Talk:Hunter Biden/Archive 1

Image needed

Unfortunately, Hunter's profile now remains without any images because no one has provided any online with the appropriate attribution licenses & details. I spent a considerable amount of time, yesterday, attempting to locate from Flickr, crop, convert to the correct format, and upload two images to Hunter's profile. Regrettably, they've been removed simply because they included a detail about "noncommercial use" in the Creative Commons, Generic, attribution license. I would like to request that someone please upload a good image of Hunter to Flickr, not only with the appropriate license, but all appropriate details, so that a face can be placed with a name. Daniellagreen (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Here you are: pro-Russian propaganda (youtube) in German - you can find some very nice and clear photos of him there:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m85wgNs3r8k (only for info, not as propaganda, please don´t remove!).

It could be, perhaps, usefull for your/our purpouses here. (Sorry for my English, not beeing excellent, I know.)

BR from Germany & Poland (I´m Silesian and love both countries - and Europe & the USA, and Ukraine too.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.114.37.119 (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello 46.114.37.119, I appreciate your offer and the link that you provided; it was very thoughtful of you! I wish, however, that I could use those photos, though there is no legal release and waiver of use associated with them. In fact, the photo in the YouTube video that shows Hunter with his father is a copyrighted photo in the US; I also located that one on Flickr.com, but could not use it because of copyright restrictions. Your English is excellent; I only know a few words of German. I visited Germany and toured Eastern and Western Europe and the British Isles many years ago - it was wonderful! God bless, Daniellagreen (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Current Activities (past start of 2014)

Under current activities, and in regards to the turmoil in the Ukraine with the overthrow of the elected president, why does the article not more clearly mention that Hunter Biden is among the boards of directors of Burisma Holdings? 84.112.136.52 (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC) This whole thing reads like it was authored by Biden's PR department. There's an editor here who sounds like they are on first-name terms with the subject. I'll make some changes. Sceptic1954 (talk) 08:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Presidential Material Now

According to the news, Biden was discharged from the Navy for a positive urinalysis test. This, all the while allowing gays to openly practice their lifestyle while in uniform, and, at the same time, allowing women in combat positions.

There is no balance in the nation's military yet. The injustice that Biden was just publicly subjected to, the humiliation that his family now has, is intolerable and inhumane. And this after we had Bush, Jr., as a president. The shame isn't on Biden, it's on us as a nation.

I don't trust those military urinalysis tests, anyway.

He has my vote for president now. That is, if his father doesn't run on his own. Or, better yet, he can be his dad's VP. That's really where we are as a nation. This should be in the main article somewhere.--76.212.150.246 (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Kolomoisky

Why was Igor Kolomoisky added out!? --79.223.0.15 (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Because... Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden had leveraged the Maidan coup and war in East Ukraine to strike lucrative oil fracking deals with Burisma in East Ukraine, along with a John Kerry family friend. The Limassol, Cyprus based energy firm Burisma Holdings, collected large energy contracts, with Hunter Biden, Devon Archer and oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi, closely tied to Burisma, which pushed for fracking exploration on land owned by East Ukrainian residents. Did we have "paid editors" whitewashing the article? --93.211.213.120 (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

edit conflict on navy section, tweaking to meet wp:balance

Hi, this is open for suggestions - arrangement of the internal refs needs some work (some don't perfectly match the statements), but section also needs to be tweaked to meet WP:BALANCE/WP:WELLKNOWN, so the more eyes on that the better. Thanks, Earflaps (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Original from a few months back/current

In May 2013, Biden was selected as a direct commission officer in the U.S. Naval Reserve, a program that allows civilians with no prior service to receive a limited duty officer's commission after attending a two-week class covering topics such as military history, etiquette, and drill and ceremony, in lieu of boot camp. As Biden was past the cut-off age for the program he needed a waiver. Biden received a second waiver because of a past drug-related incident.

One month after commissioning, Biden tested positive for cocaine use and was discharged from the Navy reserve in February 2014.

News of Biden's discharge was not made public and was not first reported until October 2014 when it was revealed to the Wall Street Journal by a Navy official who spoke to the newspaper on condition of anonymity. In a statement released by his attorney, Biden later acknowledged his discharge. A staff editorial in Biden's hometown newspaper, the News Journal, following the incident described the process by which Biden came to receive the various waivers that allowed him initial entry into the Navy as "soft corruption.""Hunter Biden's special exceptions raise questions". The News Journal. October 17, 2014. Retrieved October 18, 2014.</ref>

Earflaps' initial recommendation

In November 2012 it was reported that Biden was one of seven civilians recently selected to be a direct commission officer (DCO) in the U.S. Naval Reserve. The program allows civilians without prior service to receive a limited duty officer's commission after attending a two-week class on military topics in lieu of boot camp. Biden was past the cut-off age of 42 and was granted a waiver, which the Navy Times described as "not uncommon." It was later reported that Biden received a second waiver for a drug-related incident when younger. The South China Morning Post wrote that "officials say [the waiver] is not uncommon." However, a staff op-ed in the News Journal of Wilmington opined that "Biden may have applied for his exceptions as an average American," but that the selection committee had an element of "soft corruption," in that Navy careerists would still "[see Biden] as the vice president's son, whether he told them or not."

He was discharged in February 2014. The discharge was not made public until a Wall Street Journal article in October 2014, which quoted an anonymous source stating Biden had tested positive for cocaine in June 2013, and had been discharged accordingly. The Navy confirmed Biden's discharge but not the details or reasons. Biden acknowledged his discharge as well, writing that it had been "the honor of my life to serve in the U.S. Navy, and I deeply regret and am embarrassed that my actions led to my administrative discharge. I respect the Navy's decision. With the love and support of my family, I'm moving forward."

Version being worked on (contribute edits or comments)

In November 2012 it was reported that Biden was one of seven civilians recently selected to be a direct commission officer (DCO) in the U.S. Naval Reserve. The program allows civilians without prior service to receive a limited duty officer's commission after attending a two-week class on military topics in lieu of boot camp. Biden was past the cut-off age of 42 and was granted a waiver, and also received a second waiver for a drug-related incident when younger. Though the South China Morning Post wrote that "officials say [the waiver] is not uncommon," a staff editorial in Biden's hometown newspaper, the News Journal, described the Navy's process through which Biden received the waivers as "soft corruption." He was discharged in February 2014. The discharge was first made public in a Wall Street Journal article in October 2014, which quoted an anonymous source stating Biden had tested positive for cocaine in June 2013, and had been discharged accordingly. The Navy confirmed Biden's discharge but not the details or reasons, and Biden acknowledged his discharge as well, writing that it had been "I deeply regret and am embarrassed that my actions led to my administrative discharge. I respect the Navy's decision. With the love and support of my family, I'm moving forward."

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Hunter Biden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081022055510/http://projects.washingtonpost.com:80/2008-presidential-candidates/joe-biden/ to http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/joe-biden
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090420231230/http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/am2Copy/News_Release_Page to http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/am2Copy/News_Release_Page&c=am2Copy&cid=1178294263167&ssid=180

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hunter Biden. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110524174945/http://www.trains.com/trn/default.aspx?c=a&id=4304 to http://www.trains.com/trn/default.aspx?c=a&id=4304

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hunter Biden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728183230/http://usa.wfp.org/about/board-directors to http://usa.wfp.org/about/board-directors
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/25/us/politics/25wife.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hunter Biden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120930115757/http://iowaindependent.com/1509/all-in-the-family-hunter-biden to http://iowaindependent.com/1509/all-in-the-family-hunter-biden
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140708024018/http://burisma.com/hunter-biden-joins-the-team-of-burisma-holdings/ to http://burisma.com/hunter-biden-joins-the-team-of-burisma-holdings/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Biden Faces Conflict of Interest Questions That Are Being Promoted by Trump and Allies
• Hunter Biden’s Work in Ukraine Emerges as a Potential 2020 Scandal, --87.170.197.22 (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

FYI, Joe Biden says they never discussed it. Hunter says they did. Media is not investigating.https://dailycaller.com/2019/09/21/biden-discuss-hunter-biden-ukraine-deal/. CsikosLo (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Personal life

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

Hi Gagaboatly. I guess your intention here was to write "addiction" rather than "addition". Am I right?

BTW, I came here because I didn't find anything in the article about his public confession regarding his struggle with addiction. And I find this weird.

I read about this issue in a German paper and I wanted more information. Meanwhile I have found some information in the MSM:

• The New Yorker: Will Hunter Biden Jeopardize His Father’s Campaign?, newyorker.com
• CNN: "In an extensive and deeply personal interview with The New Yorker, Hunter Biden, 49, details his abuse of alcohol and drugs, which included first using cocaine while in college at Georgetown. [...] In 2014, he was discharged from the Navy Reserve after testing positive for cocaine." Hunter Biden opens up about struggle with addiction in new interview, cnn.com
• WaPo: Hunter Biden: Joe Biden's son shares his addiction struggles ... , washingtonpost.com
• Joe Biden praises son struggling with addiction and mental ... , washingtonpost.com
• The News Journal: "Hunter Biden is finally speaking out — and he's not shying away from this past.    In a deeply personal article published July 1, Joe Biden's son spoke to Adam Entous of The New Yorker about his struggles with addiction, his relationship with his brother Beau's wife, Hallie, and his business deals that have sparked controversy and ethical questions." Hunter Biden talks about his addiction, 'I was in that darkness' , delawareonline.com

So there is no doubt that this issue has been widely discussed in MSM this summer and I don't understand why it was edited out of this Wikipedia article. 2003:CF:3F0E:9D3C:FC8A:7737:C24F:CF9F (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

That's why the External link to the July 2019 New Yorker piece is there. Much of it is based on Hunter Biden's own statements about his struggles. Even Fox News has referenced the piece favorably. 68.199.42.57 (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the purpose of External links is to remove reliably-sourced information that was previously part the article and hide it in a link. Specifically, WP:EL states such links are for material that "cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article" or might "fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article". The New Yorker information and that from the other reliable sources listed above seem worth including. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 06:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Biden's alcohol and illegal drug use is widely reported in reliable sources such as The New Yorker. It should be included. 84percent (talk) 05:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Bohai Harvest

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

The consensus has already been established that it does not belong. XOR'easter (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have just blocked the above user for violating WP:1RR restrictions on this article. XOR'easter removed it earlier today with the edit summary: "Peter Schweizer is not a reliable source". I agree. I cannot remove it again or I violate 1RR. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I was not the first person to remove it. I concur with the edit summary of the IP who did so; see the section immediately above for more. XOR'easter (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Any content that begins with "Peter Schweizer, author of 'Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends'" is unacceptable on its face, and the title is innuendo in this context. Peter Schweizer is a far right political operative and by no means a reliable source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes. And more generally, given that this is a BLP, the burden of proof is on the one who argues that contentious content should be included. We err less and serve the public better by being cautious. If further investigation by journalists or law enforcement finds that there's something to the matter, then we can report that. XOR'easter (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I did not realize it had been removed earlier, but I'm not surprised. Consensus is clear, Circulair. Next time, read the discretionary sanctions alert I gave you, as you would have seen that this article is under WP:1RR restrictions. Also, content being "long standing" or "reliably sourced" do not guarantee that it belongs on the page. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Source on ukraine

Would the michael savage source be acceptable?

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

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

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

New Yorker RE: Conflict of interest.

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

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

I think the tone in the current version (potentially creating the appearance of a conflict of interest) is OK. XOR'easter (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2019

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

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

Thanks! 168.149.143.52 (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

BHR's activities in China

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

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

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

References

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

I think this should be left out. It's very Grassley-heavy, and only marginally biographical. If there is some wrongdoing that Biden is alleged to have done, please cite mainstream sources that say so. It's misleading to suggest to our readers that that is the case based on loose associations and political grandstanding.- MrX 🖋 17:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

It's getting worse than that. The flaws in a dozen similar recent edits, to insinuate some SYNTH factual basis for an "investigation" of the Bidens, Hillary, Crowdstrike, who-knows-who-else, etc. are planting Trump talking point breadcrumbs in various articles for naive WP users to find and follow. The reasons for these edits' removals has been explained by multiple editors and it's time to find other ways to beef up these articles. SPECIFICO talk 18:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The only thing that counts is factual wrongdoing covered in reliable sources. Just because a senator or other politician is "calling for an investigation" doesn't mean there is any wrongdoing. I think, as often as not, nothing comes of it. In these cases, there seems to be a slant or the facts are skewed or perceptual bias takes over. Also, argument by authority (Grassley or anyone else being the authority) is not reliable. Steve Quinn (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

What the above three comments said. XOR'easter (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

BLP on Trump and neutral balance

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

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

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

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

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

And the article should reflect that.

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

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

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

Jayanta Sen, the Moonie Times is an unacceptable source, and there is zero evidence of wrongdoing on the part of either Biden. You, meanwhile, need to remain WP:CIVIL when addressing other editors here. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

It's true that Biden's position with Burisma raises legitimate concerns, but the article already includes his compensation and the fact that Biden was criticize for creating the appearance of a conflict of interest. As it stands, I think the article conveys what needs to be said about Biden's position. Orser67 (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

How did his compensation get back into the article? That's just furthering the false suggestion of corruption. Anyway, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Sara Huckabee Sanders, G.W Bush, Jeb Bush, Chris Wallace, Lynn Cheney, Rand Paul, and many other fine professionals have followed in their Fathers' footprints. That's no reason to disparage any of them. SPECIFICO talk 20:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Please see the edit history for this edit. Sources do not report he was paid a "salary," the NYT reports he was "paid as much as $50,000 per month in some months." Corporate directors are typically paid a flat annual fee. soibangla (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Good catch. SPECIFICO talk 23:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2019

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

Not relevant. SPECIFICO talk 00:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Trump did not falsely accuse Joe Biden. Here is Biden admitting he got the Prosecutor fired.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCF9My1vBP4&t=25s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msryzak (talk • contribs) 16:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC) — Msryzak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

First, that's not an edit request. Second, as has been amply explained at length many times, the accusation was that Biden "got the Prosecutor fired" to protect his son, which didn't happen. What is it with drive-by accounts offering YouTube clips from a Russian propaganda channel with timecodes as if they were the Zapruder film? "Look, at 25 seconds: Biden boasts, back and to the left! Back and to the left!" XOR'easter (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Biden was one of many people who wanted that prosecutor fired, including the Obama administration and most Western countries. The reason was that the prosecutor was in the pocket of the politicians and oligarchs, and was refusing to pursue investigations against them - including the investigation against the owner of the company where Hunter Biden worked. In other words, by getting the prosecutor fired Biden would be REVIVING the moribund investigation into that company. The exact opposite of what the right (and the Russian trolls) are claiming.[2] If you would just read this article, it is spelled out very clearly with evidence. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The $10 million ad campaign Trump is now running states "Joe Biden promised Ukraine $1 billion if they fired the prosecutor investigating his son’s company,” That is flatly false, as numerous reliable sources show. It's a straight-up political smear. soibangla (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2019

Biden did withhold money till prosecutor was fired . it is even on you tube 174.205.17.112 (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

On behalf of the entire Western world, who knew Shokin was corrupt and was hindering the Burisma investigation, Biden did withhold money till prosecutor was fired soibangla (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 16:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Paternity suit

Hunter Biden having a paternity suit filed against him in Arkansas was removed as "scandal sheet" material back on September 21 and re-added today. To me, this seems like quintessential tabloid cruft of the kind that could attach to any minor celebrity, and is thus below the threshold for inclusion here, but the source is not terrible and the current statement is rather neutrally toned, so I'll leave it up for someone else to remove if they see fit. XOR'easter (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

For example, this profile isn't particularly kind to him, portraying him as perennially unsuccessful, always in the shadow of his generally more competent brother, and it doesn't even touch the paternity-suit business. XOR'easter (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion either way. It has not received much coverage. If we do retain the material, we should also include his denial.[3]- MrX 🖋 14:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Good point. I am currently inclined to remove it; as you say, it hasn't been covered very much. If it blows up later, we can write about it then. XOR'easter (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

That works for me. - MrX 🖋 14:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Done, then. XOR'easter (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

sept 2019 trump scandal news

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

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

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

The article already explains what Joe Biden did, and we don't use YouTube videos from Russian propaganda outlets as sources. XOR'easter (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

A video, if not edited, is a reliable source. Whether it was shared by a "Russian propaganda outlet" or another outlet is irrelevant. Some consider CNN, NYT and other US outlets as "Corporate propaganda outlets". But still, relevant information can be obtained from these outlets. 09:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.45.249.150 (talk)

The truth is that the prosecutor wasn't fired because he was investigating Burisma; he was fired because he wasn't investigating Burisma. It is the exact opposite of what Trump, Giuliani et al. have asserted:

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

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

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

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

In technical terms: yup. XOR'easter (talk) 02:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Biden's entire speech to the Council on Foreign Relations on January 23, 2018 complete witha transcript is here:

https://www.cfr.org/event/foreign-affairs-issue-launch-former-vice-president-joe-biden

This is the best source. No need to go to Vox or BBC

The key words are:

....I’m desperately concerned about the backsliding on the part of Kiev in terms of corruption. They made—I mean, I’ll give you one concrete example. I was—not I, but it just happened to be that was the assignment I got. I got all the good ones. And so I got Ukraine. And I remember going over, convincing our team, our leaders to—convincing that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t. So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. (Laughter.) I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time

Now there's a Twin Peaks twist:

There's no other source other than the speeech of Biden's for this tale of what is either a cancelled press conference or a cancelled announcement at a press conference. One thing that makes this story unlikely is that even after the prosecutor was fired the loan guarantees were not releaeed so that couldn't have been the only thing holding it up.

My understanding of the chronology is:

1. November 2015: Obama makes further loan guarantees to Ukraine conditional on reforms that are supposed to eliminate corruption.

2. December 2015: Biden’s last trip to Kiev during this approximte time span.

3. March, 2016: Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin is replaced.

4) Beginning of June 2016: The Ukrainian Parliament passes a package of anti-corruption legislation and the next day the $1 billion loan guarantee is made available, with the United States Ambassador to Ukraine formally signing them in Kyiv.

The Washington Post today has a partial correction of some of what has been assumed (and also the key quotes)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/02/correcting-media-error-bidens-ukraine-showdown-was-december/

But doesn't consider the possibility that Biden made the whole story up about a cancelled announcement.

The Washington Post does link to another earlier different version from 2016 of Biden's story that doesn't include the press conference. Bt even that may not be true, at least the way he tells it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/08/biden-doctrine/496841/

Somebody needs to try to verify what actually happened. Sammy Finkelman (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

"by withholding foreign aid"

The rationales offered for removing this text seem specious to me. The first is the assertion that the Ukrainian government couldn't have felt pressured [4] (we're not mindreaders); the second is that A claim this strong needs strong sourcing [5]. But the sentence in question is reporting what the allegation is. Trump's telling Zelensky "the United States has been very very good to Ukraine" [6] has widely been regarded as a "nice foreign aid ya got there" moment (a recent example). The allegation is that the threat of withholding foreign aid was behind Trump's request for favors [7]. At the moment, this is merely an accusation, but we fail to serve the public if we don't report that it is among the accusations. XOR'easter (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2019

Why is the claim from Trump being politicized further? All anyone knows for sure is that Trump made the allegation against Hunter. Stop the madness. Stay neutral. Remove the valueless descriptors such as "falsely," and any others crap that someone has apparently defecated. ProfRobertM (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

If something is definitively false, It behooves us to state that it is definitely false. We're not aiming for false equivalency. Discredited conspiracy theories need to be discredited. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Trump’s claims is neither definitively false, nor a discredited conspiracy theory. Viktor Shokin, the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma Holdings, has made the following statement under oath in court, in relation to Austrian legal proceedings involving Dmitry Firtash:

The truth is that I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings (“Burisma”), a natural gas firm active in Ukraine, and Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, was a member of the Board of Directors.

Shokin's testimony does not prove that Trump's claim is true, but it is consistent with Trump's claim. Until the reason for Shokin's removal has been definitively established, it is dishonest and misleading to label Trump's claim as ‘false’.

If there are no objections, I’ll remove the dishonest and misleading qualifier ‘falsely’ from the main article, and cite the sources that support Trump’s claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faagel (talk • contribs) 15:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

​I object. Shokin's self-serving claims, made in support of a Ukrainian oligarch arrested for bribery, are not worth considering here. The qualifier is neither dishonest nor misleading. XOR'easter (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

On what basis do you object to the removal of the qualifier, other than your unsubstantiated opinion about Shokin’s motives? Faagel (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not my opinion, it's the opinion of George W. Bush's ambassador to Ukraine [8][9][10]. XOR'easter (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

It is your opinion. You have now cited a similar opinion held by a retired US diplomat. The idea that the opinion of a former diplomat establishes matters of fact is of course absurd. As a case in point, in the run-up to the Iraq war, there were diplomats who claimed Iraq had WMDs and might use them against US-led troops. It is clear that those opinions had nothing to do with reality.

The fact is that the reason for Shokin’s removal is disputed. Is your objection to the removal of the qualifier ‘falsely’ based on anything other than (a) your opinion and (b) the opinion of a former US diplomat? As a general rule, do you think that opinions of politicians and bureaucrats definitively establish matters of fact, or do you consider this a special case? Faagel (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm saying we go with the sources that are available (which, at the time of the run-up to the Iraq war, would have included a greater variety of claims than is typically remembered). No reliable source indicates that Trump's claim is true. The consensus of editors here has been to include "falsely" in accord with that. XOR'easter (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2019

The following statement about Trump and Biden are nothing less than fake news created to cover Biden crimes. Wikipedia has become a political cover up page and is now part of the hate Trump corrupt consortium. I have no use for Wikipedia from here forward. The statement below posted as facts are nothing less than political opinion. ""Biden served on the board of Burisma Holdings, a major Ukrainian natural gas producer, from 2014 to 2019. In 2019, President Donald Trump falsely claimed that Joe Biden had sought the dismissal of a Ukrainian prosecutor in order to protect Hunter Biden.[1][2][3][4][5] Trump's alleged attempt to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate the Bidens by withholding foreign aid[6][7][8] triggered an impeachment inquiry against Trump in September 2019."" 75.142.218.247 (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikipedia simply posts information based on sources available. If you have sources that counter the presented information, you're able to have them added in. But simple personal objection to sources is not enough to have the information removed. — IVORK _Discuss 03:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I have issue with the wordage of the sentence (In 2019, President Donald Trump falsely claimed that Joe Biden had sought the dismissal of a Ukrainian prosecutor in order to protect Hunter Biden.) above that claims that Donald Trump falsely claimed? This claim is not been proven to be true or false! So at this time, it should not reflect as either. Only that he made claim as such! As it also reflects further on in the statement that "Trump's alleged attempt" How can it be one is false and then another alleged? 2601:1C0:C800:30B0:848D:CADC:4F75:210 (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)Darrel Moats2601:1C0:C800:30B0:848D:CADC:4F75:210 (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Reliable Source reporting debunks Trump's claim that Biden was acting to protect is son. We write what the sources report. SPECIFICO talk 15:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

In 2019, President Donald Trump falsely claimed that Joe Biden had sought the dismissal of a Ukrainian prosecutor in order to protect Hunter Biden.

In 2019, President Donald Trump claimed that Joe Biden had sought the dismissal of a Ukrainian prosecutor in order to protect Hunter Biden.

69.163.33.50 (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Lede

The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) said an investigation was ongoing into permits granted by officials at the Ministry of Ecology for the use of natural resources to a string of companies managed by Burisma. But it said the period under investigation was 2010-2012, and noted that this was before the company hired Hunter Biden. “Changes to the board of Burisma Limited, which are currently the object of international attention, took place only in May 2014, and therefore are not and never were the subject of (the anti-corruption bureau’s) investigation,” the bureau’s statement said.

In light of this Reuters report, should we continue to prominently state in the lede that In 2019, President Donald Trump claimed that Joe Biden had sought the dismissal of a Ukrainian prosecutor in order to protect Hunter Biden? starship.paint (talk) 08:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. The fact that he made the claim is significant — it might, in a roundabout way, be Hunter's entry into the history books — so maybe it should stay, but perhaps rephrased. XOR'easter (talk) 13:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

BHR Partners & Burisma Holdings

Here's my suggestion for how to improve the article.[11]

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

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

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

References

User:SPECIFICO obviously disagrees.[12] SPECIFICO's edit summary: "rv poorly sourced UNDUE SYNTH insinuation and BLP smear." -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

SPECIFICO is right. In addition to violating WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE, this material also violates WP:NPOV by not mentioning how, for example, the New York Times looked into allegations of Hunter Biden's shady dealings with China and found them groundless, and the Washington Post fact-checkers deemed them "more like smoke than fire" [13][14]. XOR'easter (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this particular text is WP:SYNTH or WP:UNDUE : "Hunter Biden's company Rosemont Seneca received $3.4 million from Burisma Holdings". -- Tobby72 (talk) 07:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

You forgot BLP violation. You are quite aware that there is no consensus for reinserting poorly-sourced and irrelevant innuendo of wrongdoing. SPECIFICO talk 14:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

As stated at Talk:Trump–Ukraine controversy, calling Rosemont Seneca "Hunter Biden's company" also does not reflect the sources accurately. XOR'easter (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

You're right, it does not reflect the sources accurately, it should be reworded. What are the facts? In June 2009, Hunter Biden, Christopher Heinz—Senator John Kerry’s stepson—and Devon Archer co-founded Rosemont Seneca Partners. In 2012, Archer and Biden talked to Jonathan Li, who ran a Chinese private-equity fund, Bohai Capital, about becoming partners in a new company that would invest Chinese capital in companies outside China. In 2013, they created the fund, which they named BHR Partners.[15] Burisma Holdings paid $3.4 million to a company called Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC from mid-April 2014, when Hunter Biden and Devon Archer joined the board, to late 2015. Rosemont Seneca Bohai was controlled by Archer. Bank records show that Rosemont Seneca Bohai made regular payments to Hunter Biden that totaled as much as $50,000 in some months.[16] -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Bank records show... -- Sounds like a line from a cable TV true crime exposé. Tobby72, you need to stop inserting these insinuations of wrongdoing and shady dealings in every article a user might read for background on the current events. Cut it out. If you don't understand the problem, then don't edit these articles. SPECIFICO talk 11:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree with that.

So what if Hunter, Heinz, and Devon Archer co-founded a partnership? And so what if they created a fund called BHR Partners with Jonathan Li? "Hunter became an unpaid member of BHR’s board but did not take an equity stake in BHR Partners until after his father left the White House"your source.

There is no connection between the $3.4 million and Hunter Biden other than he joined the board of Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC around that time. He is not responsible for Burisma's actions. Also, there are no implications from having received up to $50,000 from Rosemont Seneca "in some months" your source.

He was paid well, so what? It seems he has never been implicated in a crime like his business partner - Mr.Archer whose conviction was overturned. Nuanced facts are being left out. Steve Quinn (talk) 11:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

My analysis basically parallels that of Steve Quinn. XOR'easter (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

According to The New Yorker:

In June, 2009, five months after Joe Biden became Vice-President, Hunter co-founded a second company, Rosemont Seneca Partners, with Christopher Heinz, Senator John Kerry’s stepson and an heir to the food-company fortune, and Devon Archer, a former Abercrombie & Fitch model who started his finance career at Citibank in Asia and who had been friends with Heinz at Yale. ... In 2012, Archer and Hunter talked to Jonathan Li, who ran a Chinese private-equity fund, Bohai Capital, about becoming partners in a new company that would invest Chinese capital—and, potentially, capital from other countries—in companies outside China. In June, 2013, Li, Archer, and other business partners signed a memorandum of understanding to create the fund, which they named BHR Partners, and, in November, they signed contracts related to the deal.

According to The New York Times:

Hunter Biden’s work in Ukraine appears to have been well compensated. Burisma paid $3.4 million to a company called Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC from mid-April 2014, when Hunter Biden and Mr. Archer joined the board, to late 2015, according to the financial data provided by the Ukrainian deputy prosecutor. The payments continued after that, according to people familiar with the arrangement. 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 totaled as much as $50,000 in some months.

-- Tobby72 (talk) 11:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

the Page is “protected” so I cannot add this about the now well known video , of VP Biden saying “So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. (Laughter.) I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a b-tch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”

This is a crucial info... could wiki be biased ? Oh parish the thought...

Watterg8 (talk) 04:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Watterg8:, if that video were at all relevant to Hunter Biden, we'd include it here. And I think you meant "perish". – Muboshgu (talk) 04:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Vice President Biden's video — WATCH: Joe Biden Brags About Rigging The Ukranian Political System -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Tobby72: This garbage has been explained to you on several talk pages. It's time for you to drop the stick and move on. You should be aware that BLP applies on article talk pages, not just article text, and that you're building a history of disregard for this core principle of Wikipedia by spreading it over and over on multiple article and talk pages. Please move on. SPECIFICO talk 12:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

What office does he hold?

Is there some reason why Biden's bio uses template:Infobox officeholder? As far as I know, he has not held public office. I believe this should be changed to template:Infobox person - MrX 🖋 00:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I guess it refers to his time on the board of Amtrak? XOR'easter (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

This Wikipedia artical is politically biased... as usual.

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.

---

President Trump never "falsely" claimed anything about Hunter Biden, or Hunter's corrupt activities.

Obviously, as well, Hunter Biden INTENTIONALLY took cocaine; just because Hunter's father (a very corrupt politician) made up a story about the cocaine incident, does not make it so. Hunter Biden displayed his guilt to the military by not fighting the charge.

Wikipedia has turned out to be very corrupt due to it's political bias... with lies. Wikipedia is NOT dependable source of information regarding President Trump and Democrats. We The People are NOT FOOLED by Wikipedia's Fake News. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveprinty13 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Trump has falsely asserted Hunter "walks away" with $1.5 billion from China, suggesting a huge ripoff, when there is no evidence it was anything other than a routine investment fund of the kind many of Trump's friends manage. There is no evidence Hunter has ever been investigated, because there is no evidence he ever engaged in wrongdoing. Trump is engaged in a transparent garden-variety political smear to eliminate Joe Biden from the race because he fears Joe can beat him. soibangla (talk) 00:27, 14 October 2019 (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.

Second half of second paragraph of lead

Is the second half of the second paragraph (beginning with In 2019 ...) of the lead WP:DUE? Specifically, is it consistent with WP:LEAD for two-thirds of it to chronicle events that have taken place in the last 90 days in the life of a 50 year-old man? Chetsford (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Possibly not. XOR'easter (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Salary correction from $ 50,000 pm to $ 1m per year

The bank account of Rosemont Seneca Partners is a matter of public record since Devon Archer was one of the accused in a Bond Scam. https://www.scribd.com/document/404001731/Rosemont-Seneca-Partners-Court-File This shows two payments every month of $ 83,333.33 from Burisma Holdings to Rosemont Seneca Partners. The bank accounts cover a period of 18 months and during this period both Devon Archer and Hunter Biden were paid $ 1m per year. They are also paid additional amounts. The article in the hill https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/436816-joe-bidens-2020-ukrainian-nightmare-a-closed-probe-is-revived shows that for the 18 months covered by the court filed bank records they received $ 3.1m. There is a major difference between the fees charged by a partnership and the amount drawn by the partners. The fees charged by the partnership was $ 2m per year. The amount drawn by the partners was much less since they invested the money in other investments and increased their capital in the partnership. RonaldDuncan (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's job to dig through bank statements and court filings. We should stick with the figure reported more recently and in more reliable sources than an opinion column on The Hill. More generally, it does not seem to me that a deep dive into the financial internals is worth including in a brief and general biography. (And I say this while naturally resenting that however you figure it, Hunter Biden made a lot more money during those 18 months than I did, and for doing a lot less work.) XOR'easter (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Why should unsourced claims be viewed as more reliable than sourced claims? Faagel (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

There are two sets of sourced claims one at $50k per month the other at $ 83,333.33. I think that the article should be neutral and mention both sets of claims. The following figures are available in various publications $ 50k per month, $ 83k per month, $ 3.1m and $ 3.4m over and 18 month period. There are also the bank accounts of Rosemont Seneca Partners showing 2 payments each month of $ 83,333.33. Policy is that where there are conflicting credible sets of information with backing sources then the different view points should be displayed. Individual readers can then look at both sets of sources and form their own opinion.RonaldDuncan (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I entirely agree that the article should include both claims. Faagel (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The different amounts do not all appear to be referring to the same thing. $83k is Solomon's figure for money flowing into a Rosemont Seneca account (some fraction of which was presumably drawn out afterward), and $50k is what Vogel in the NYT says he received from Burisma for his service on the board of the directors. Without better reporting to sort all this out, I don't think heaping more figures on the reader is actually being more informative. XOR'easter (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

RonaldDuncan, your statement Policy is that where there are conflicting credible sets of information with backing sources then the different view points should be displayed. Individual readers can then look at both sets of sources and form their own opinion is entirely incorrect. Please review WP:V and WP:WEIGHT and drop the stick on this. SPECIFICO talk 17:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:V The bank accounts show that $ 83k went in and occasional amounts of up to $ 50k were withdrawn. Thus both claims are verified. WP:WEIGHT Clearly the in normal circumstances Vogel in the NYT would be a more credible source than the Hill. However Solomon in the Hill provides the link to the bank accounts which show the "verified" information. This article covers a controversial area. and it is important for balance in the article to show the full amount earned by Rosemont Seneca Partners from Burisma, and what was paid out to Hunter Biden, with the proviso that all of the money paid in was Hunter Biden's property given that Chris Heinz agreed that these were personal rather than company paymentsRonaldDuncan (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY/WP:NOR: we don't dig into bank accounts ourselves. WP:DUE: the details of what money flowed into which account on the Nth of which month are not suitable for a brief biography. WP:SYNTH: "all of the money paid in was Hunter Biden's property" is not an inference we can make for ourselves. I think it would be more defensible to leave dollar amounts out entirely (as I recall, the various articles on this topic have had them removed and added at different times) than to include a profusion of figures of unclear meaning. When a respectable forensic accountant finally sorts out the Burisma books, we can report what they say then. XOR'easter (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY/WP:NOR Solomon of the Hill dug into the bank accounts and published his findings.RonaldDuncan (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:DUE: the details of what money flowed into which account on the Nth of which month are not suitable for a brief biography. - AGREED RonaldDuncan (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH: "all of the money paid in was Hunter Biden's property" is not an inference we can make for ourselves. - this is in the Washington Post article where Chris Heinz fell out with Biden RonaldDuncan (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with your view point of dropping the dollar amount since what Biden was paid is important, as the Washington post stated when he was first appointed.RonaldDuncan (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

A rhetorical flourish in a "worldview" column doesn't bear on what we should write here. XOR'easter (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

To say it another way, "balance" doesn't mean giving equal time to every assertion with an outside claim to respectability. XOR'easter (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree - however the Hill article is easily verifiable (via the bank accounts), and published before this became controversial. RonaldDuncan (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

That's not what "verifiability" means. We don't satisfy WP:V by violating WP:NOR. XOR'easter (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOR The Hill article means it is WP:NOR, if I go into the bank accounts and publish my research that is clearly WP:NOR - How ever for a talk page discussion like this everyone is welcome to research the bank accounts and publish the findings, which are that the Hill article is correct. You can check this out yourself which is why I put in the bank account link to the Government evidenceRonaldDuncan (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The bank accounts for the partnership, whose partners were billing hourly? Newsflash: law and consulting are lucrative occupations soibangla (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Newsflash very few Law and consulting companies only have directorship payments as their main income $ 3.1m over 18 months.RonaldDuncan (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

That is not what the evidence says or suggests, and I recommend that you ignore anything John Solomon says, as he makes stuff up. soibangla (talk) 22:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

RonaldDuncan, I asked you to read the policies. It's hard to believe you did that before writing your reply. I suggest you move on to other paths for article improvement. SPECIFICO talk 18:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Your ad hominem attack is noted RonaldDuncan (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The Washington Post summed it up well when commenting on his appointment in May 2014 "Still, you have to wonder how big the salary has to be to put U.S. soft power at risk like this. Pretty big, we'd imagine." in https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/05/14/hunter-bidens-new-job-at-a-ukrainian-gas-company-is-a-problem-for-u-s-soft-power/ RonaldDuncan (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

First of all, it has not been reported that Hunter was paid a "salary," but rather he was "paid as much as $50,000 per month in some months." Corporate directors are typically paid a flat annual fee, not a variable amount. The fact he was an attorney with Boies Schliier Flexner, a high-priced firm, and a partner in his consulting firm, both of which were retained by Burisma, suggests his variable income was in the form of billable hours, because that's the way attorneys and consultants are compensated, so even the larger amounts now being cited are not suspicious, as those sorts of attorneys/consultants bill out at $1000+ per hour. Do the arithmetic. soibangla (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, It has been reported in a large number of media outlets that he was paid a salary as a director. It was also reported that he may have broken the law by billing additional amounts as a director breaking his duty to the company under conflict of interest. There may be additional payments to Boies Schliier Flexner, but the bank records supporting the Hill article are for the transactions between Burisma and Rosemont Seneca Partners https://www.scribd.com/document/404001731/Rosemont-Seneca-Partners-Court-File since they were linked to in the article it does make it easy to verify the article. It also verifies the NYT article which says his drawings from the partnership were upto $50k per month.RonaldDuncan (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure, he may have been paid a "salary" in the form of a flat director's fee, which is part of his total income, but the fact his total compensation was large and variable suggests he was also billing hourly as an attorney/consultant. It was also reported that he may have broken the law Where? John Solomon? soibangla (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The records show that in 18 months Biden and Archer got $ 3m in fees paid monthly at $ 83,333.33 per month and an additional $ 100k over the period, and you are right "John Solomon?" on the legality of the extra $100k. Though it is standard non exec director conflict of interest stuff.RonaldDuncan (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO Put a WP:BLPTALK onto this discussion terminating it early. Given that the discussion has only been going on for a few hours this is too early for people to comment on, what figure if any should be shown for Hunter Biden's Salary. My view was that the two statements of $ 50k and $ 83k should be shown in the article with appropriate refs, and there are clearly different points of view in the discussion above. I do not see anything above that merits a BLP termination of the discussion and feel that this is a case of WP:CRYBLP. Other editors views are most welcome.RonaldDuncan (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion was plainly going nowhere (and spilling over into WP:NOR territory); I'm fine with tying it off. XOR'easter (talk) 22:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@RonaldDuncan: - the sources you provide are simply not good enough. Solomon is questionable, and it’s not our job to interpret court files. If reliable secondary sources that aren’t opinion pieces or questionable authors report this, then we can include it. No go as of now. starship.paint (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I haven't seen reports in reliable sources that say Hunter Biden may have broken the law. I don't think it was reported that Hunter was a director of a company. He sits on the board of directors. He was in charge of perception of the company at Burisma. He did not run Burisma. That WAPO article is really bad for wp:rs - it is a total opinion piece and it reflects the author's opinion - and it is obviously snarky and one-sided.

It also states the public, the Administration, and an ethics watch dog organization didn't think anything of his taking a position at Burisma. So far, you are continually citing only one secondary source that throws all these various figures around. Multiple reliable sources should also cover this for it to be included, which they don't. Basing all this on one source is UNDUE. Also, given who is presenting these figures - that is also unreliable.

I can't see accepting bank statements posted on a User-generated web site as reliable sources. Reliable sources are secondary sources, as per the definiton of wp:rs, and not found on user-generated websites. Mostly what has been discussed in reliable sources is that Hunter made up to $50,000 in some months. So, adding these figures to this article is not supported and I oppose.

Also, there is no need to mention it was presented in the Hill by John Solomon and that it links to bank statements. This has been discussed above. Also, it is best to use the most current sources available- not data based on events that occured five or more years ago. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The NYT article by Kenneth Vogel and Iullia Mendel on May 1st 2019 is clearly well researched and uses the Hill article above as a source. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/us/politics/biden-son-ukraine.html It is clear that Vogel and Mendel have been through the bank accounts and gone with the payouts from Rosemont Seneca Partners account to Hunter Biden rather than the payins from Burisma of Hunter Biden's monthly salary. The salary from the employers (Burisma's) perspective is clearly $ 83,333.33 as stated by the Hill. The NYT formulation of "Rosemont Seneca Bohai made regular payments to Mr. Biden that totaled as much as $50,000 in some months" is factually correct, but a strange way of describing a monthly salary that was always $ 83,333.33 paid by the employer into the employees bank account of choice. I still think that Wikipedia should reflect the two figures and the sources for each figure especially as the NYT article references the Hill article.RonaldDuncan (talk) 09:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I oppose including information about $83,333.33/$1 million per year payments based on the sources discussed in this section. Scribd is never a reliable source. Opinion columns make poor sources for BLP content. The other sources don't support the proposed content.- MrX 🖋 11:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks looks like there is a reasonable consensus to just have the $ 50k and not have both $50 and $83k pm/1m per yearRonaldDuncan (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Summary

• $50k and $ 83k with sources - RonaldDuncan, Faagel
• Oppose / keep $ 50k only - XOR'easter, SPECIFICO,soibangla,starship.paint,Steve Quinn,MrX
• Oppose soibangla (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Result Oppose / keep RonaldDuncan (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

No. soibangla (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Please let us know if you disagree or want to contribute further to the discussion. RonaldDuncan (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Protection

Based on the continuing edit requests here that all seem to boil down to some version of "Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion from the Ukraine, so therefore Hunter and Joe are corrupt", I extended the article protection from three more weeks to six months. I expect we'll probably need to keep this page protected through the November 2020 election, but maybe not if Biden isn't the nominee. If anyone objects to my move (with a serious reason), I'll revert it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

No objection here. XOR'easter (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Fully agree - this is going to run RonaldDuncan (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

No objection - and I think this is probably a good idea. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

That's a bold, generalization that mischaracterizes edit requests here. There are plenty of reports about Hunter Biden's questionable business dealings in the months and years before the Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, including reports by ABC News, Politico, and The Wall Street Journal. It does appear, however, that some edits have been made by pros, so I agree this article should be protected through the 2020 election. -- Ingyhere (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Hunter Biden drug/alcohol abuse

Multiple media sources have reported on Hunter Biden's struggles with drug and alcohol abuse. Shouldn't this be part of the article? (I think it previously was, but got removed.) This is relevant because the inference from media reports is that father and son have not always been on the same page in the way that Joe Biden was with Beau. Hunter's joining the board of Burisma is one example of this. It feels like the article should be developed to cover this, similar to how Wikipedia covers the alcoholism of Trump's brother Fred. --Westwind273 (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Restored one sentence from August 2019. Found another reference, added a second sentence. starship.paint (talk) 05:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Reference 2, pertaining to "According to Biden, he had unwittingly consumed the cocaine after being given cigarettes he believed were surreptitiously laced with the drug.[2]" I have read the entirety of reference 2 and it makes no mention of the idea of Hunter being duped into smoking cocaine laced cigarettes. That reference rather details his self professed drug use "Improvising, he stuffed the crack into a cigarette and smoked it. “It didn’t have much of an effect,” he said." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:AA27:0:4189:25A5:94FC:8383 (talk) 06:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

2605, that's not the relevant portion from the source. [18] This is: starship.paint (talk) 06:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Later that month, the night before Hunter’s first weekend of Reserve duty, he stopped at a bar a few blocks from the White House. Outside, Hunter said, he bummed a cigarette from two men who told him that they were from South Africa. He felt “amped up” as he was driving down to Norfolk, and then “incredibly exhausted.” He told me that he called Beau and said, “I don’t know what’s going on.” Beau drove from Delaware to meet Hunter at a hotel near the naval station. “He got me shipshape and drove me into the base,” he said. On his first day, Hunter had a urine sample taken for testing. A few months later, Hunter received a letter saying that his urinalysis had detected cocaine in his system. Under Navy rules, a positive drug test typically triggers a discharge. Hunter wrote a letter to the Navy Reserve, saying that he didn’t know how the drug had got into his system and suggesting that the cigarettes he’d smoked outside the bar might have been laced with cocaine.

"Hunter disclosed that he had “used drugs in the past,” but said that he was now sober, and the Navy granted him a second waiver." " it became clear that, given Hunter’s history with drugs, an appeals panel was unlikely to believe the story that he had ingested cocaine involuntarily" "She pointed out that he had only recently been discharged from the Navy after testing positive for cocaine. They rode the rest of the way home in silence."

It's beyond reasonable doubt of this scenario of accidentally ingesting cocaine and seems a bit impartial to cite a source that details his own accounts of drug addiction as the source that explains away his wrongful discharge as accidental drug ingestion without making any mention of his own accounts of drug addiction within the source and omitting the portion of the reason to not submit an appeal being that an appeals panel would be unlikely to believe this. This is biased cherry picking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:AA27:0:4189:25A5:94FC:8383 (talk)

Article updated, He chose not to appeal the matter as it was unlikely that the panel would believe his explanation given his history with drugs, and also due to the likelihood of news leaking to the press starship.paint (talk) 08:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time out to think through this edit Starship, Even though I originally missed the source material claiming accidental drug ingestion. My intentions are not to include details that drag hunter bidens name through the mud by addressing this(he seems like a nice guy thats been through some stuff and I wish him luck), but rather to make that portion read less biased after reading it then diving in to the source material. I approve the current verbiage as closer to apolitical for what it's worth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:AA27:0:B431:2FFD:2BB5:6C3B (talk) 04:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. I too, want accurate information to be reflected, even if it is negative. starship.paint (talk) 09:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Ye Jianming / Patrick Ho

Added content on Ye Jianming and Patrick Ho from the references "entous1" [19] and "bschrekinger1" [20] starship.paint (talk) 04:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

You state that "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.[" There is actual footage of Biden bragging " and sob, he got fired". So how can you say Trump falsely accused Biden ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.119.27.22 (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

There is "actual footage" of Biden doing not at all what Trump and his allies have said he did. It's a garden-variety political smear. soibangla (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2019

change remark of biden NOT bragging about the firing of the prosecutor to YES bragging about the firing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY 178.9.57.114 (talk) 09:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done - YouTube is not a reliable source and request does not conform to the instructions.- MrX 🖋 10:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Joe Biden Council on Foreign Relations speech

I don't think we should include material about Joe Biden boasting during his Council on Foreign Relations speech. There is no evidence that it is related to the subject of this bio, and largely appears to be a conspiracy theory promulgated by Trump and Giuliani.  [21] - MrX 🖋 11:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. There has been a persistent effort to equate Biden boasting about being the point man for a massive, legitimate anti-corruption push with Biden supposedly boasting about protecting his own son. XOR'easter (talk) 12:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Disagree - this is a difficult article the only reason Hunter Biden has an article is that he is Joe Biden's son otherwise it would not be notable enough. If you look back to 2014 long before Trump's involvement and interest exploding in this article, there was already a long section on Burisma Holdings and the direct conflict of interest between Joe and Hunter Biden. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hunter_Biden&oldid=629966007 One of the key reasons people are going to read this article is to find out about the fall out from the Council on Foreign Relations speech. Joe Biden is on video having claimed to fire the prosecutor, whilst his son is already on the board of a Ukrainian gas company that has been/is being investigated for a mixture of its owner and its own dealings. The article needs to be balanced and have a neutral point of view with good references, and try not to get caught up in the drive by impeachment fervour.RonaldDuncan (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Blowing up the Council on Foreign Relations speech makes the article less balanced and NPOV. Biden told a cocktail-party anecdote. (He's told some version of that story elsewhere; given that this is Joe Biden we're talking about, I expect it to be punched up with at least a little added drama at the expense of names and dates.) The actual story of multiple organizations together pressuring Ukraine to clean up its act is longer, more drawn out, more complicated and documentable with actual reporting. XOR'easter (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

XOR'easter Yup, Biden came saw and conquered in Dec, but Shokin finally resigned in Feb, then went back on his resignation the next day and was voted out in March. However the "I fired the prosecutor", by Dad is a major factor in why we have an "interesting" article on the son.RonaldDuncan (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

MrX - The citation attached to your comment is an opinion piece. To wit, It's tagged as "Analysis" and described aptly as "Interpretation of the news based on evidence, including data, as well as anticipating how events might unfold based on past events." To quote another user here: "That’s an opinion piece. It would not fly." -- Ingyhere (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Ingyhere Analysis is not the same thing as opinion in the definition commonly used at Wikipedia. The article I cited would very readily pass a reliable source.- MrX 🖋 11:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

MrX -- Perhaps. Please enlighten me with the written policy that permits self-declared "interpretation" being endorsed for the strict rules of BLPs. That is not the kernel of this topic, though. I think the CFR speech should be at least mentioned as it is relevant to how Hunter Biden became prominent in the news cycle lately. The booming voice of the Presidency has made the erroneous story the narrative for many readers. It would be far more productive to mention it with explanation as to why it does not apply. -- Ingyhere (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ingyhere: Don't move the goal posts. We're talking about analysis, not self-declared interpretation. See WP:SECONDARY, WP:RS, and WP:RSP#The Washington Post. Of course this is moot since I didn't cite the source in the article.- MrX 🖋 16:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Disagree -- Biden literally confessed in a public video that he extorted a foreign country for $1 billion to fire a public servant. It relates not tangentially but directly to the subject of the scandal circling around Hunter Biden, whether it's exploited by unethical political rivals or not. Listen to yourselves, the rationalizations and contortions to avoid saying absolutely anything that can be interpreted one iota to support an opposing narrative. This article -- and talk page -- sound like they are written by paid Biden consultants. -- Ingyhere (talk) 04:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Ingyhere, except there was no extortion and there's no political scandal surrounding either Biden, in spite of your desire that Trump and Giuliani's election interference would bear fruit. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ingyhere: - if only you would open your eyes to the narrative that the right wing is spinning to you. Hunter Biden was never under investigation. The investigation pertained to events from 2010 to 2012, when Hunter joined in 2014. There was no need to protect him. starship.paint (talk) 05:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: - The Wall Street Journal stated in December 2015, well after Hunter Biden was appointed Board Member, that Burisma Holdings cofounder, president and principal owner Mykola Zlochevsky was under investigation for money laundering, forgery and embezzlement in both the UK and Ukraine. (Zlochevsky principally owned Brociti Investments Limited, which counted Burisma as one of its holdings.) In fact, Hunter Biden was not being investigated -- It was the man who owned the company where he worked. And, $23 million implicated in the money laundering investigation was frozen in a BNP Paribas account. Thus, in December 2015, when Joe Biden had his self-reported showdown in Kiev, there indeed was meaningful involvement between Burisma, its owner Zlochevsky and its employee Hunter Biden, as well as millions of dollars tied up in multinational investigations. -- Ingyhere (talk) 07:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ingyhere: ... so you are saying that Zlochevsky was under investigation and Hunter was not under investigation, right? If so I rest my case. starship.paint (talk) 07:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Muboshgu My only "desire" is that Wikipedia comports with standards of impartiality (WP:IMPARTIAL) and fair play (WP:UNDUE). If articles here lose the upper hand to partisans and shills (as some have in the past), the entire enterprise loses credibility (some already has been and more can be lost). An impartial observer would hope that articles are written with an eye to ethics, similar to something like the journalist's code of conduct, e.g. "oversimplification that removes integral facts, or is in the service of manipulation" is a violation of the compact between those documenting current events and the public seeking to be informed. There have been very large sums of money and unusual foreign investments swirling around the Biden family for years, and so many like to write the Bidens were "never under investigation." Why not then share the information about Hunter Biden and his cocaine addiction struggles (previously removed), his connection to convicted money launderer Patrick Ho (scrubbed), or simply the optically-compromised story of his powerful father removing a high-placed prosecutor in the foreign country where he landed a high-paying job in the corruption-challenged state petroleum business? I know why: You'll say none of it matters, and that certainly is the partisan viewpoint, but it is not a viewpoint reflecting objectivity. Ironically, it may enjoin the opposite effect (https://theintercept.com/2019/10/09/joe-hunter-biden-family-money/). -- Ingyhere (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Ingyhere, clearly, you are ingesting a diet of right wing media and not getting the complete and unbiased picture. Instead, you think we are the ones who are biased. You conveniently find a left wing source to attack the Bidens from the left. This isn't how this works. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

That’s an opinion piece. It would not fly. starship.paint (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The original premise of this section is based on an opinion piece. -- Ingyhere (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The view from the Star Chamber must be very dark. -- Ingyhere (talk) 05:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

HAHAHA! soibangla (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia should try to be consistent. The article on Viktor Shokin gives a reasonable account of this part, and the "bragging" in Council on Foreign Relations speech is a major reason why both articles exist.RonaldDuncan (talk) 10:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

While visiting Kiev in December 2015, Joe Biden threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko that if he did not fire Shokin, that the US would hold back its $1 billion in loan guarantees. In a later recollection, Biden said, "I looked at them and said, 'I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money.' [...] He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time." Shokin was dismissed by Parliament in late March 2016.

Extract endsRonaldDuncan (talk) 10:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

References

@RonaldDuncan: - none of your proposed extract mentions Hunter Biden, so how does it fit? It’s in Shokin’s bio because Shokin is in the extract. starship.paint (talk) 13:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

​Yes, going on at greater length about Shokin seems out of place in this article. By the time one writes about the full context that reliable sources have given to his various statements, it becomes this great big tumor of undue weight in an article about Hunter Biden. Elsewhere, perhaps, but not here. And again, making the CFR speech the focal point means giving a distorted picture of a series of events that involved more organizations and wider reforms. XOR'easter (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@RonaldDuncan: - It is relevant because Giuliani called the Council on Foreign Relations tape a "confession," and that goes straight to the heart of why Trump asked Zelensky to investigate.

Ukrainians came to me. I didn't go after Joe Biden. ... They said there's a lot of evidence of collusion in the Ukraine. And, by the way, one of the guys involved in getting that evidence cut off is Joe Biden. ... They showed me the tape of the 2018 confession he made in front of the Council on Foreign Relations.

This is the "bragging" they have been talking about. Maybe it shouldn't be mentioned in the opening graph, but it should be mentioned in a separate section regarding allegations. -- Ingyhere (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Ingyhere, but Joe's bragging in the speech has nothing to do with Hunter. You view the bragging as evidence of Joe's guilt, but it's not that at all. If anything, the firing of the corrupt prosecutor who wasn't investigating Burisma put Hunter in greater jeopardy, not less. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Ingyhere - Giuliani is the guy who said "truth isn’t truth". Giuliani is the guy who denied asking Ukraine to investigate Biden and then admitted it less than a minute later. Giuliani is the guy who said Lutsenko is “much more honest” than Shokin, then later he said Lutsenko is corrupt and people should speak to Shokin. Giuliani is the guy who called Michael Cohen “honest, honorable” and later called Cohen an “incredible liar”. Why do you trust this man? starship.paint (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu The bragging admitted the action he took to remove the Ukraine state prosecutor, and in December 2015 Hunter Biden was the legal representative on the Burisma Board during an investigation into its cofounder. See my comment above that reports on the WSJ reference, "Ukrainians See Conflict ..." As for the other out-of-context quotes and the ad hominem attacks/misattribution of my personal beliefs, I fear that kind of thinking when it bleeds into articles. -- Ingyhere (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ingyhere: - you already know that the investigation was into Burisma's cofounder and not Hunter Biden. That's all, folks. starship.paint (talk) 08:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint -- That's a Red Herring. The point is that the "bragging" happened, and it is now a major discussion point. It would be better to point out that it happened and why reports disconnect it directly from Hunter Biden than to simply sweep it under the carpet. There has also been some erroneous reporting on this current event. For instance, The Washington Post corrected its dates for Biden's self-described "showdown." The Daily Beast reported that Biden's appointment on the Burisma Board corresponded to timing when money was frozen in the UK. -- Ingyhere (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Ingyhere - added content on the January 2018 story by Joe Biden. starship.paint (talk) 02:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I removed it. I don't see any consensus for this and plenty of reasons to keep it out. Just because the Republicans have created a conspiracy theory about Joe Biden spinning a yarn at a conference is no reason for it to be in this article, the very placement of it thereby validating the conspiracy theory narrative. SPECIFICO talk 02:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: - you can't say it's SYNTH though. The sources I added clearly mentioned Hunter Biden. starship.paint (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Starship, the fact that a reference mentions Hunter does not preclude its being used, by inappropriate juxtaposition or context to create SYNTH meaning or conflation. SPECIFICO talk 18:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: -"Plenty of reasons to keep it out. ..." I counted about five reasons to keep it in. Those reasons are the users in this pages' archives who continue to bring it up. Some concluded it's not there due to institutional bias on Wikipedia's part. First of all, they wouldn't be asking about it in such frequency if it wasn't related to the subject. Second, the lack of any mention whatsoever allows them to walk away from the page assuming corrupt bias and -- more importantly -- leaving them with the story in their heads from other sources. It would be far more preferable if it were mentioned in the article with proper context provided, e.g. it relates to ongoing anti-corruption initiatives, and it is an unsubstantiated allegation that Joe Biden took the action to protect family. Then, editors will be able back the explanation without any perceived cloud of allegation repeatedly hanging over the talk page. -- Ingyhere (talk) 07:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Ingyhere, that's really not how we make article content decisions around here. SPECIFICO talk 18:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Ingyhere, that isn't evidence of wrongdoing. It's just an insinuation. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Ingyhere who has reported Hunter Biden was the legal representative on the Burisma Board? Maybe I missed that. Yes, he's a lawyer, and a consultant, but did he represent Burisma in legal matters? As reported, he was hired to consult on "corporate governance best practices." soibangla (talk) 02:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Soibangla Good point, I have read both. I ask the same regarding "corporate governance best practices." ... I wasn't able to find exactly where I originally read that but it was cited in a WaPo article that this was the original statement by Burisma when Hunter Biden joined: "When he joined, Burisma officials said Biden would oversee its legal affairs. But he did not end up in that role. He said in a statement to The Post that he joined the board 'to help reform Burisma’s practices of transparency, corporate governance and responsibility' but did not provide examples of his work." -- Ingyhere (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Muboshgu, that's relevant, sourced information. And, it's not a minor detail, either. WP:NPOV and other instruction as to "writing for the opponent" would indicate that the information should be included to allow the reader to decide its relevance. It has already been shown that the dates bandied about on this page for the sequence of events were incorrect. Starship.paint, let me rephrase this from an opposing point of view: "You already know that the investigation was into The Trump Organization and not Donald Trump." It is a fallacy of composition to assume this position. -- Ingyhere (talk) 02:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ingyhere: - where exactly on the Donald Trump article would investigations on the Trump Organization be mentioned? I see one mention under hush payments, but of course Trump would be be investigated on that matter - Cohen implicated him. I don't see any other mentions. starship.paint (talk) 02:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: - The section Donald_Trump#Lawsuits_and_bankruptcies literally has a paragraph that starts with "Trump has never filed for personal bankruptcy. ..." Another section Donald_Trump#Real_estate discusses racial discrimination suits that occurred against a company run by his father in 1969 and 1973. I only am pointing this out because guidance to exclude items that don't relate to direct personal actions in BPLs is erroneous. -- Ingyhere (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ingyhere: - I don't understand what you are saying about the bankruptcies. Trump's casinos and businesses obviously pertain to him as he is the owner. I removed the real estate part. starship.paint (talk) 02:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: -- Thank you for the deference and open mind. Just to clarify, Trump's casinos and businesses belonged to a separate business entity, not him personally. I was trying to bring up an example that would show that some non-personal information could be pertinent. There seemed to be contradictory policy at play which I could not understand. I very much appreciate your taking the effort to actively address my concerns. -- Ingyhere (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I've decided I cannot make a meaningful contribution here. Best to everyone trying to make the site better with non-loaded words and non-partisan opinions. My silly quest is over. Best Regards -- Ingyhere (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Biden's investment management career

I'm having trouble verifying that Rosemont Seneca Bohai or Rosemont Seneca Partners exist as going concerns at the moment. There was a foreign entity listing in Florida but it doesn't seem to be active. I found a Bloomberg listing of the company but the website is just a stock page and the phone number doesn't identify the company. Is this thing a going concern anymore? TMLutas (talk) 13:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure, and we don't necessarily need to address it in the article anyway. I have corrected the lead to reflect that he co-founded Rosemont, and to remove the claim that he is a partner.- MrX 🖋 13:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

NYT says Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC and quotes the Ukrainian Prosecutor General https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/us/politics/biden-son-ukraine.html . NYT also refers to Hill article https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/436816-joe-bidens-2020-ukrainian-nightmare-a-closed-probe-is-revived which talks about Rosemont Seneca Partners and includes a link to the Rosemont Seneca Partners bank account https://www.scribd.com/document/404001731/Rosemont-Seneca-Partners-Court-File. The NYT article uses the Hill article as a source and explains that the bank accounts came from a Devon Archer Court case. My edit with the Devon Archer Court case (Bond fraud) was reverted. I have no idea if they are going concerns now, and in any case the consensus on this article is not to verify if any thing is true but just to use sources. Personally, I believe in trust but verify for sources:) I looked through the bank account for Rosemont Seneca Partners so that I could check the Hill article was accurate. Rosemont Seneca Partners looks like an investment account No Employees, No Expenses, No Taxes, just some income mainly the monthly salary, and a few personal drawings and card expenses along with investment purchases and sales. Good luck with tracking down the company records.RonaldDuncan (talk) 02:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2019

change Trump falsely claimed to Trump claimed. There is no definite way to disprove Trumps claim. Therefore, you can't put falsely there. Even though it probably is a false claim. 192.124.236.2 (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: As Hunter Biden was never under investigation, it is demonstrably false. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2019

The second half of the third paragraph is obviously written with a biased political agenda. Change:

In 2019, President Donald Trump falsely claimed that Joe Biden had sought the dismissal of a Ukrainian prosecutor in order to protect Hunter Biden from investigation.[3][4][5] However, Hunter Biden was not under investigation,[6] and there is no evidence of wrongdoing done by him in Ukraine.[7] Trump's alleged attempt to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate the Bidens by withholding foreign aid[8][9][10] triggered an impeachment inquiry in September 2019.

Change to:

In 2019, President Donald Trump allegedly sought information whether Joe Biden had sought the dismissal of a Ukrainian prosecutor in order to protect Hunter Biden from investigation. Trump’s allegedly attempted to pressure the Ukrainian government although the President of the Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky denied feeling any pressure. This triggered an impeachment inquiry in September 2019. NoMatMocha (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Same as the section above. It's not bias to call a lie a lie. – Muboshgu (talk)

The existing language is factual. Your proposal introduces a biased political agenda. soibangla (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

MBNA?

This seems a little too insinuation-ish for a BLP, in phrasing if not in content. (Compare There’s no reason to think that Biden backed MBNA’s position because his son worked there — senators normally line up with their home state’s major employers’ policy priorities — it’s more like Hunter got the job due to his dad’s overall cozy relationship with the company. [22]) Thoughts? XOR'easter (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The Hunter Biden page is written with no attempt at even handedness. It is a political attack on President Donald Trump. The number of occurrences in the page are so numerous that the page should be deleted. Wikipedia should not be a forum for biased political slander.

NoMatMocha (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Trump and his co-conspirators are engaged in a transparent garden-variety political smear to eliminate Joe Biden from the nomination race because Trump figures Joe is the only one who can beat him. The allegations against the Bidens are without merit. They are lies. Happy to help, feel free to share with family and friends. soibangla (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Unvalidated facts or opinions do not belong in Wikipedia

Dead end signifying nothing SPECIFICO talk 20:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

First paragraph of Hunter Biden has “falsely claimed” in statement. The validity of this claim remains under investigation and opinions should not be portrayed as facts in Wikipedia. Dtkandt (talk) 12:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC) @Dtkandt: - Hunter Biden was never under investigation, so what was there for his father to interfere? The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) said an investigation was ongoing into permits granted by officials at the Ministry of Ecology for the use of natural resources to a string of companies managed by Burisma. But it said the period under investigation was 2010-2012, and noted that this was before the company hired Hunter Biden. [23] starship.paint (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC) @Starship.paint: - The owner of Burisma was involved in a money laundering and fraud investigation where $23 million was seized by British authorities from company accounts in December 2015 -- when Hunter Biden was on the Board and Joe Biden had his showdown in Kiev. (See cites below.) It's disingenuous to claim "Hunter Biden was never under investigation" while not mentioning the company where he was on the Board of Directors (leadership capacity) was embroiled in the investigation. By this logic, Donald Trump is absolved from The Trump Organization bankruptcy racket and his company's racial discrimination suits. I can see your next task will be going to Trump's personal page and scrubbing that information due to its nature as innuendo. Do you see the double standard now? WP:NPOVHOW Anyway, The New York Times reports that the case is currently under review again as the result of recent events. -- Ingyhere (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC) @Dtkandt: - The language is charged and redundant according to Wikipedia policy and should be removed. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch "Using this or other expressions of doubt may make an article appear to promote one position over another. Try to state the facts more simply without using such loaded words." -- Ingyhere (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC) Nope. If the sources say something is false, we can report it so. WP:NPOV requires that. We must not have a WP:FALSEBALANCE. starship.paint (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC) @Ingyhere: - the source I provided was a statement in September 2019. I'm not sure if you understand that A Ukrainian investigation of gas company Burisma is focused solely on activity that took place before Hunter Biden, son of former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, was hired to sit on its board, Ukraine’s anti-corruption investigation agency said. starship.paint (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC) Starship.paint -- I'll respond now. This is not a false balance issue because there is no effort to present fringe information on the same platform. It's merely a WP:NPOV issue. As to the reference, it is narrow in regards to permits for the "use of natural resources", and it was demonstrated below that the investigation was active. This is less relevant to the neutrality issue as dates/status were unclear earlier. -- Ingyhere (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC) The addition of "falsely" occurred on October 3 by SPECIFICO in this change when the page was protected and subject to consensus building. I don't see where there was consensus made to reinstate the first reversion in the initial reversion. Please show me where that consensus was obtained @NatGertler: or I respectfully demand it remain until this discussion is completed per policy WP:ARBAPDS whether my position wins or loses. -- Ingyhere (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC) Please note that Ingyhere (talk · contribs) has been WP:CANVASSing this discussion, as seen here and here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC) Yes, and it was only to concerned editors (per policy) who had their changes reverted. Before I could finish my post here this notification was already added. -- Ingyhere (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC) Yes, that's right, you picked people who you thought would agree with you rather than all concerned editors, and you asked them to be involved if they agreed with you. Inappropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC) It was poor wording on my part. I see your point. -- Ingyhere (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC) Yeah Ingyhere, that's called WP:VOTESTACKING. I suggest you don't do it again. - MrX 🖋 17:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC) It's "appropriate" according to the canvassing page to contact concerned editors to participate under certain circumstances. Of all the changes made on this page or regarding this particular subject area, the only editors not visible in this arena were the two I contacted. Don't make it out like I was contacting random people from a particular team (which I wasn't) who would jump into a discussion where they had no inherent interest. Admittedly, my wording was against policy, and I should have posted a message on this talk page here in advance, but that's not why I left. I note that I have seen others here contacting users to participate, too, albeit with better wording but also without requisite posting here. What should've happened if rules were evenly addressed here is the revert-back change on October 3 should have been reported for its WP:1RR violation. This discussion was closed early, and this page should not be averse or counter-productive to user participation with multiple viewpoints. This was added now to explain my actions, not as a participatory gesture in an ongoing adverserial environment. -- Ingyhere (talk) 04:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC) "Falsely claimed" is the neutral, non-loaded way of making the statement. We can't say whether Trump knowingly lied, or if he believes the words that come out of his mouth. XOR'easter (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC) I've decided I cannot make a meaningful contribution here. Best to everyone trying to make the site better with non-loaded words and non-partisan opinions. My silly quest is over. Best Regards -- Ingyhere (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2019

I wish to request that you stop expounding one side of the story..

Biden was is involved with graft...the whole planet knows this...except wiki.???? 199.167.117.1 (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done This is not a request for a specific edit accompanied by a complete and specific description. Nor is it a complaint founded in reliable sources. XOR'easter (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2019

Sparticus87 (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)2014 - Approximately RMB4 billion in the Chinese pilot State-Owned Enterprises reform deal "involving the segregation and capitalization of Sinopec Group’s non-oil business into Sinopec Marketing Corporation";

2015 - Henniges Automotive[6] with strategic partner, AVIC Auto;[7] total transaction valued at around US$600 million; Investments in China General Nuclear (CGN), 3Bio Inc., and Didi Taxi.[8] In 2016, the U.S. Justice Department charged CGN with stealing nuclear secrets from the United States.[9][10][11] In November, 2016, BHR agreed to purchase Lundin Mining Corp's minority stake in African copper mine Tenke Fungurume Mining S.A. for $1.14 billion in cash. Lundin held a 30% interest in TF Holdings, a holding company, and an effective 24% stake in the mining operation. Freeport-McMoRan Inc. currently owns the remaining 70% stake in TF Holdings (an effective 56% of the mine), but is in the process of selling its stake to China Molybdenum Co. for a reported $2.65 billion. The Democratic Republic of the Congo, where the Tenke mine is located, owns the remaining 20% of the mine.[12] According to Oxfam, "the Government of DRC knew nothing about [transaction] until after it happened."[13] In 2017, BHR invested in a Chinese technology company Megvii.[14][4

 Not done This is not a request for a specific edit accompanied by a complete and specific description. Nor is its relevance to this particular article established. XOR'easter (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Infobox wrong

I fixed this. The graphic by the rank was wrong, it was for a 4-star admiral, an O10, but he was really an Ensign, an O1. Seven Pandas (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Good catch! That looks like an easy filename typo to make; I wonder if similar glitches have affected other pages. XOR'easter (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks.Seven Pandas (talk) 23:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2019

All talk of Hunter Biden is subjective until an investigation of accusations has been investigated. 98.146.105.238 (talk) 12:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done This is not in the form of a specific suggestion for modifying a specific location in the article. XOR'easter (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Protected page with a lot of pending truth

A lot of "falsely" mentioned that is protected by wiki. If all this is false, than is all the money false also? It's not and this is yet another cover by an organization that has the ability to influence and subject with misleading info in Wiki. Its tailored facts of a multifaceted problem of US foreign policy and feels as why the US will never get out of their own way. CapabilityAndIntergrity (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@CapabilityAndIntergrity: If you have an edit to suggest, cited to reliable sources, you can propose it here. This is not the place to discuss perceived shortcoming of Wikipedia, nor to discuss the subject of the article itself. Please see WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:TPG.- MrX 🖋 14:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Hunter Biden never visited Ukraine

This information has been reverted, with the following edit summary: "SYNTH undue smear." I think it is relevant and should be included.

Hunter Biden never visited Ukraine.

References

-- Tobby72 (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

But the source - the Yahoo source is just re-reporting the Reuters source - does not state what you claim it does. Reuters does not put the statement into their own voice, but rather says that three people claim it... and the claim is not that he never visited the Ukraine, but that he did not do so for company purposes during a given time. Those are some major limitations on the statement that you had put in. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I think SPECIFICO was getting at the point that it doesn't matter whether or not he went to the Ukraine. So many people who sit on boards sit on many, and don't do much in the position. It's not specific to Hunter Biden, it's the way things go. It appears to have been added as a way of making Hunter look bad. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing noteworthy about this marginal tidbit of information. It should be left out.- MrX 🖋 19:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I can't quite make heads or tails of why we would care either. I think pretty much everyone, including Hunter Biden himself, knows that his position at Burisma was mostly symbolic, why do we need to insinuate that instead of just saying it? Nblund ^talk 19:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Paragraph on Hunter's work history needs correction

There's a sarcastic line about Hunter's reason for getting the executive spot at his first job. Sarcasm has no place on Wiki; it's bias. Katalley90 (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

The quote was not in the cited source, so I trimmed the latter half of that sentence. XOR'easter (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Full protection?

Its not warranted imo….not enough time to hash out on talk page, imo. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Nocturnalnow, edit warring on a highly sensitive BLP such as this one, despite 1RR restrictions. I think Ymblanter made a good call. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'd also say that Ymblanter made a good call. XOR'easter (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

No objectivity in introduction

The introductory section abandons all objectivity and sources from wikipedia instead of finding it's own source. This page is locked but if it's not going to get cleaned up it needs to be deleted, it's really making us look bad. 2600:6C42:7400:248:248E:6D40:4D3B:9440 (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Jogershok (talk) 20:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Jogershok, do you have any specific comments you want to make? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I is duplicitous to say there is no evidence that Joseph Biden, while Vice-president, did nothing to have the prosecutor removed. He admitted he pressured Ukraine officials to fire the prosecutor of lose funding. The page should not be locked and subject to revision. We do not know Biden's true reason for wanting the firing but the conclusion was that it has noting to do with his son. To say Trump questioned Biden's motives is true but to land on Falsely claimed" is not a fact in evidence at this point. BIAS IS ATTACHED to the wording.Jogershok (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Jogershok, nobody said Joe Biden had nothing to do with removing the prosecutor. We are trying to say that the removal of the prosecutor had nothing to do with Hunter Biden. In fact, we know "Biden's true reason for wanting the firing": the prosecutor was removed because he was corrupt. He wasn't investigating Burisma as he was supposed to be. So, Joe Biden having the prosecutor removed had nothing to do with Hunter and actually could have put Hunter at greater risk. Trump is following a conspiracy theory and we can and will call it out as false. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Why would you make any claim regarding the statement's veracity in this article, let alone link to another wikipedia article in lieu of an actual source? 2600:6C42:7400:248:F1BD:5F8E:FF9F:DF40 (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

There's a wikilink there because Donald Trump makes so many false statements that it has become an encyclopedic topic of its own. See Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. The actual sources for the "false" entry are at the end of the sentence. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

You don't see the problem with that?2600:6C42:7400:248:F1BD:5F8E:FF9F:DF40 (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I see a problem with Trump's lack of truthfulness. Refs 1-3 cover the subject. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

We do not know Biden's true reason for wanting the firing — In fact, we do. It has been extensively reported by multiple reliable sources and discussed on this Talk page ad nauseam, which is why the article has consistently reflected the overwhelming consensus of reality. At this point there is simply no excuse for not knowing this, and anyone who continues to insist it is debatable should be considered to exist in a conservative media bubble. This whole thing is a concocted nontroversy. It is a political smear job. soibangla (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

No evidence of wrongdoing?

The lead states there is no evidence of wrongdoing done by Biden in Ukraine (it's also mentioned two times lower in the article). The page is currently locked so I can't edit but another user needs to change text to "there is no evidence of illegality done by him in Ukraine". According to the NYT and WaPo (and other reliable sources) Biden had no experience in Ukraine or natural gas. So to say there is no "wrongdoing" is false, when there is prima facie evidence of corruption and nepotism (i.e. wrongdoing). Circulair (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you, but even a lack of experience doesn't mean "wrongdoing", let alone provide evidence of corruption. I alert you to WP:BLP, and advise you to take that seriously. Drmies (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Circulair, you really need to be careful in the American politics subject area. You have already received two Discretionary sanctions alerts and been blocked once, so you're skating on thin ice. Lack of experience is not a crime, and there could not have been any nepotism.

If you want to talk about a serious lack of experience and nepotism, look at Trump's own children in WH positions without any experience or qualifications. Their actions cause other nations to laugh at us because these are the actions one expects from a banana republic where corruption and nepotism are normal in government. They couldn't even get a security clearance in the proper way. Now that is nepotism. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer, you don't think Ivanka's experience running a clothing line prepared her for serving in the White House? What about Jared's experience with the boondoggle of 666 Fifth Avenue preparing him to end the opioid epidemic and the Israeli-Palestinian crisis? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

LMAO! I think that means I'm qualified to run the EPA and/or CIA. BTW, aren't there plans to change that address to 666 Obama Avenue? -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Hunter Biden Fees at Burisma

beaten to death, not a forum soibangla (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think the article should include the fees earned by Hunter Biden's companies rather than an amount that he drew from one of the companies. The current figure of $ 50k is not his salary but occasional drawings from a partnership bank account. The fees are well referenced and there are fees for both his legal practice and his investment partnership. RonaldDuncan (talk) 12:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC) Even if the reporting on the various fees he's earned is reliable, I'd say that the details of his compensation are probably below the threshold of significance for a general biography. "Lawyer charges billable hours, film at 11." XOR'easter (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC) Why do you think this is noteworthy for his biography? The coverage it's received is mostly relates to insinuations relating to various debunked conspiracy theories about him and his father. SPECIFICO talk 16:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC) Has anyone else noticed how the Straw man use of the term "conspiracy theory" has been muscled up to include the word "debunked"? We're too smart and well educated here to be falling into that type of labeling which immediately blocks critical thinking...the label "communism" was used in such a widespread way back in the 50s and its really sad if we are still as intellectually malleable and mislead into dead ends now as we were then. Besides all that, most of the time the expression does not even apply grammatically; e.g. "A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors". Who are the participants of the alleged "conspiracy" and what is the alleged "conspiracy"? All I've heard alleged is a simple old-fashioned profiteering. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC) A conspiracy theory generally is an improbable explanation based on omitted evidence and/or baseless speculation and is often promoted by parties with an interest in denying the mainstream statements of fact. These may circulate widely without being disproved by evidence or exposure of their illogic. The various Ukraine conspiracy theories implicating the Democrats, Crowdstrike, the Bidens, et al proliferated rapidly over the initial weeks of public attention to the scandal. Then the mainstream media caught up with them and began reporting and explaining why they were either nonsense or false. So that's why "debunked conspiracy theory" has entered our discourse. Other conspiracy theories have yet to be debunked, e.g. Jeffrey Epstein is alive and living in a tunnel at Disney World. SPECIFICO talk 15:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC) ok, thanks for the detailed explanation. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Why is there no mention of Hunter Biden's lack of qualifications for the job at Burisma, other than being the son of the US Vice President? Hunter Biden admitted as much. Hunter Biden was asked about his selection for the board of Burisma by a reporter from ABC News who asked, "If your last name wasn't Biden, do you think you would've been asked to be on the board of Burisma?" Hunter replied "I don't know. I don't know. Probably not, in retrospect, But that's -- you know -- I don't think that there's a lot of things that would have happened in my life if my last name wasn't Biden." This statement is definitely relevant and should be included in the article. GlassBones (talk) 04:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Hunter Biden is a Yale Law attorney and consultant. Many/most people who go to top law schools do so to make top dollar by billing clients at top hourly rates, which explains why America has lots of wealthy attorneys and consultants. Some people have focused on the fact that Hunter was not an energy expert and thus was "unqualified" for the job, while ignoring that he was hired to conduct corporate governance best practices, not to search for oil deposits as a petroleum engineer or geologist. Every company in every industry hires people who are not experts in that company's industry, but they perform other roles to support the company, and many are well-paid for it. Anyone who has ever worked in any significant management role in the corporate world understands this. Corporate governance best practices means creating rules and policies and procedures to run a company properly, and in the case of Burisma, to get rid of corrupt practices so the company could operate by Western standards, as the company sought to do business with Western business partners that would require corporate governance best practices. Maybe try pursuing the line that he couldn't have gotten into Yale Law if not for his father's name. soibangla (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Of course it is OK for large, (maybe corrupt?) foreign natural gas companies to pay the relatives of US politicians 50k or even 80k a month. After all they are really the best and brightest compared to the all the other average students. These smart kids are entitled to take in millions. We also want to encourage foreign companies to have solid relationships and easy contacts with high level important people in the US government (maybe play a little golf to break the tensions, get some deals done). Now that we all agree..lets improve the Hunter Biden page and take out any references to these types of large payments, some uneducated people may get the wrong idea. They think that this might be pay to play because they are very naive about politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.156.149 (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC) I just checked the article and saw that the sentence explaining that Hunter was hired to conduct corporate governance best practices was removed at some point, so I will restore it tomorrow. soibangla (talk) 05:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Soibangla has summarized everthing that needs to be said in response to the initial concern in this thread. Let's move on. SPECIFICO talk 14:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

1 RR on this Blp?

I was just advised that is the case. Should there not be a notice on the BLP? Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Nocturnalnow, it says so on one of the top banners on this talk page, just beneath WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok, Thank you. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Nocturnalnow is correct. There is supposed to be an edit notice, not just a talk page banner which is easily overlooked. Assuming that this page has been placed under discretionary sanctions by an admin, could an admin please take care of this?- MrX 🖋 00:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: You placed this article under discretionary sanctions. Would you please add an edit notice also? (You might also want to make sure you're not WP:INVOLVED)- MrX 🖋 00:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

MrX, I think I've walked that line a little too finely, which is why when things stirred up this morning, I went to RFPP rather than do it myself. I feel it is appropriate for me to protect pages in post-1932 U.S. politics in cases of clear vandalism, but this dispute is beyond that. Ymblanter protected the page this morning, would you be willing to add whatever edit notice MrX is referring to? I'm not sure which one you mean.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Muboshgu (talk • contribs)

@Muboshgu: Placing an article under discretionary sanction restrictions is a very specific process, regulated by Arbcom. A talk page notice like this has to be created so that it appears when an editor tries to edit the article. The restriction also has to be logged here. (See WP:ACDS#Logging). - MrX 🖋 00:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

MrX, and.... I didn't know that, so I didn't do it. Thanks for pointing it out. I'll log it now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Muboshgu (talk • contribs)

It's obscure and confusing. You're not the first admin who didn't know all the steps. - MrX 🖋 17:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 November 2019

This entire page is a lot of personal opinion and jumping to conclusions. Constantly says President Trump “falsely” stated. The editor has no way to determine that is a fact or not and could simply say “President Trump stated”. 104.194.220.130 (talk) 00:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

To the extent that this is a request for a specific edit, it is a request that we abandon our reliable sources. No changes made. XOR'easter (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

"The editor has no way to determine that is a fact or not" is indeed completely bypassing the idea what we source our information. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

FAQ?

I can't count how many times we've had to try to explain how Joe Biden didn't fire Shokin to protect Hunter Biden. #No objectivity in introduction is the most recent example. Should we try to draft up an FAQ so that we at least have some standard responses we can point to? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Based on my experience, I think you would find it to be a waste of time. Ideally, users would read such a FAQ, but they frequently don't even read any previous discussions before commenting. How about a sticky that instructs users to read previous discussion before commenting. Then, if the the same comments are brought up again, we can just ignore them?- MrX 🖋 00:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Imo, msm has become obsessed with publishing their opinions about what's going on in people's heads..in their thoughts..what their motivations or thought processes are. Fact is, we don't know and will likely never know what any of these players were thinking about when they made the decisions they did unless they actually write or say "I did this because of this ". Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Nocturnalnow, histories are still written in spite of the actors not always being forthright about their intentions. I don't believe Nixon ever spoke about his Watergate intentions, but he didn't have to. We have a situation where the son of a former vice president is being accused of wrongdoing even though nobody has accused him of wrongdoing. Meanwhile, a presidential administration went to great lengths to put pressure on a foreign government to produce dirt. That's all we really need to know. What comes out of those depositions is gravy. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu, to use the wording from an editor above, the wrongdoing is demonstrable . Ironcially, the $50,000. per month he took/was paid/was given was way above what is normal, its obvious he only got that much because of nepotism, and a case could even be made that since so much money was/is pouring into the economy of the country from USA taxpayers, that some of that $50,000. was coming indirectly from USA taxpayers; which in my mind, is the worse type of corruption. And even if not "corruption", is certainly wrongdoing. Even MSM is saying it was "wrong", though not illegal. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

"Rich man's sons earns money from his position of privilege and influence" is not some sweeping indication of criminality or wrongness, nor is it nepotism. Trump giving Ivanka, Jared and numerous other sponsors, donators and supporters senior positions is nepotism. Hunter Biden getting a well paid job independently of his father because the company thinks it will help them look more legitimate for business purposes is not however.

Don Jr writing a book, which is then advertised via his father... Questionable. Handing over his business empire, then suggesting hosting international conferences at his properties. Questionable. Securing access for his daughter in China, who gains unique patents. Questionable.

In contrast Obama doing a Netflix show two years after he left office, not an issue.

There are lots of false equivalences being made, and if you swallow the idea that somehow they are the same you are selling yourself. Koncorde (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Nocturnalnow, if there was demonstrable wrongdoing, demonstrate it. Nepotism isn't a crime. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Correct; there is no sweeping or extreme wrongdoing, and compared to what others do, Hunter may be on the mild side, but that is not the same as saying there is zero wrongdoing. This is just semantics I guess. For me things in general have entered the realm of selective application of language depending upon one's or a collective point of view. That makes it extra tough for an encyclopedia to maintain NPOV, imo.

Just 2 quick examples that may apply to this discussion tangentially, Sen. Orrin Hatch before he left office told CNN that "The way our laws are these days anything can be a crime". That's something pretty profound, I'd say, then the Russian woman convicted for "trying to influence" somebody seems to back the Senator up and she went on recently on her way out of the country to say that there is currently "racism" in the USA government towards Russians, which is something to think about, as well as saying her "trying to influence" would just be "networking" if she was not Russian. Also thought provoking. My problem, and yours, is that bias and prejudice are usually sinister, not overt, and can be as simple as the application of words like falsely or wrongdoing depending upon whom the term is referencing. I think Wikipedia needs to be uniform in its application of terms, but I'm not even sure about that if the reliable sources are not applying terms uniformly. Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here has selectively applied language anywhere, I hardly think we are in Halliburton territory, but the way you'd read the attempt to spin Hunter having a job the Republicans appears to be trying to construct some epic narrative that does not stand up to evidence, timelines or the stated facts as freely available.

Earning money is, usually, considered a good thing in the US (criticising the earning of money is tantamount to socialism regardless of the exploitative way it may be achieved). In fact, most discussions of the emolument clause from the Repub side seems to have been to rubbish any attempt to criticise the earning of money by Trump or any of his extended family (in trust or not). But earning money when you are the son of a Democrat? Or a President who left power two years earlier and did a special with Netflix, and of course is a Democrat? Sinful! Strange eh, almost as if people making the charges perhaps are doing so from a political position irrelevant of the facts.

As for Orrin Hatch, the man walked back his comments when caught on the spot effectively supporting the idea that criminality was irrelevant in the face of a booming economy. His own words on the subject of intent make for interesting reading, even if they are also like an infant level argument that presents the false equivalence of Smokey Bear being misused with opposition from the left to weakening prosecution of white collar crimes. Koncorde (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)