Talk:United States House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family

I reverted your edit

Magnolia677 please follow BRD rather than edit war. Thank you. soibangla (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Magnolia677, Soibangla is right. Per BRD, your BOLD edit was REVERTED, so you should stick to DISCUSSION here until a consensus is reached about what to do with that content. It's a BLP violation right now. See my comment below. It's possibly libelous political posturing by Comer. Don't edit war, especially about a BLP matter. Please self-revert. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Valjean: You said my edit was "a BLP violation". This article isn't a WP:BLP. Could you please explain? Magnolia677 (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why, but your ping did not work. BLP applies to people anywhere they are mentioned, not just to articles. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Valjean Are you suggesting that Comer saying, "Joe Biden knew of and participated in his family's business dealings"--a statement widely reported in reliable sources, made by the Chair of this committee, and already included in various ways at multiple places in the article--is a BLP violation? Magnolia677 (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

When connected with the part you're leaving out, it's a libelous statement, and we should be careful. If Comer actually had that evidence, he would have produced it. I refer you to what Zaathras wrote below: "a large record of evidence, including bank records and witness testimony, nothing of which has actually been put forth, despite 13 months of investigations." Comer, as is his habit, is posturing in the absence of such evidence.

I am not saying that we can't or don't include libelous statements here. We often do, but they are always backed, per BLP, with multiple high-quality sources that give context and label it as BS, false, or other appropriate descriptions. You made the mistake of using only one source, and a poor one at that. Instead, use multiple high-quality sources, and include their evaluations of what he says, as they will likely criticize it. That he says it is not in doubt, but the BS needs to be called out. Context is important. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I see it has been removed. In the future, don't restore a bold edit that has been reverted. Follow BRD. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Valjean and Soibangla: Reverting this edit removed relevant content.

The following was added on February 15: "The FBI informant, Alexander Smirnov, was indicted by the US Justice Department in February 2024 on allegations he had fabricated his account of a Burisma executive telling him that Hunter Biden had been hired as a means of protecting the company through Joe Biden, and that both Bidens had been bribed to accomplish that."

While that content was certainly relevant, this article is literally about the Oversight Committee, so the response from the Oversight Committee regarding this new information would be expected, per WP:DUE.

Unfortunately, the response from James Comer, Chair of the committee, was removed, and should be restored, per WP:DUE: "The impeachment inquiry is not reliant on [Mr. Smirnov]. It is based on a large record of evidence, including bank records and witness testimony, revealing that Joe Biden knew of and participated in his family's business dealings." --Magnolia677 (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

a large record of evidence, including bank records and witness testimony, nothing of which has actually been put forth, despite 13 months of investigations. This is a press release, covered by an unreliable source. Zaathras (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Zaathras: Comer's response was widely reported, including here where WP:THEHILL published Commer's comment in greater detail. Please revert your edit, or provide a policy-based reason for reverting other that it sounding like a "press release". Magnolia677 (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

1. Pings are disabled, you're wasting time typing extra characters. 2. The Hill doesn't change a thing. 3. I'm not the only one who opposes your addition, so don't personalize your dispute. Zaathras (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Zaathras--again--could you provide a policy-based reason for reverting other that it sounding like a "press release". Magnolia677 (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I have already stated why, as have several others editors. Your fixation on me is weird. Zaathras (talk) 03:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I have started a discussion regarding this at WP:BLPN. --Magnolia677 (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that we can include something of Comer's response, but we shouldn't simply repost his direct quote. Maybe just say that Comer said that he has more to his investigation than the one informant. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Although Comer Jim Jordan did say the agent was at the "heart" of the investigation. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

And we should include that too. And Zaathras's point is backed up in RS: To date, House Republicans have also yet to produce evidence directly tying Joe Biden to any of his son’s foreign business ventures.[1] – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Fixed the name in my previous edit above. But hey, they did produce a check to Joe Biden from Hunter for $1,300 marked car loan repayment. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging that Comer's response merits inclusion. Within this discussion (and at WP:BLPN), Comer's comments have been described as "political posturing", "posturing", "BS", and a response to "an embarassing developement" (sic). MOS:QUOTEPOV advises that this is the very type of "emotive opinion" that should be expressed as a quotation. Moreover, reliable sources have all included Comer's opinion as a direct quotation. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

QUOTEPOV talks about "emotive opinions". Comer's quote presents his having evidence as fact, which is why I hesitate to include the quote directly and verbatim. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, it may be an issue in terms of WP:CLAIM. DN (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Removal of source (Washington Times)

Moved from my talk page: (Valjean)

With this edit you removed this source with the edit summary "I'm sure you can find a RS for that. Don't use dubious sources". Please see WP:RSP, where there was no consensus about this source. Please do not remove this source again. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Magnolia677, it isn't deprecated, but it's still a good idea to use a better source, per the recommendations at WP:RSP, especially for political and controversial topics.

It's questionable whether that edit should be made at all as its political posturing by Comer. This is a BLP matter involving marginally libelous claims against Joe Biden. It's akin to, and related to, the false claims made against Joe Biden, the very ones that have now resulted in the charges against an FBI informant who lied about Joe Biden. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

It adds nothing to the article other than a big "LOL, NOPE" from the committee. Removed. Zaathras (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. It's more of Comer's posturing. So many times when he opens his mouth with clearly libelous statements, I wonder about how much is allowed in Congress. We certainly don't allow that here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I would keep in mind that Biden is a public figure, and as long as it is attributed to Comer, it is possibly less a concern in regard to BLP as it is for DUE. I personally don't see an issue with a brief mention of Comer's opinion. DN (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, it may be an issue in terms of WP:CLAIM. DN (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Too much NOTNEWS

So far, the feedback from BLPN seems insightful. While the current lead is fairly brief, the body is extensive by comparison. I realize a lot of editors, especially Soibangla, put their time into this, and their efforts are not taken lightly or for granted. By this point I'm sure they are all exhausted and need a break, as well as a better way to help filter out the UNDUE from the constant flow of NEWS.

With that in consideration, here are some suggested areas that may stand out in terms of over-emphasis in the body or under-emphasis in the lead, depending on how DUE it is.

Background

1. "As vice president, Joe Biden pressured the Ukrainian government to fire prosecutor general Viktor Shokin..." This is also mentioned under the "First hearing" section (See also: Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory...), but strangely, not the Conspiracy theory section. Is there a way we can agree to just mention it once and move on?

First hearing

2. The back and forth about who Tweeted what seems exorbitant, and it is already mentioned under the Proceedings section.

Joe Biden bribery allegation

3. The committee dropped its plan to pursue a contempt charge against Wray, and the informant ends up getting indicted for lying to the FBI. The pattern of threats/allegations/conjecture/testimony with no substantial "evidence" that is then eventually abandoned/challenged/rejected is very apparent.

Allegation of Justice Department cover-up

4. "The IRS investigator asserted other irregularities persisted into the Biden administration. On the day the depositions were released, Comer released a statement asserting "Now we know that Biden's Justice Department has been actively engaged in a cover-up to protect the Bidens from facing justice". Attorney general Merrick Garland the next day forcefully rejected allegations of political considerations in the Biden case" - Case in point.

Fox News interviews with Shokin and Poroshenko

5. This again seems to pertain to the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, which is already mentioned in other sections. We could also exclude any FOX host commentary per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS.

Impeachment inquiry developments

6. This seems like just a laundry list of daily/weekly/monthly allegations the committee keeps adding to the news cycle. Perhaps we should consider a metric that allegations must meet in order to be considered DUE, before they are added.

Cheers. DN (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• I found this article while lurking on BLPN. I have attempted some cuts to improve the lede, increase NPOV, address UNDUE sections and just reduce overall article length. So far I've done the top few sections, many more cuts are needed. Soni (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Soni, I think trimming the lead, then merging background into it, is ill-advised. soibangla (talk) 06:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  You are probably right, that was a couple edits too early. I'll see if I can re-summarise and clean that up further. I just did not think that background section was doing what it needed, it was just filled with references to all the other section so felt like a lede instead. Soni (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I am the 85% author of the article, though I certainly do not claim any sort of ownership, and I've long hoped there would be more editors participating in the article, and I welcome proposals to make cuts. I've been planning to make cuts myself but haven't gotten around to it.

But, I need to wonder if other editors have been following this story, and related stories, closely enough such that they feel sufficiently informed of what is notable and what is not to make rapid, significant cuts. Please consider the possibility that cuts in one place might remove important context that may not be immediately apparent but is important elsewhere in the article, or in other related articles. The topic is quite complicated and I hope major cuts do not inadvertently create discontinuities in the article. But again, I don't own it and I am certainly amenable to cuts. That said, reducing article size for the sake of reducing article size is rarely a priority for me. I recall students asking the teacher how long an assigned essay needed to be, and she said "as long as it needs to be." soibangla (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

That said, reducing article size for the sake of reducing article size is rarely a priority for me. I recall students asking the teacher how long an assigned essay needed to be, and she said "as long as it needs to be." I think what you're missing is that there are very good reasons to cut this article down, readability and "losing the forest for the trees".

Other editors have brought up concerns because the article, in the current state, is filled with too many details that are unnecessary, is fairly disconnected to all the other event articles about Biden/Trump/Ukraine etc' and just generally is hard to understand in terms of "What is the timeline of how things happened". I'd rather cut a lot then fix discontinuities with your help, than skip using WP:ARTICLESIZE as a yardstick. Soni (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I think both the forest and the trees are visible, and the timeline is clear. I certainly do not object to trims for redundancies, inconsistencies and clarity in sentences/phrases. I disagree that article size should be a primary consideration. The article documents an elaborate narrative used to pursue impeachment of a POTUS, as long as it needs to be. soibangla (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Three editors on BLPN and two more here have told you that the article is too long and not easy to comprehend. If you still do not see it, a recalibration of expectations from articles may be required. Either way, I'll continue making cuts when I can, so the article can come back to a reasonable size as well as become way more readable. Soni (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Soni, what does a recalibration of expectations from articles may be required mean? sounds kinda ominous and menacing. please tell me what it means. soibangla (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Soibangla It means that maybe you should try and rethink what you think articles really need. You keep stating that the article size should not be a primary consideration for cuts, but that often has been the case throughout Wikipedia (and should be, per WP:ARTICLESIZE but also other common-sense-readability reasons). Ergo, you might benefit from a change of your expectations and re-calibrate it to what the actual guidelines and policies of Wikipedia are.

That's not even an insult (apologies for tone), it's just how editors grow. Sometimes you have your expectations completely disproven by consensus and policy, and need to relearn parts of how "Wikipedia chooses to do Xyz". Happens to me every month or three nowadays. Soni (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

"that often has been the case," but then again WP:5P5. because of the article length, and that it is dry and tedious content, some might give it a cursory scan and conclude that it's just a boring collection of news clippings, like a scrapbook, but it's not. I endeavored to include stuff for reasons, which may not be readily apparent to a casual, new reader who has not closely followed this topic. just because it's long doesn't make it unreadable. it's a very serious matter that has developed over years, culminating in an impeachment of a president, and it also serves as a research source. but you go ahead and I'll be back with the mop later. in the meantime, I suggest refraining from suggesting I may need remedial training or discipline soibangla (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

5P5 is not an way to ignore the policies we do have. 5P is not even a "policy" by itself, just a crystallisation of the policies we've already got. But understood, happy to refocus on content and discuss policy instead of where our respective takes on said policies might be coming from Soni (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

5P5 is a pillar that essentially means "exceptions can be made," and WP:AS is not a policy, it is a guideline. And lemme tell you, kicking back and scrolling through a single page and hovering on links to see the whole story unfold in chronological order is just killin' me. soibangla (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I ask other editors to examine the large removals of content during the past day to consider whether they do more to introduce POV by omission rather than to improve NPOV. soibangla (talk) 08:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

If you see anything that is essential to NPOV and has been removed, by all means, please copy/paste it here on the talk page so we can keep track.

Is this the portion you wanted to discuss?

• Days after the Comer and Grassley allegation, Comer said the purported informant had gone missing, adding, "nine of the ten people that we've identified that have very good knowledge with respect to the Bidens, they're one of three things. They're either currently in court, they're currently in jail, or they're currently missing",

Cheers. DN (talk) 09:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I am unimpressed with the major cuts thus far, and I do not have much confidence they will improve. So tell you what: I'll step away and let this process unfold and settle down, then return with a mop. soibangla (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

May need to re-add some of it back based on importance[2] hehe ... yeah soibangla (talk) 09:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• I feel like the Joe Biden bribery allegation section probably needs a major trim; we could wait a bit until the dust from recent revelations has settled, but it seems clear-cut already. Right now the section is very much a blow-by-blow timeline of who said what or made what accusation when... but in retrospect it seems very likely that most of this isn't going to matter, with no WP:SUSTAINED coverage and no long-term significance. The broad summary that seems to be taking shape is that Republicans aggressively pursued Smirnov's account and attached great weight to it, only for it to turn out to have been fabricated; that can be summarized in a paragraph or two at most - the individual blow-by-blow of the various ways they tried to focus on it clearly no longer matter. I would basically condense everything but the final paragraph into a single paragraph or two of roughly the same length, describing in very broad terms the importance Republicans placed on the document despite the indications that it lacked significance, rather than the current blow-by-blow. --Aquillion (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Aquillion I have attempted to trim a chunk of it but I suspect I'm a bit too close to the article now to make the more sizable reductions necessary in a single sweep. Would you like to take a pass at the section/overall article, maybe help decide which of these sections would meet WP:SUSTAINED and which needs purging?

  I find the article having better shape than it did a couple months ago, but it still feels extremely convoluted and could use reductions; I just don't offhand can tell which bits get not-reduced Soni (talk) 06:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I have decided against fixing the mess that has been created with these draconian edits. Maybe someone else would like to deal with it. It is not often I see such reckless edits. All of it should be rolled back imo. soibangla (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Soibangla Five to six editors have pointed out problems with your preferred version of the article. You have not addressed them or stated why you believe that version follows WP:SUSTAINED or WP:NOTNEWS. Do you have a policy backed argument for why the current version is worse? Soni (talk) 04:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)