired for failing to address corruption, including within his office.

In 2019, President Donald Trump and his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, claimed that Vice President Biden had actually sought the dismissal of Shokin in order to protect his son and Burisma Holdings, however, there is no evidence that this was what happened. There has also been no evidence produced of wrongdoing done by Hunter Biden in Ukraine. The Ukrainian anti-corruption investigation agency stated in September 2019 that the current investigation of Burisma was restricted solely to investigating the period of 2010 to 2012, before Hunter Biden joined Burisma in 2014. Shokin in May 2019 claimed that he was fired because he had been actively investigating Burisma, but U.S. and Ukrainian officials have stated that the investigation into Burisma was dormant at the time of Shokin's dismissal. Ukrainian and United States State Department sources have maintained that Shokin was fired for failing to address corruption, including within his office.

The refs also contain quotes for context. It's worth reading. We cover the subject very thoroughly. You should also study this article: Conspiracy theories related to the Trump–Ukraine scandal. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

My apologies to you, then, BullRangifer -I hope you can understand, though, that from looking at everything that stands before my first comment in this section, there’s nothing to suggest that it has now been included, just rejection of the idea by XROeaster and Muboshgu. I’d read enough of the article to realise that it’s biased, and had read most of the discussion in the following talk section. I’m glad, though, that some work has been done on it by you since the date of the comments previous to my earlier one here. Talk pages are a great way to get a handle on what’s happening with an article; if they’re not updated about controversial changes, then it’s far harder to tell.

After reading most of the section below and the astonishing editing restrictions that have been placed upon the article, I was reminded of an article I attempted to do some work on a few months back. This was the Brexit article, which is ‘policed’ by a Remainer to the exclusion of anything to the contrary, for any reason s/he can get away with. I took something about that editor to the Admins notice board and was astonished to find, in response, admins (in the plural) ranting about how awful Brexit was. I realised right then that there was zero chance of the article being free of bias. Perhaps this article is similarly afflicted. I hope not. All the best to you. Boscaswell talk 09:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Boscaswell, I honestly cannot fathom what you're saying. You asserted the article excluded content about conflict of interest concerns, despite it being made abundantly clear earlier in the same thread that it is in the article. Now you say the Shokin assertion isn't in the article, immediately after BullRangifer showed you that it is. Should we now accept your description about what happened with the Brexit article and believe your assertions of systemic bias? If I'm missing something here I'd certainly appreciate you pointing it out. soibangla (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Soibangla if you re-read my 2nd contribution to this talk section you’ll find that I did not say in that contribution that it was not in the article. So your “Now you say the Shokin assertion isn't in the article,” is incorrect. I did, however, point out that this talk section had not been updated by anyone to say that it had been, until BullRangifer kindly did so after my 1st contribution. Do please re-read it, it’s really quite clear, and I’ve not edited it in any way. Apologies accepted. ;) ...Boscaswell talk 04:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Boscaswell, from your second comment in this thread: there’s nothing to suggest that it has now been included. soibangla (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Soibangla You have quoted only part of my text. I wrote: “...from looking at everything that stands before my first comment in this section, there’s nothing to suggest that it has now been included,” Quoting in that manner is at worst deliberately misleading, at best a sloppy mistake. All the best. Boscaswell talk 04:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see how that substantially changes what was said, or the characterization of it by Soibangla. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 07:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Boscaswell at worst deliberately misleading, at best a sloppy mistake Um...nope. soibangla (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Let’s discuss the bit where it states Biden never bragged about the firing. There’s literal footage of him boasting about it if I have to post it here and embarrass the moderators I’m going to be very irksome Sikeahmed (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Does someone say Biden didn't brag about it? As far as I am aware we're all quite aware that Biden is on video tape bragging about pressuring for a corrupt prosecutor to be fired. The point is that the false narrative around it that Shokin was investigating Biden overlooks the actual prosecutors own case that details all events pre-date Hunter Biden taking a role at the company. It also overlooks that Shokins firing was being demanded by multiple governments and agencies throughout the US and Europe as being critical to any further support with aid. Koncorde (talk) 07:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, where does it state "Biden never bragged about the firing?" -- Valjean (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Remove "debunked" language

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The sentence "He has been the subject of debunked right-wing conspiracy theories concerning his business dealings in Ukraine" should be removed from the article (or at a minimum from the lede). As other users have pointed out it is a red herring. Yes there are definitely right-wing conspiracy theories peddled on conservative websites and TV channels about Hunter Biden but that doesn't negate credible prima facie evidence of nepotism/corruption. According to the NY Times, WaPo (and other reliable sources) Biden has no experience in Ukraine or natural gas, yet he was given a lucrative 50,000 month (other sources say even more) job for a company with a HISTORY OF CORRUPTION. If a corrupt Russian gas company gave Donald Trump Jr a similar $50,000 per month job, wouldn't that be considered corrupt? Even Neal Katyal, who is a Democrat worked in the Obama administration (and thinks Trump is dangerous and should be impeached) is critical of Hunter Biden and wrote the follwoing: Hunter Biden had no real experience in the energy sector, which made him wholly unqualified to sit on the board of Burisma. The only logical reason the company could have had for appointing him was his ties to Vice President Biden. This kind of nepotism isn't only wrong it is a potential danger to our country, since it makes it easier for foreign powers to buy influence. No politician, from either party, should allow a foreign power to conduct this kind of influence-peddling with their family members. Nothing meaningful has been "debunked", only crazy right-wing nonsense theories. This language is an obvious red herring and the text should be removed from the article. Circulair (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Please review the talk archives. Furthermore, [15]. You stipulate that right-wing conspiracy theories are debunked. That's what the lead says. So please drop it. SPECIFICO talk 22:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Wrong, see: red herring — Preceding unsigned comment added by Circulair (talk • contribs) 22:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm gonna start cussin' here at some point, because this has been covered over and over here:

Burisma had international expansion aspirations, to partner with Western firms. Those prospective Western partners would be leery of corruption in Ukraine, generally, and in Burisma, specifically. Enter Hunter Biden. Burisma hired him to consult on corporate governance — to establish policies, procedures and rules to eliminate corrupt practices — then placed him on the board to signal to prospective partners that Burisma took the matter seriously. Hunter is a Yale Law grad who worked for David Boies at the time, and guys in that league bill clients at obscene hourly rates, among the highest in the legal profession, hence Hunter's high compensation from Burisma. His board fee was peanuts compared to his hourly billings. Hunter's lack of energy expertise is a red herring, as every company in every industry deals with corporate governance issues, and they employ/hire experts in that field who need no expertise in the industry in which the company operates. They deal with organizational behavior issues that apply everywhere.

soibangla (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

soibangla do you have reliable sources (more than one) that can back up the info about corporate governance, etc? If that is true then I would think would have heard/seen it more in mainstream news/TV as an an explanation as to why Biden's shady-looking dealings in Ukraine were actually legitimate (I have literally not read or seen that anywhere and I watch a lot of TV including CNN and MSNBC) Circulair (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Bloomberg, Reuters, Business Insider, NYT, etc all on the first page of a basic Google search. To quote even a Real Clear Investigations article all quote the same subject matter. Koncorde (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Circulair, Google is likely to provide you with answers that reliable television sources have long since stopped covering after they found nothing there, just as they did with the fake Benghazi scandal, whereas the folks on Fox New primetime continue to promote fake scandals and fail to mention exculpatory information that would end their fake scandals:

In 2014, Cyprus-registered Burisma Holdings, one of the largest private natural gas companies in Ukraine, announced that Hunter Biden was among several prominent foreigners who were joining its board. The company said that Hunter Biden would advise on “transparency, corporate governance and responsibility, international expansion and other priorities.”

The company has said it had wanted to strengthen corporate governance. According to two sources close to the company, Burisma was also looking to attract international investment as well as expand overseas...Interviews with more than a dozen people, including executives and former prosecutors in Ukraine, paint a picture of a director who provided advice on legal issues, corporate finance and strategy during a five-year term on the board

Hunter Biden, who served on the Burisma board from 2014 to 2019, was valuable to the company because of his perspective as an American in fields like corporate governance and capital markets

In an upbeat 2017 promotional video, Burisma presents itself as an energy company looking to expand beyond Ukraine's borders. Photographs of Hunter Biden and the other four board members appear over the company's "key corporate governance principles: leadership, efficiency, remuneration and transparency."

"As a new member of the Board, I believe that my assistance in consulting the Company on matters of transparency, corporate governance and responsibility, international expansion and other priorities will contribute to the economy and benefit the people of Ukraine.”

soibangla (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Circulair, absolutely nothing in that suggests that Hunter or Joe Biden did anything wrong. Hunter Biden benefiting from nepotism isn't evidence of corruption. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Taking advantage of nepotism can absolutely be seen as morally wrong even if it is not corruption from a legal standpoint. -2001:14BA:1FFE:7100:252E:6B68:1946:E6DE (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I see no reason to drag the Trump kids into this. soibangla (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The Trump kids being involved in similar practices is not a mitigating factor. -2001:14BA:1FFE:7100:8121:60B6:5D7F:6DE4 (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not a Trump or a Biden is "immoral" for benefiting from nepotism is completely subjective and not an appropriate line of discussion. Whether or not any Trump or any Biden did anything illegal is a valid line of discussion. There is zero evidence that either Joe or Hunter Biden have done anything illegal. We can discuss illegal acts by the Trump family and organization on their respective talk pages. Now this thread is ready for closure and archiving. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

If you feel that only things that are illegal can be wrong then that is your personal opinion which you are certainly entitled to. But if you do choose to use the word 'wrong' in the context of an encyclopedia then you should be aware that it is commonly understood to have also other dimensions than that of legality. -2001:14BA:1FFE:7100:59FC:A28E:1502:B76B (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

2001:14BA:1FFE:7100:59FC:A28E:1502:B76B, I didn't use the word "wrong". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

If Joe Biden had hired Hunter Biden, that would be nepotism. When a Ukrainian oligarch hires the son of the US Vice President, who is the "point man" on Ukraine policy, the concern is that it created a conflict of interest for the Vice President. That concern is not a "conspiracy theory", it is a legitimate concern which was shared by Hunter Biden's former business partner Chris Heinz. "Chris Heinz ended his business relationship when Biden in 2014 took a position on the board of Burisma Holdings, which was owned by Mykola Zlochevsky, even as his father then-Vice President Joe Biden was serving in the Obama administration and cracking down on corruption in Ukraine, the Washington Post reported. Hunter Biden, a partner with Heinz in the investment firm Rosemont Seneca, joined Burisma shortly after another of the firm’s partners, Devon Archer, also had accepted an invitation to the board."

Heinz parted ways with both men after raising concerns about corruption in Ukraine and questions about appearance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvaughan1 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Circulair, what's this "Biden's shady-looking dealings in Ukraine" about? Is that an unsourced BLP violation? You should be careful with your language. -- 02:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

LOL more liberal fallacies. Nothing has been debunked. How does having bounced around between the companies of his father’s Yes-Man give Hunter Biden any expertise on corporate governance? It’s also interesting to point out these “corporate governance” claims only surfaced after accusations of corruption... Sikeahmed (talk) 05:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

His announcement about what his job entailed was on / around the 13th May 2014 pretty much the same week he took the job. It's usually very difficult to make a statement about a job that you haven't yet got. If you cannot even be bothered to Google the basics then you are wasting our time. Koncorde (talk) 07:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Circulair, you're absolutely right. However, this article is defended by a brigade of Wikipedia editors who feel that a handful of articles that all came out around the same time with the same Democratic party talking points give them all the ammunition they need to defend and keep that wording... even though it's obvious to anyone with a NPOV that those articles, and the language in question does not characterize the situation from a neutral point of view. The matter being discussed is clearly and obviously in dispute in the public arena, and yet this article summarizes this situation as an undisputed matter, with the case closed in Hunter Biden's favor, exonerating him of any suspicion for taking a job at outrageously high compensation despite his obvious lack of qualifications. No, it's all on the up and up. Nothing to see here... move along. We believe and quote opinion pieces from left-leaning sources, but no conservative-leaning news source is considered reliable, even if you only cite the undisputed facts that they published. All you and I and others have asked for here is neutral wording summarizing the current situation - not a biased characterization. We're not asking for wording that suggests Hunter Biden was guilty of anything. Our point is that it's not neutral to suggest that all of the many people who have concerns are "conspiracy theorists" (a weasel phrase), or that the concerns have been "debunked". Tvaughan1 (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

To save time, just requoting myself now: Per above, but also the red herring is not how his "highly paid position" raised "concerns about a possible conflict of interest". The red herring is how "highly paid position" = "conflict of interest" = "corruption" = "Joe Biden was demanding action on corruption to protect his son from the corruption he was part of" = "Trump was legitimately trying to stamp out corruption" = "convenient cover story for attempting to force an ally to create dirt on a political opponent". Something Trump has admitted. Giuliani has admitted. Parnas has admitted. The witnesses all corroborated. Geeing up the "highly paid position" element is utter tripe and not "NPOV".

Including Heinz concerns AND stating that Trump and co promoted and generated a wealth of inaccurate conspiracy theories are not mutually exclusive. Conflating Heinz concerns with Trumps actions is not only shifting the goalposts, but also taking the ball home, and changing the game to solitaire. The conspiracy theories have nothing to do with Heinz, his statements or otherwise. The conspiracy theories are the blatant attempt to drum up 'dirt' on Biden using foreign aid as a means of coercion. This is not debatable. Trump was impeached for it. Only a fully complicit Republican party prevented him being thrown from the house.

And, to debunk your "Democratic" theory - I am British. I don't have a horse in your race or dog in your fight. Koncorde (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

KoncordeThe red herring is the "debunked right-wing conspiracy theories" language in the 2nd paragraph of the article. I and others have proposed language that replaces "debunked right-wing conspiracy theories" with "concerns about a possible conflict of interest". Those concerns are acknowledged later in the first paragraph of the Burisma Holdings section. You and the other Wikipedia editors defending the language are conflating the concern about a conflict of interest with the more serious accusations (which you call conspiracy theories). I don't want to discuss the stronger accusations: they're off topic. The summary language is not NPOV. Regarding the $1 million/year compensation; if it was an unpaid position, there would be less of a conflict of interest. The greater the compensation, the greater the interest in meeting the expectations of that position, and the more that position appears to create a conflict of interest. It is WP:BLUESKY obvious that people are motivated by financial incentives.Tvaughan1 (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I know what you and others have suggested, and it is both inaccurate and misleading to suggest that the conspiracy theories that have been debunked have anything to do with any concerns of an appearance of "conflict of interest". We mention Heinz concerns and others elsewhere in the article, with due weight. However what Trump, Giuliani, and anyone else have been peddling are conspiracy theories not concerned with a "conflict of interest" story. They did not ask Ukraine to pony up a conflict of interest story about either Biden. They do not argue that the COI was of any significance - their argument is that Joe Biden used his position to stop an investigation into his inexperienced and unqualified son by demanding the firing of a prosecutor who was getting too close.

The reality is multiple national and international organisations, law enforcement and legal agencies had been pushing for the firing of the prosecutor for failing to do anything about corruption and apparently allowing the release of funds that were meant to be withheld as proceeds of crime undermining investigations in the UK and the US. Joe Biden took the lead on this as the major power broker in the post Ukraine / Russian war. Any investigation by the prosecutor into his Burisma specifically preceded the period before Hunters employment. In fact the owner of Burisma had been directed by anti-corruption agencies to seek non-Ukrainian board members to gain legitimate oversight and help against any further accusations of corruption. Hunter, Archer and Heinz were all experienced senior board members of a variety of companies prior to this point, and I believe all qualified US Lawyers. While it is convenient to say Hunter got the job because of his dad, that is irrelevant to the statement of the conspiracy theories. "Rich mans some gets well paid job for company somewhere in the world" is not a conspiracy theory, and barely qualifies as a conflict of interest given Biden would likely have had some significant impact on ANY company in the world at some point during his 8 years working at multiple foreign policy objectives. In fact it would be stranger if somehow Hunter Biden had worked for a company that had no 6 degrees of separation type situation from his dad, or aides or allies in some fashion. Koncorde (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

It's time we find someone WP:UNINVOLVED to close this circular argument. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN:? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I have studied this discussion and will monitor with an eye to closing it eventually, but I see that discussion is ongoing as of yesterday, so I don't think it is ready to close quite yet. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Sources

OK, having reviewed the discussion again, the result is to keep the existing wording. The “keep” discussants make the stronger case, backing up their assertions with references and keeping the discussion focused on the actual wording about “debunked right-wing conspiracies”. Several of the “change it to say conflict of interest” discussants got their facts wrong, or weakened their arguments by being frankly partisan in their approach. An argument about whether Biden did anything “wrong” was beside the point of this discussion. I see that the “debunked” wording has been debated several times before. [16] [17] In each case the discussion resulted in the retention of the “debunked right wing conspiracies” wording. I think this can now be regarded as consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020

Hunter Biden did work for a Ukraine gas Company 2014 to 2019. Hunter Biden did get investigated. Joe Biden used quid pro quo on a 1 billion dollar tax payer funded loan to Ukraine to have the investigator fired. A conspiracy theory is a theory of a conspiracy. This is not a conspiracy theory as it is substantiated from evidence of realeased videos recording the event. All evidence against Trump was fabrications and edits taken out of context to solicit a different perspective. That is lying by mis-representaion of facts. See, ruling on impeachment proceedings, Joe Biden quid pro quo. 2600:100E:B120:FEB5:EC57:992:17B1:148 (talk) 21:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Nothing done. This page is for discussing improvements to the article. It is not for your personal opinions. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Only the first sentence is accurate. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Why isn't this noted as suspect?

Biden attributed the result to smoking cigarettes he had accepted from other smokers, only later suspecting they had been laced with the drug.

It does not pass the smell test. § — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jogershok (talk • contribs) 12:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2020

The statement, "He has been the subject of debunked right-wing conspiracy theories concerning his business dealings in Ukraine" is FALSE. Instead should read, "He has been the subject of criticism for concerns of corruption in his business dealings in Ukraine". There is an active investigation into these concerns, therefore it is not "debunked". This is so blatantly wrong, how has this "debunked" ridiculousness defied correction for so long?

Wikipedia must not lose its stated mission of impartiality, prove you're not just another propaganda arm of the Democrat Party. Maybe we should look into Wikipedia funding sources? China? Democrats? 12.251.12.158 (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The existence of a Republican-led sham investigation does not mean this hasn't been debunked. It has been, as noted by the sources cited in the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 April 2020

Remove the following: debunked right-wing conspiracy

These words are pure opinion. Deleting still leaves the sentence intact. LarryBlatt (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 April 2020

This line at the bottom pertaining to the revelations of Ukrainian diplomat Telizhenko in CNN is not accurate as Vladislav Davidzon is a Russian-American dual citizen, even as he edits a Ukrainian magazine. Davidzon is Tablet's European Culture Critic and write for Foreign Policy, he is American. There is also additional info in the CNN piece which is useful.

This line should be changed:

"A Ukrainian magazine editor told CNN that in 2018 Telizhenko offered him money to lobby Republican senators in support of pro-Russian television stations in Ukraine.[67]"

to

" Vladislav Davidzon, a Russia-American editor of the Ukrainian magazine The Odessa Review, revealed to CNN that in late 2018 Telizhenko offered him money to lobby Republican senators in support of pro-Russian television stations in Ukraine. CNN reported that Davidzon had been a witness in American law enforcement investigations pertaining to Telizhenko, Blue Star strategies and allegations of Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 American elections[67]. 109.26.2.165 (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the unclear language. Per your comment I have changed the paragraph to something close to your edit. I have left out his nationality as I think that just confused matters. Whether any additional content from your second sentence should be included I will let someone else take a look as I agree it currently seems incomplete. Koncorde (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

It's hard to imagine a more biased set of statements than the following:

Closing up this forum post. Drmies (talk)

From the second paragraph: "He has been the subject of debunked right-wing conspiracy theories concerning his business dealings in Ukraine.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] President Donald Trump's attempt to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate Joe Biden and Hunter Biden by withholding foreign aid triggered an impeachment inquiry in September 2019, in which the President was impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate.[8][9][10]" [end of quote] Where do I begin? Using the term "debunked" adopts a biased POV: The term "debunked" has become, over the years, used when the term "disputed" is far more accurate. "Debunked" means "proven false", and it's far from that. And I don't think it should be described as "right-wing", either. Having received about $3 million over 5 years from Burisma, it is certainly not clear that Hunter Biden actually earned that money. There is no reason that a left-wing (or center) person shouldn't be concerned about these actions, except that they involve the son of Joe Biden, who is the candidate for the Democrat party for President. It's also biased to label this as a "conspiracy theory": A conspiracy is simply an improper action (in law, a crime) involving two or more people: No one disputes that two or more people were involved in these matters of Hunter Biden's employment. And what Trump is alleged to have done is presented as an indisputable fact, when in fact he was acquitted. I think it's also false to claim that this matter "triggered an impeachment inquiry in September 2019". Democrats had apparently been expressing a desire to impeach Trump at least since Trump's inauguration, and probably since Trump's election win. (if not before that.) Here in this video, Biden admits having threatened the Ukraine government with the loss of about $1.8 billion in aid if they didn't fire a specific prosecutor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY I'd edit this nonsense if I could. I see no reason that I cannot edit; somebody has perhaps put in a politically-motivated restriction. BTW, if anybody is curious, I am a lifetime libertarian, never a conservative nor a Republican, and I voted for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson in November 2016. Ctaring (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC) I see you're relatively new to Wikipedia, and new to this article. I recommend you read the exhaustive discussions about the article on this Talk page over the past several months, as there are very good reasons the article is written as it is. We've gone round and round and round about this. soibangla (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC) I am not satisfied. I don't doubt that there are many people who WANT this article to be biased and false. But that still does not comport with Wikipedia's rules. I will make the edits, unless I am obstructed from doing so. Explain why I cannot. Ctaring (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC) I don't assert you cannot edit the article, I encourage you to proceed. But bear in mind that most if not all of the comments you've made have already been addressed multiple times. Dozens, maybe even hundreds of times. soibangla (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC) I will notice an example of some rather serious bias I found: "Please review the talk archives. Furthermore, [1]. You stipulate that right-wing conspiracy theories are debunked. That's what the lead says. So please drop it. SPECIFICO talk 22:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)" [end of quote] This "SPECIFICO" falsely claimed someone "stipulated that right-wing conspiracy theories are debunked". Note that SPECIFICO DIDN'T say, "ALL right-wing conspiracy theories are debunked". "SPECIFICO" simply lied to seem to achieve a point. Ctaring (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC) It's not nice to call SPECIFICO a liar. soibangla (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC) I know how to read, and debate, in the English language. The following statement is nonsense. "OK, having reviewed the discussion again, the result is to keep the existing wording. The “keep” discussants make the stronger case, backing up their assertions with references and keeping the discussion focused on the actual wording about “debunked right-wing conspiracies”. Several of the “change it to say conflict of interest” discussants got their facts wrong, or weakened their arguments by being frankly partisan in their approach. An argument about whether Biden did anything “wrong” was beside the point of this discussion. I see that the “debunked” wording has been debated several times before. [2] [3] In each case the discussion resulted in the retention of the “debunked right wing conspiracies” wording. I think this can now be regarded as consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC) [material copied from the archives] "Debunked" indicates actually disproven, not 'a few sources believe that'. It's not "right-wing", because that indicates (falsely) that nobody who isn't 'right-wing' could believe it. (I'm a libertarian and I believe it.) It's not actually disputed as a 'conspiracy' because everyone presumably acknowledges that a 'conspiracy' is merely two or more people are acting together, and two or more people are involved in this case. This is a cesspool of illogic. Ctaring (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC) Well, Ctaring, are you proposing to find a new right (or left) wing conspiracy theory? That won't belong here either. If so, please self-debunk. SPECIFICO talk 21:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC) Clarify what you are saying. I am utterly opposed to using the foolish term "conspiracy theory", because it is based on the bastardization of the JFK assassination event, and the investigation of it. The Warren Report declared that the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't act alone, was highly improbable. (I don't take a position on this.) The problem is that this term, "conspiracy theory" doesn't transfer well to other situations: Rarely in today's world is anything substantial done by ONLY ONE person. In this case, Biden Jr. clearly acted with others, and indeed nobody denies it. So abusing the term "conspiracy" is foolish. The only remaining issue is, did misconduct occur, NOT did that misconduct involve multiple people. I think it's obvious that the idea that misconduct has been "debunked" is utterly nuts. First, there hasn't been a trial yet: So, we cannot say with any certainty that there has, nor has not, been done by Biden Sr. and Biden Jr. A trial, whether civil or criminal, is generally the gold standard as to what the facts were. Further, although I've read many news items concerning the Bidens and Burisma, I rarely see any more than a tiny number of exposed facts, facts that would allow a typical reader to come to a decision on his own. How did Biden Jr. get that job? What were his responsibilities? What reports and/or paper documents were generated by Biden Jr., or others, documenting what was done? How often did Biden Jr. travel to Ukraine? How many phone calls (with or without video) were made between Biden Jr. and Burisma people? If Biden Jr's job was real, if it was genuine, plenty of material could have been made available to support that. Even articles which purport to believe that Biden Jr. didn't do anything wrong rarely can point to any of these kinds of supporting documentation. Biden Jr. should have his own records. Burisma should have its records. The Ukrainian government should have its records. Don't try to pretend that this issue has been "debunked", when it clearly has not. Ctaring (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2020

Describing Hunter's dealings with Burisma as "debunked right-wing conspiracy theories" is not an honest assessment. Some investigations are still ongoing.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-14/top-judiciary-republican-seeking-hunter-biden-burisma-documents 67.241.38.141 (talk) 11:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done - This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". - MrX 🖋 11:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

We need a separate section for Hunter Biden allegations related to Ukraine business dealings

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The way it is worded in the first section sounds so biased. The allegations may be debunked and that is perfectly fine to be mentioned, but I think we can make that part of the article sound more neutral by moving it from the first section and putting it another part of the article and not make it sound like a hit piece on conservatives.Bjoh249 (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Bjoh249, the lead section summarizes the key points of the article. The vast majority of the Burisma allegations are in Hunter Biden#Burisma Holdings. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, nonetheless the first section is biased as it labels a legitimate issue as a "conspiracy theory". There are still questions about how he got his position in Burisma and why, and this has never been explained. Would be nice if Wikipedia articles did not adopt the same liberal bias that is common in mainstream media these days. R4ge (talk) 07:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

No, it labels a conspiracy theory as a conspiracy theory. The "questions" about how he got the job etc are all part and parcel of the same conspiracy theories because they are either irrelevant, or concocted to infer some nefarious act took place. Koncorde (talk) 09:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

HB's role at Burisma

Do the sources say Hunter's Burisma work was a No-show job? Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I say this because the whole Burisma section of this article, which is supposed to be a bio of Hunter Biden, is nothing but politics. It ought to be renamed 'Burisma Holdings Controversy', especially if this was really a no show job. What I want is some credible info about what actions Hunter took while on the job. Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I renamed the section - let me know what you think. Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Geographyinitiative, are there any reliable sources that call it a "no show job"? I don't think any do. And while much of that section is about the notion that there was anything "controversial" in Biden't tenure at Burisma, WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION talks about how it violates WP:NPOV to have sections titled "controversy". – Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

What do we know about what he did at the company? The section is larded with politics instead of biographical content about Hunter. Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I hope you're not saying you have no source telling you what he did at the company and so you are going to make up a false and stupid narrative insinuating some unspecified wrongdoing that would constitute a bribe? I'm sure that's not what you're suggesting. Maybe Burisma were early Zoom adopters for telecommuting. Just like the US Congressional hearings. The show that isn't a show. SPECIFICO talk 18:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Where would you even come to that conclusion? No where in anything Geographyinitiative said remotely resembles what you are insinuating... MrWendalyeah (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Hunter Biden, Burisma, and Corruption: The Impact on U.S. Government Policy and Related Concerns

Already added to the article with secondary source for context, factchecks, and significance. Tvaugan1 don't start up the conspiracy theory engine again. SPECIFICO talk 18:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs U.S. Senate Committee on Finance Majority Staff Report - https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Ukraine%20Report_FINAL.pdf Tvaughan1 (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC) Notice their use of the words “consistent with,” “possible,” “association with,” “potential association with,” “[s]ome recipients,” “linked to,” “appears to be.” There was a lengthy footnote on the alleged link to human trafficking, which noted that the Committees did not have records that “directly confirm or refute” public reports on [Hunter] Biden’s “alleged involvement with prostitution services.” The footnote went on to say that, nonetheless, records “confirm” Biden sent thousands of dollars to unnamed Russians and Ukrainians who have “been involved in transactions consistent with possible human trafficking” LOL! soibangla (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC) "Republican Inquiry Finds No Evidence of Wrongdoing by Biden". The New York Times. September 23, 2020. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 September 2020

“Dishonorably” was added to the statement that Hunter Biden was discharged, which is false 2600:8801:C204:8C00:4074:4496:8518:264 (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done Fixed by Awbeal. XOR'easter (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not false, it's unverifiable. According to https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/17/hunter-biden-drug-test/17427857/ "The term 'administrative discharge' can cover several types of military discharges from honorable to general to other-than-honorable conditions." The Navy will not comment because his record is protected under the Privacy Act. The only source for the character of the discharge is Hunter Biden himself, who calls it an administrative discharge. 98.219.224.139 (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article:

1) Hunter Biden's current net worth

2) Mention of Rosemont Seneca Thornton

173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

No evidence of any Hunter Biden stake in the redlink, this is somewhere between an assertion w.o. evidence and a conspiracy theory. Please provide a source and rationale for mentioning net worth. SPECIFICO talk 23:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Seems to me that appropriate non-numerical wording could be used. Rich, top xx%, or some broad classification. Unless there is an especially good WP:RS and enough reason for an actual net worth. Gah4 (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the rationale would be for including a broad classification, beyond what the article implicitly does already (he's a lawyer who works in investments, so he's neither struggling to make rent nor the Sultan of Brunei). XOR'easter (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Seems to be about right. Still, if some WP:RS thought it worth mentioning (and I don't know if they do) then we could. Gah4 (talk) 00:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

This article lead seems completely partisan

I am not pro Trump, I am not right wing, I am not even American nor care much about American elections. But claiming that allegations have been "debunked" is literally ridiculous. The guy was making 50 k a month from a Ukrainian gas company solely because of his father's position. It is nonsensical to call something which has been proven to be true to be a "conspiracy theory". What exactly has been debunked? Was he not hired by that gas company? Was he hired solely for his CV? Please give me a break. Guys try to stay neutral and don't use wikipedia to fight your electoral battles.Php2000 (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The article describes in detail what the conspiracy theories are and why they are nonsensical and false. The introduction briefly summarizes the main point, which is what introductions are supposed to do. XOR'easter (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure, if you think Ukrainian gas companies would pay an American lawyer USD 50,000 a month to "help with corporate best practices" you don't know much about the world my friend. The basic allegation is that he has been paid money to buy influence from his dad. That is evidently true. Denying it so vehemently on wikipedia just makes wikipedia look bad. But so be it. As I said, I don't care either way... Wikipedia is dying anyways. Php2000 (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

As I have said a dozen times or more "Rich powerful mans son gets high paying job" is not evidence of wrongdoing. It might be evidence of trying to buy influence (not part of the conspiracy theories). It might be evidence of a company being investigated by several international agencies a veneer of respectability (not part of the conspiracy theories), but there is no actual evidence of the first and the other might make sense but is pretty much irrelevant. Finally it might be evidence of nepotism. But nepotism isn't part of the conspiracy theory either.

So what are we left with? Allegedly Joe Biden tried to protect the son appointed to the board of Burisma in 2014 from an investigation of Burisma between 2010 and 2012. Now if the maths is confusing, that's because Hunter Biden in fact only joined Burisma two years later than the period in question. And Joe Biden meanwhile only "stopped" the investigation that had been dormant since earlier in 2014 in 2016 by advocating for the removal of the Prosecutor who had released holds on funds that several anti-corruption agencies had held up due to an ongoing court case. This threat of collapsing an international fraud / corruption case led to these agencies pushing the US as an ally of Ukraine to remove the evidently corrupt prosecutor and cleanse his office. The subsequent prosecutor has since been pressured by Trump and co to either reopen, or open new, investigations into the Bidens, including during a phone call with the President of the US (Donald Trump) for which he was impeached after hearing every witness corroborate the claims of the whistle blower and expand upon them. Any questions? Koncorde (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

It is absurd for the lead to claim the so-called theories are "debunked." There is clearly no consensus on this matter. Let the reader decide for themselves. It's not our place to say they are debunked. Plenty of sources argue for it, while others state the opposite. And they are all partisan. It's frustrating to see the clear bias coming through on this page.Some of everything (talk) 17:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Seven reliable sources are provided that say it's debunked or variations thereof, such as baseless. Please provide reliable sources stating otherwise. soibangla (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. I just summarised the whole debacle, anything could be googled to verify, and yet we have the age old "sources" claim from another user. Great. We are waiting for those sources. Everybody would love to know if there was an actual real corruption cover up then we could update the article to reflect the new reliable source content. Koncorde (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm at 1RR thanks to this, so I shouldn't be the one to handle this, but I don't think "dishonorably" can be supported by the sources available (which indicate the terms were kept confidential). XOR'easter (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@XOR'easter: DS does not prevent you from removing egregious BLP violations whenever necessary. SPECIFICO talk 14:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Hunter Biden's discharge from the Navy was not dishonorable

The citation for the character if the discharge is to South China Daily. That is not a reliable source Citations for the discharge being General/Administrative: https://heavy.com/news/hunter-biden-dishonorable-discharge-cocaine-true-false/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/17/hunter-biden-drug-test/17427857/ https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/joe-bidens-son-hunter-biden-discharged-navy-positive/story?id=26257601

JPinPhilly (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

JPinPhilly

First: The source for "administrative discharge" in your articles is Hunter Biden himself, not the Navy.

Second: Your own USA Today source explicitly states "The term "administrative discharge" can cover several types of military discharges" and "Like other junior officers, the details of Ensign Biden's discharge are not releasable under the Privacy Act" so you cannot make an NPOV determination that it was or was not Dishonorable.

98.219.224.139 (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Reuters: “He did not receive a dishonorable discharge.” soibangla (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

If this "not dishonorable" is mentioned in the article text, I think we should indicate the reason for saying so is that partisans, including I believe Trump, are making that false claim. SPECIFICO talk 19:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Gandydancer (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

We should not state as a fact what individuals (Hunter Biden, his father Joe or President Trump) say it was, but rather what the citations say it was. Reading the citations, Hunter Biden was given an Administrative Discharge. Further reading discloses that an Administrative Discharge is given by offering the subject the opportunity to resign rather than face a Court Martial where he would be subject to a Dishonorable Discharge and other sanctions. Hunter Biden resigned from the Navy with an Administrative Discharge. The section as currently written is correct. American In Brazil (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Repeated Suppression of Lie about Paternity

The quotation from the cited source in ‘Biden is also the father of a child born to Lunden Alexis Roberts in Arkansas in August 2018, having “initially den[ied] the existence of a previous sexual relationship.”” has been repeatedly reverted; I am finding it difficult to assume good faith or any motive other than partisanship. The quotation is in the citation, a noteworthy part of this section, and his credibility is also relevant to the circumstances of his less-than-honorable discharge in the previous section.

—FlashSheridan (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Editor tries to link paternity to naval discharge. Accuses others of partisanship... Koncorde (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

See my comment in the section above. Not every detail from a source has to appear in a Wikipedia article; see WP:DUE. XOR'easter (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Unwarranted reverts

My edits to 'Personal Life' keep getting reverted though I am quoting directly from the citation. The last revert was a quote from a court order as stated in the citation. Another editor claimed this has to do with 'BLP' which I assume means 'Black Lives Matter' - a non-sensical claim. Read the citation before reverting. American In Brazil (talk) 08:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

BLP means "Biographies of Living People" which is a series of rules we adhere to when writing a biography. You can see these at this link WP:BLP. Your content is being reverted because it either adds nothing (being a restatement of something already said), or adds something that is fundamentally irrelevant (such as information that was only accurate at the time the case concluded). Koncorde (talk) 12:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, you have not read the citation. The case is not over. After ruling that DNA evidence proved paternity, and issuing an order to that effect, the court ordered further proceedings to determine the amount of child support. This is both timely and relevant. American In Brazil (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

No, the case was setted in March 2020.[18] Ward20 (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. You're right, Biden agreed to child support in March, 2020. I'm adding this relevant fact, with citation(s), to the section. American In Brazil (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

What is relevant about that level of detail? You seem to want to write News, when wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Koncorde (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Likewise, I'm not sure why this is a pertinent detail, either. What attention has actually been given to it in reliable (non-tabloid, non-deprecated) sources? Why is including it here giving it due weight? What distinguishes it from boilerplate statements made in every paternity dispute throughout history? We are writing an encyclopedia article; what is the encyclopedic relevance? XOR'easter (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Here is a non-tabloid, non-deprecated citation: https://www.courthousenews.com/hunter-biden-paternity-case-ends-in-settlement-with-arkansas-woman/

This is relevant because the WP article talks about the paternity suit and the court order establishing paternity. The court ordered further proceedings to determine child support. The matter only concluded after Biden agreed to pay child support going forward plus back installments since the birth of the child. The court did not accept finality to the matter until child support was established and required. Why should Wikipedians not report the court's final approval of the agreement for child support that Biden entered into and that ended the case? American In Brazil (talk) 22:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Why would it? It is pretty routine in paternity cases. The only reason for its inclusion would be to emphasise something that is fundamentally small beans. Koncorde (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

"Relevant" is not our standard. It is UNDUE play-by-play. Not encyclopedic. SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Left leaning bias

page instantly “debunks” Biden-Russia allegations, then supports actually debunked Trump-Russia links as a matter of fact?! Lightuponthenations (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you point at the bit we state Trump-Russia links as a fact, as would need to verify the sources do in fact say that. Koncorde (talk) 02:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:COI. I am assuming WP:GOODFAITH, but as a general rule, right-wing conspiracy theorists are not advised to edit these topics, because they take Trump's false claims as fact. Not saying you're a right-wing conspiracy theorist, just in general for anyone who views this. Biden Russia allegations are not affirmed by anyone while Trump Russia allegations were by pretty much the entire intelligence community. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

“In July 2019, Trump ordered the freezing of $391 million in military aid shortly before a telephone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in which Trump asked Zelensky to initiate an investigation of the Bidens. Trump falsely told Zelensky that "[Joe] Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution" of his son; Joe Biden did not stop any prosecution, did not brag about doing so, and there is no evidence his son was ever under investigation.”

This is all a matter of conspiracy, yet it is stated as factual. Multiple reports have acquitted trump of all wrongdoing. Lightuponthenations (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you bring one source? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

He was acquitted by the partisan Senate, many of whom believed he did it but was not willing to face the backlash from removing Trump. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

If Trump was acquitted by a "bi partisan" Senate you would still not care because wikipeida has connections to the Biden Campaign.

I don't see a mention of Trump-Russia or wikipedia reporting Trump-Russia as fact. Would you like to revise what you are saying? Are you in fact confusing Ukraine and Russia? And per Emir, do you have the links to those reports? Koncorde (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2020

Please add to the Personal section:

Hunter Biden served as the Board Chair of the United Nations World Food Program USA (WFP USA), which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2020. He also served as chair of the fundraising wing for WFP-USA.

Sources:

https://www.wfpusa.org/news-release/vice-president-joe-biden-and-world-food-program-usa-honor-former-senator-bob-dole-for-his-leadership-in-the-fight-against-hunger/

https://www.wfpusa.org/multimedia/hunter-and-beau-biden-discuss-wfp-usas-live-below-the-line-challenge-with-msnbcs-andrea-mitchell/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/reliable-source/wp/2014/08/07/hunter-biden-amateur-cook-and-embarrassing-dad/ Emilyr2012 (talk) 09:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. We do not need to mention they were awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in his article, unless linked prominently by third-party sources. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Lawyer

The first description of him is a Lawyer, however nothing in the article suggests he ever practiced law and so it appears undue to use that as the first description of him. I'm not suggesting describing him as a lobbyist as that could appear to have negative connotations, but perhaps "businessman" is a more accurate description of him. Pi (Talk to me!) 22:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Multiple articles state that Hunter was of counsel at the law firm Boies Schiller Flexner. I found that he is admitted to practice law in Connecticut as of 2014 - https://federalnewsnetwork.com/government-news/2014/10/bidens-son-faces-no-bar-review-after-discharge/ Some of everything (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Maybe some who post here should read Conspiracy theories to see what is actually the point. Among others, debunking a conspiracy theory doesn't mean that it didn't happen, but that it didn't happen in the way that the theory says. JFK is dead, but that doesn't prove all the theories on how he (might have) died. Well, I could say more but it wouldn't help anyone understand this. Gah4 (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Debunk

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Some might also read Debunk, especially those who claim something isn't debunked when it isn't proven false. Gah4 (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 October 2020

The New York Times has confirmed his dealing with Ukraine. It compromises Wikipedia’s non biased standing to still have it labeled as a debunked conspiracy. 172.6.253.209 (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. There's no dispute that Biden had business dealings in Ukraine. If one of the conspiracy theories about his work there has been verified by the New York Times, please provide the article. – Anne drew 15:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)