This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | On 22 December 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden to Impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden. The result of the discussion was moved. |
NOTFORUM soibangla ( talk) 01:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I Am Not Biased Against/For Joe Biden And I Can Say That This Inquiry is based on Truth. I don't enjoy the fact they keep saying "there's no evidence!!" Like. There Is. Do I think he Should/Will be Convicted. Well Assuming It Goes to The Senate. I Don't Think Biden Will be Convicted. Is There No Evidence for An Impeachment? No. There is Enough for An Impeachment. But Hey. Everyone Has Their Opinions. Orange Anomaly. ( talk) 19:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
|
I intend to do more work on this article today. Thank you for the work you've done so far SecretName101. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm sure some people are going to question whether the 2020 DOJ Department of Legal Counsel opinion (that the DOJ does not recognize something as a legitimate impeachment inquiry unless it has been authorized by a vote of the House) means that we should not consider this action to be an impeachment inquiry yet.
I'm going to say no. We still should consider this an impeachment inquiry.
Obviously, I'm not the ultimate authority here, and fellow editors are free to bring counter-points.
But the DOJ is not a court with jurisdiction. It does not rule on congressional actions. Its opinions more or less instruct how the Executive branch conducts itself. But the House is (obviously) in the legislative branch. Its opinions can inform Congress, and can be persuasive authority in judiciary rulings, but they do not bind the House the way a ruling in a court with jurisdiction would.
Additionally, DOJ opinion runs counter both to most experts' opinions (see some of the citations at Impeachment inquiry in the United States. It also runs counter to common sense: an impeachment inquiry is an abstract construct, not clearly defined by law. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it's a duck. If it acts like an impeachment inquiry, and is being recognized like one, odds are it is one. SecretName101 ( talk) 01:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
See Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. My concern is that this may violate WP:CFORK. Wikipedia is not news, nor is it a crystal ball. Would someone mind elaborating why this doesn't belong in the "Efforts.." article? DN ( talk) 03:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
This is an official inquiry that will likely see developments.
@ SecretName101: Do you want to discuss what the section title should be? elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
@ Reese12345678910 Stop inserting personal commentary. Many sources are cited to assert the claim you keep inserting inappropriate commentary on. The article Efforts to impeach Joe Biden in fact show numerous explicit instances in which prominent Republicans outright stated that the viewed a potential impeachment of Biden as being an act of retribution for the impeachments of Trump. The observation that some notable Republicans indicated that impeachment of Biden would be retribution for those of Trump is simply a fact: because they did publicly say that. SecretName101 ( talk) 18:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
as such, I believe it behooves us all to strictly adhere to the rules to avoid unnecessary conflicts
KiharaNoukan, rather than revert my edit, it would have been better to follow BRD to discuss here rather than initiate an edit war soibangla ( talk) 23:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
User Reese12345678910, it's well past time to take this to talk... [1] - [2] - [3] DN ( talk) 01:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
[4] This makes 4 reverts....Oh, and you have decided remove this entire talk page section... [5]. DN ( talk) 02:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Largely Legible Layman, I appreciate your , but could you and or Soibangla please point out to me where, and in which source, it says "misleading"? Was it somewhere in the WaPo source? The CNN citation just seems to mention it as "unproven" in the first sentence...Cheers. DN ( talk) 04:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
"some Republican members who have raised concerns about the available evidence support an impeachment inquiry to allow for a complete evidentiary record"
what does this mean? Probably should be rephrased. If someone like me who reads up on this sort of things is confused after several reads, this sentence is probably butchered. SecretName101 ( talk) 22:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Changed to "some Republican members who have raised concerns about the lack of available evidence still support holding an impeachment inquiry in order to allow for a complete evidentiary record" SecretName101 ( talk) 22:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Some Republican members support an impeachment inquiry to allow for a complete evidentiary record who have raised concerns about the available evidenceis a good start. If I were to completely revise this sentence, I would go with
Notwithstanding concerns about available evidence, some Republican members support an impeachment inquiry to allow for a complete evidentiary recordas an initial draft, perhaps replacing
notwithstandingwith
In spite ofor
Despite, the former being my preference. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
@ SecretName101 I linked the Weiss special counsel investigation page because the article does cover the earlier 2018-originating investigation on money laundering (later tax charges) that led up to the current Special Council investigation on taxes + guns + potential future charges related to his work for foreign entities.
For naming purposes of investigation vs investigations, I guess it depends on whether or not the investigations are separate when it evolves into a special council investigation that covers broader topics. I'm not aware of another Hunter Biden federal investigation besides these/this that is relevant to the article. I was able to find a WaPo article that labels the broad Hunter Biden DOJ+FBI+IRS investigation dating back to 2018 as just one investigation. KiharaNoukan ( talk) 00:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
While I agree it is fair to say (particularly with the sources provided) that there is a lack of any significant evidence, or any proof, is saying that there is (absolutely) no evidence an accurate characterization?
Remember: evidence and proof are two different things.
For instance: If witnesses saw the perpetrator of a crime drive a green car, defendant A's ownership of a green car could be evidence but not proof of their involvement.
Should we consider being more precise with how we word this? The absolutism seems inaccurate. There may even be no good evidence, but to say no evidence (of any kind) is perhaps too strong of wording. I personally think we should add a modifier like "no significant evidence" instead of saying just "no evidence". SecretName101 ( talk) 23:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
As Of Now. It doesn't seem like it's a Inquiry rather than a Investigation. Remember. They are Trying to "Paint a Picture Of Corruption" With The Evidence They Find. I Personally Suggest To Change the Name or Separate It into Two Articles. But that's just me. Orange Anomaly. ( talk) 20:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
I recently created an article for James Biden. Any help with expansion would be appreciated. Thriley ( talk) 19:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
So, just to clarify, are we going to have to create a new article every time there's a new inquiry? Asking for a friend... DN ( talk) 02:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello. After reading over this article, I have come to the conclusion that this article seems to be slightly biased against Donald Trump and Republicans attempting to impeach Biden. The language and words used seem to bring down and belittle the people attempting to impeach Biden. Whether or whether not I support an impeachment of Joe Biden, or whether or whether not anybody here supports an impeachment of Joe Biden, we should work to make this article as neutral as possible. I have added a neutrality warning in hopes of this being fixed. Antny08 ( talk) 02:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
have expressed a desire to retaliate against the impeachments of Trump by impeaching Bidento
have felt it is necessary to impeach Joe Biden, taking out why Republicans "feel it necessary" to do so. You also changed some wording on the Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory to make it seem that the allegations have merit, when they do not. – Muboshgu ( talk) 03:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
The last sentence in the Background section provides context to a prediction by McCarthy, that never actually happened.
It would seem prudent to move this prediction out of the Background section and put it under the "Initiation of the inquiry" section where the context still makes sense and is therefore still DUE.
DN ( talk) 07:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus to move; a clear majority of editors supported the move, and those editors had stronger arguments. ( closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal ( talk) 06:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
– An inquiry is an investigation into wrongdoing, not an inherent admission of guilt. I had considered opening this move request weeks ago but never got around to it. This applies to the other impeachment inquiry articles. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky ( talk) 01:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal ( talk) 06:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion, which intentionally or not, is what you did. Fair point about the Nixon page. It should be included, and I will ping the supporters to make sure they are aware. – Muboshgu ( talk) 00:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
"Impeachment inquiry" "Joe Biden"
:
"September 12 - December 13" in the Infobox Date implies the impeachment inquiry didn't pass. Not only is it still ongoing. The Resolution To Authorize (Confirm or make Official) The Inquiry Passed 220 - 212. 47.20.46.230 ( talk) 20:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
TNR March 2024 "Representative James Comer has finally given up on trying to impeach Joe Biden—but he’s trying to make it seem like that was his plan all along. After more than a year of insisting that the president and his family are guilty of corruption, Republicans have yet to produce any evidence of Biden’s wrongdoing. Many GOP lawmakers are starting to back away from the impeachment effort, admitting that they likely don’t have the votes to pass articles of impeachment."... DN ( talk) 18:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | On 22 December 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden to Impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden. The result of the discussion was moved. |
NOTFORUM soibangla ( talk) 01:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I Am Not Biased Against/For Joe Biden And I Can Say That This Inquiry is based on Truth. I don't enjoy the fact they keep saying "there's no evidence!!" Like. There Is. Do I think he Should/Will be Convicted. Well Assuming It Goes to The Senate. I Don't Think Biden Will be Convicted. Is There No Evidence for An Impeachment? No. There is Enough for An Impeachment. But Hey. Everyone Has Their Opinions. Orange Anomaly. ( talk) 19:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
|
I intend to do more work on this article today. Thank you for the work you've done so far SecretName101. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm sure some people are going to question whether the 2020 DOJ Department of Legal Counsel opinion (that the DOJ does not recognize something as a legitimate impeachment inquiry unless it has been authorized by a vote of the House) means that we should not consider this action to be an impeachment inquiry yet.
I'm going to say no. We still should consider this an impeachment inquiry.
Obviously, I'm not the ultimate authority here, and fellow editors are free to bring counter-points.
But the DOJ is not a court with jurisdiction. It does not rule on congressional actions. Its opinions more or less instruct how the Executive branch conducts itself. But the House is (obviously) in the legislative branch. Its opinions can inform Congress, and can be persuasive authority in judiciary rulings, but they do not bind the House the way a ruling in a court with jurisdiction would.
Additionally, DOJ opinion runs counter both to most experts' opinions (see some of the citations at Impeachment inquiry in the United States. It also runs counter to common sense: an impeachment inquiry is an abstract construct, not clearly defined by law. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it's a duck. If it acts like an impeachment inquiry, and is being recognized like one, odds are it is one. SecretName101 ( talk) 01:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
See Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. My concern is that this may violate WP:CFORK. Wikipedia is not news, nor is it a crystal ball. Would someone mind elaborating why this doesn't belong in the "Efforts.." article? DN ( talk) 03:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
This is an official inquiry that will likely see developments.
@ SecretName101: Do you want to discuss what the section title should be? elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
@ Reese12345678910 Stop inserting personal commentary. Many sources are cited to assert the claim you keep inserting inappropriate commentary on. The article Efforts to impeach Joe Biden in fact show numerous explicit instances in which prominent Republicans outright stated that the viewed a potential impeachment of Biden as being an act of retribution for the impeachments of Trump. The observation that some notable Republicans indicated that impeachment of Biden would be retribution for those of Trump is simply a fact: because they did publicly say that. SecretName101 ( talk) 18:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
as such, I believe it behooves us all to strictly adhere to the rules to avoid unnecessary conflicts
KiharaNoukan, rather than revert my edit, it would have been better to follow BRD to discuss here rather than initiate an edit war soibangla ( talk) 23:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
User Reese12345678910, it's well past time to take this to talk... [1] - [2] - [3] DN ( talk) 01:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
[4] This makes 4 reverts....Oh, and you have decided remove this entire talk page section... [5]. DN ( talk) 02:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Largely Legible Layman, I appreciate your , but could you and or Soibangla please point out to me where, and in which source, it says "misleading"? Was it somewhere in the WaPo source? The CNN citation just seems to mention it as "unproven" in the first sentence...Cheers. DN ( talk) 04:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
"some Republican members who have raised concerns about the available evidence support an impeachment inquiry to allow for a complete evidentiary record"
what does this mean? Probably should be rephrased. If someone like me who reads up on this sort of things is confused after several reads, this sentence is probably butchered. SecretName101 ( talk) 22:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Changed to "some Republican members who have raised concerns about the lack of available evidence still support holding an impeachment inquiry in order to allow for a complete evidentiary record" SecretName101 ( talk) 22:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Some Republican members support an impeachment inquiry to allow for a complete evidentiary record who have raised concerns about the available evidenceis a good start. If I were to completely revise this sentence, I would go with
Notwithstanding concerns about available evidence, some Republican members support an impeachment inquiry to allow for a complete evidentiary recordas an initial draft, perhaps replacing
notwithstandingwith
In spite ofor
Despite, the former being my preference. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
@ SecretName101 I linked the Weiss special counsel investigation page because the article does cover the earlier 2018-originating investigation on money laundering (later tax charges) that led up to the current Special Council investigation on taxes + guns + potential future charges related to his work for foreign entities.
For naming purposes of investigation vs investigations, I guess it depends on whether or not the investigations are separate when it evolves into a special council investigation that covers broader topics. I'm not aware of another Hunter Biden federal investigation besides these/this that is relevant to the article. I was able to find a WaPo article that labels the broad Hunter Biden DOJ+FBI+IRS investigation dating back to 2018 as just one investigation. KiharaNoukan ( talk) 00:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
While I agree it is fair to say (particularly with the sources provided) that there is a lack of any significant evidence, or any proof, is saying that there is (absolutely) no evidence an accurate characterization?
Remember: evidence and proof are two different things.
For instance: If witnesses saw the perpetrator of a crime drive a green car, defendant A's ownership of a green car could be evidence but not proof of their involvement.
Should we consider being more precise with how we word this? The absolutism seems inaccurate. There may even be no good evidence, but to say no evidence (of any kind) is perhaps too strong of wording. I personally think we should add a modifier like "no significant evidence" instead of saying just "no evidence". SecretName101 ( talk) 23:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
As Of Now. It doesn't seem like it's a Inquiry rather than a Investigation. Remember. They are Trying to "Paint a Picture Of Corruption" With The Evidence They Find. I Personally Suggest To Change the Name or Separate It into Two Articles. But that's just me. Orange Anomaly. ( talk) 20:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
I recently created an article for James Biden. Any help with expansion would be appreciated. Thriley ( talk) 19:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
So, just to clarify, are we going to have to create a new article every time there's a new inquiry? Asking for a friend... DN ( talk) 02:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello. After reading over this article, I have come to the conclusion that this article seems to be slightly biased against Donald Trump and Republicans attempting to impeach Biden. The language and words used seem to bring down and belittle the people attempting to impeach Biden. Whether or whether not I support an impeachment of Joe Biden, or whether or whether not anybody here supports an impeachment of Joe Biden, we should work to make this article as neutral as possible. I have added a neutrality warning in hopes of this being fixed. Antny08 ( talk) 02:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
have expressed a desire to retaliate against the impeachments of Trump by impeaching Bidento
have felt it is necessary to impeach Joe Biden, taking out why Republicans "feel it necessary" to do so. You also changed some wording on the Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory to make it seem that the allegations have merit, when they do not. – Muboshgu ( talk) 03:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
The last sentence in the Background section provides context to a prediction by McCarthy, that never actually happened.
It would seem prudent to move this prediction out of the Background section and put it under the "Initiation of the inquiry" section where the context still makes sense and is therefore still DUE.
DN ( talk) 07:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus to move; a clear majority of editors supported the move, and those editors had stronger arguments. ( closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal ( talk) 06:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
– An inquiry is an investigation into wrongdoing, not an inherent admission of guilt. I had considered opening this move request weeks ago but never got around to it. This applies to the other impeachment inquiry articles. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky ( talk) 01:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal ( talk) 06:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion, which intentionally or not, is what you did. Fair point about the Nixon page. It should be included, and I will ping the supporters to make sure they are aware. – Muboshgu ( talk) 00:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
"Impeachment inquiry" "Joe Biden"
:
"September 12 - December 13" in the Infobox Date implies the impeachment inquiry didn't pass. Not only is it still ongoing. The Resolution To Authorize (Confirm or make Official) The Inquiry Passed 220 - 212. 47.20.46.230 ( talk) 20:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
TNR March 2024 "Representative James Comer has finally given up on trying to impeach Joe Biden—but he’s trying to make it seem like that was his plan all along. After more than a year of insisting that the president and his family are guilty of corruption, Republicans have yet to produce any evidence of Biden’s wrongdoing. Many GOP lawmakers are starting to back away from the impeachment effort, admitting that they likely don’t have the votes to pass articles of impeachment."... DN ( talk) 18:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)