Talk:United States House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family/Archive 1

Archive 1

Partial in Places Omissions in Places

The article needs much updating to include the whatsapp in which Hunter mentions his father 5 times regarding the money from CEFC. There is also an email that explains the "ultimate purpose" explaining more in detail the Burisma Biden link. Hence, when referring to the firing of the Ukrainian prosecutor it goes along with him not being hard enough on Burisma, when it was in their interest to have him fired.Saxophonemn (talk) 11:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

You may well be right, but we need more info. Please suggest wordings to add or alter and reliable sources (provide URLs) that back them up. Then we can maybe use that to improve the article.-- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Saxophonemn, please edit the article. soibangla (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Well it's been less than a day since the 2 IRS whistleblowers have testified before congress, and there is now an FBI whistleblower. Will give it a shot when I have timeSaxophonemn (talk) 09:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Devon Archer testimony

• WaPo
• CNN
• NBC

I’m too busy to add these myself, if anyone wants to add them. starship.paint (exalt) 00:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Original research in Background section

The Background section mostly consists of old sources that obviously don't mention the 2023 House investigation. If the sources cannot be directly connected to the 2023 investigation, this is original research. All material related to living persons must strictly adhere to NOR policy. The section can improved by finding better sources and editing the content accordingly, but all content that doesn't pass NOR policy should be removed. Politrukki (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

It contains old sources because it's an historical background section. It tells readers how we got to this investigation. How does that constitute OR? Please cite specific instances. soibangla (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Let's pick a random source from the first paragraph. This source is from 2014. Please explain – without conducting original research – how that source is directly relevant to the 2023 investigation. Should the background section be based on sources that actually cover the article topic or should we let Wikipedia editors arbitrarily decide what kind of issues are relevant background, i.e. conduct original research? Politrukki (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Remove content you deem is problematic. soibangla (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Soibangla I second this. Loltardo (talk) 22:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Loltardo second what? soibangla (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Soibangla, I was seconding you saying @Politrukki should be able to remove problematic content. I especially agree given his very valid points. Loltardo (talk) 08:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Not a big deal, but please don't gender me.

I will re-add the original research template with a link to this discussion. It's really sad that Soibangla, who has better grasp of the sources than most of us here, has had many weeks to fix the section, and keeps adding new material, but apparently has done nothing to fix the original research problem. Politrukki (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

It seems to serve its purpose well, and it is necessary to provide this context so readers can understand what's happening. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

RfC: is the Background section original research?

Is the Comer investigation of Biden family#Background section WP:OR?

a previous discussion is here soibangla (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment The argument "If the sources cannot be directly connected to the 2023 investigation, this is original research" may not consider the actual scope of the investigation and subject matter. The lead sentence states "The United States House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family is an ongoing investigation by the United States House of Representatives into whether US President Joe Biden is improperly involved in his family's foreign business practices, with allegations of "international influence peddling schemes", bribery, and a Justice Department cover-up." The background section appears to cover the topics that are discussed in the investigation, in other sections of the rest of the article, and provides a reliably sourced lead up to what the investigation covers and gives a context for the investigation itself. Looking at the quality of the citations, NOR violations seems to be a very dubious claim. DN (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. This RFC is premature per WP:RFCBEFORE. Please withdraw this and try to answer basic questions like how can you claim that a 2014 New Yorker article is directly relevant to an investigation that was formally initiated in 2023. Did it predict that Republicans would launch an investigation almost a decade later? You also have an option to discuss this at WP:NORN. Besides, I don't believe the RFC question is fair, because nobody has said the whole section is original research. Politrukki (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Are there reasons you were unable to remove the citations you deemed to be OR since you first added the general section banner two weeks ago in July, as Soibangla suggested in the original discussion? Another option would be for you to tag the individual citations so editors will know which ones you are referring to. Simply re-adding the banner does not give editors any insight into which citations you see as problematic. It is not my intention to speak for Soibangla, so I implore them to correct me if I am wrong here, but WP:TC might explain the rationale as to why this may not seem helpful, or why an RfC could more effectively help resolve the content dispute. DN (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - This RfC needs to be withdrawn as failing to present a valid question in a way that can be answered. If the assertion is that anything before the investigation started is WP:OR, then it fails out of the gate. The literally definition of background is "the conditions that existed before a particular event happened, and that help to explain why it happened." If the assertion is that the section misuses the sources or draws conclusions not directly found in those sources (better cited as WP:SYNTH, not OR), you will need to be far more specific. The section is well-sourced and you'll need to give specific examples. Right now, I find zero evidence of either problem in the section as it exists at (see timestamp). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

"No smoking gun" on Joe Biden

I'm not sure which article is most appropriate, so just placing this here. Maybe someone can suggest a better place to discuss it. It is about this Committee investigation.

Steve Doocy said: "With all due respect, the Republicans need better investors (sic) [investigators] because they have a lot of circumstantial evidence, but they have not shown that Joe Biden profited personally, or he had broken any rules."[1] (Mediaite can be used for this type of attributed opinion reporting per WP:RSP.)

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

We'll add this too then:

https://reason.com/2023/09/18/theres-plenty-of-evidence-of-corruption-around-biden/

It's good to have multiple views of point on the subject matter. 69.113.233.201 (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence of the Reason article is hilariously ridiculous. The rest of the article does not contradict Steve Doocy's statement. In any case, you are responding to a two month old edit. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

"There's Plenty of Evidence of Corruption Around Biden" and cites a WSJ editorial as evidence, then refers at length to polls of what Americans believe. soibangla (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not that there's "no smoking gun". It's that there isn't any evidence at all, and the committee itself found that there was no evidence of wrongdoing. We should strongly avoid the use of mindless journalistic cliches like this that simply obfuscate. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 05:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Veteran FBI agent told Congress that investigations into Giuliani and other Trump allies were suppressed

Note that this concerns the New York FBI field office, which has always had too cozy a relationship with Giuliani, including leaking info to him to help Trump's election, delaying the dossier, etc.

"Months before the agent was told to stop looking at Giuliani and the rest of Trump's circle, he met with the same high-ranking supervisor to pass on information he had received from his confidential sources about Hunter Biden and his ties to Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company that had paid Hunter Biden $83,333 a month to sit on its board. "My supervisors were delighted that I had collected this information about Burisma," the agent wrote in his statement.

"But when the agent tried to talk about what their sources had to say about Giuliani, his boss's reaction was very different. The supervisor "forcefully interrupted me and ended my presentation," he wrote."[2]

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Whoa, I thought you were a troll for a sec then I read it a bit more closely. That is gnarly news. Thanks for the link. Andre🚐 19:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

This seems like a potential smear/deflection from the article's primary topic, which is Joe Biden.Loltardo (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The article's primary topic is the House oversight committee's investigation into Joe and Hunter, which so far has turned up, not a ton. Andre🚐 23:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The context seems to be clear. "Insider has independently obtained a copy of the complaint and verified its authenticity but has not corroborated all of its claims", it will be interesting to see if it is corroborated. DN (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Former top prosecutor says Giuliani innocent

Rudy Giuliani today told NEWSMAX he is innocent of all charges. SPECIFICO talk 02:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I laughed out loud Andre🚐 02:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm still laughing at this one. Giuliani pays $150m in defamation. Andre🚐 06:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

He should sue Trump. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Page move

Who in the mainstream RS refers to the "Biden family" except to describe the conspiracy theories, discredited allegations, and political narratives of Donald Trump and his cohort? "Biden family" should not be in the title of this page. SPECIFICO talk 21:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose the opening of an RM for this page & would support a changing of the page title. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Any ideas or suggestions as to a new title? SPECIFICO talk 23:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd recommend United States House Oversight Committee investigation of Joe Biden, fwiw. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

that's what they call it[3] soibangla (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Do we need to use its Christian name at all? I'm not sure. Do we have similar situations in which there's a given name that is not used for the article title. Also it's currently rather long. SPECIFICO talk 23:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: will you be opening an RM? GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the current title is fine, but a bit long. How about shortening it to House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

How about House Oversight Committee investigation into the Bidens Andre🚐 06:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

This seems fun. I'll try Biden Family Investigation. Cheers! DN (talk) 06:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Just FYI: Comer investigation of Biden family redirects here soibangla (talk) 06:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Does anybody have a suggestion for a new name? If so, start up an RM. GoodDay (talk) 02:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

what do you recommend? soibangla (talk) 03:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

That's why I'm asking others. I've no proposal for a 'new' name. GoodDay (talk) 03:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• House Committee investigation of Biden family It's a lot shorter than United States House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family. GOP harassment of Biden family probably wouldn't fly. We regularly shorten official names, for example Mueller Report and Durham Report. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  yeah well, but this is an official United States congressional Oversight Committee investigation, and we have a short redirect to it, so I don't see a need to reduce the full name of it

  That said, I'm not adamant about this soibangla (talk) 05:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  You seem to be missing the point. We shorten titles that are too long, including official government committe proceedings. Look at the actual full titles for the Mueller and Durham reports. They are really long, so we shortened the titles. The full name would never be the common name anyway. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory

There is a content dispute about whether the name of the article Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory be changed in response to recent non-conspiratorial allegations against Biden. The input of others at Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory#Not all content is "conspiracy theory"; title and content need changing would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I agreed with the point you raised in your thread, and I made an edit supporting your point. I believe you got what you asked for and both articles are now fine and your thread should be closed. soibangla (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no content dispute. There is just you. Zaathras (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Zaathras Please abide by Wikipedia rules. See: Wikipedia:No personal attacks Loltardo (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Remove the conspiracy language as there is evidence accumulating by the day about this topic. Loltardo (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

not this topic, this topic soibangla (talk) 22:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Soibangla what do you mean? Loltardo (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

If you have a concern about an article's title, then take it to that article's talk page. Don't disrupt this talk page with off-topic commentary. Zaathras (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)