Talk:Joe Biden classified documents incident/Archive 1

Feedback from New Page Review process
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thanks for creating the article!

&maltese; SunDawn &maltese;   (contact)   03:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Who found the first batch of documents?
Who found it first? At present, I present both sides in the articles. Forbes, Business Insider, Fox News stated that it is found by aides, while CNBC, CBS News stated that it is found by his lawyer/attorney. In my opinion and knowledge, "aides" are likely to be personal assistants and not lawyers. I think there is a clear distinction between those two. So, which one should be on the article? Please discuss, thank you. &maltese; SunDawn &maltese;   (contact)   06:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * It's possible that aides found some and lawyers found others. We should examine the sources closely. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * CBS News reported on the documents first, AFAIK. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Naming
When right-wingers get caught, it's a "scandal", but when leftists get caught it's an "incident"? Change the name of the page to Joe Biden Classified Documents Scandal. 2600:4040:445D:C200:A631:8406:E77F:61A9 (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Can you give me examples of right-wing/conservatives be called as a "scandal"? Trump's incident not even called an incident. The only scandal use in article is in Countrywide Financial political loan scandal and it involved Democrats. For full list of political controversies you can see it by yourself at this category. &maltese; SunDawn &maltese;    (contact)   14:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No. Not a scandal, Trumper. 137.188.108.203 (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Scandal Classification
Should be classified as a scandal. StrawWord298944 (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I considered a few words to use for this event, but "incident" aptly describes the event as a whole. A scandal can be a few things; in this context, it would be a political scandal. Political scandals are marked by clear outrage and moral issues, I see no reliable sources describing what Biden did as necessarily "immoral", because it's too soon to assess whether or not he (in specific) intentionally took documents.


 * It's certainly an odd title, but until more information is released, "incident" is the most general descriptor that can be used here, without diving deep into Joe Biden's handling of government documents (which has not been discussed in detail prior to this incident). elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think its good to change it to "scandal" as enough reliable sources have now classified it as it. I'd say it doesn't have to be mentioned in the title, but would something like this work?
 * The Joe Biden classified documents incident is an ongoing political scandal  involving classified government documents, some of them classified as top secret, being discovered by personal lawyers of US President Joe Biden at the Washington, D.C., offices of the Penn Biden Center,  and in his home in Wilmington, Delaware, in November and December 2022. Rexxx7777 (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The three sources you provide to support "political scandal" are not particularly reliable in political matters. Do you have others? soibangla (talk) 02:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Take a look at Talk:Joe Biden classified documents incident. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * not a scandal. What Trump did IS a scandal. 137.188.108.203 (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

China money
"Chinese donations to Penn Biden Center are a 'dark-money nightmare,' says NLPC chairman"

has been changed to

"Chinese donations to UPenn are a ‘dark-money nightmare,' says NLPC chairman"

says Fox News

But not before the network reported Penn Biden got $30+ million from the Chinese Communist Party. Despite the online correction, expect this bogus allegation to keep popping up for the next decade or two. soibangla (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this reversion is correct
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Biden_classified_documents_incident&diff=1133659064&oldid=1133657912&diffmode=source

soibangla (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, soibangla. The sentence I removed is a duplication of the material higher up in the paragraph, where it says "On January 5, 2023, an additional document was discovered in the library at Biden's residence, and on January 12 several additional pages of classified documents, for a total of six, were recovered from the library." That’s exactly the same information as the duplicative sentence I removed.


 * Here’s the situation: On January 5 Biden's lawyers found one classified document in the library, also described as “a room adjacent to the garage”. (They immediately stopped searching because they did not have security clearances.) That one document was reported to the public. Then on January 12 the White House lawyer, who did have a security clearance, went to the library with DOJ officials to pick up the documents. They found five additional documents, total of six, and took them all. This was reported to the public in January 14. See https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-documents-more-found-wilmington-delaware-home/ . -- MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal
There is a companion article called Hur special counsel investigation. It should be merged into this article. They are basically about the same thing. If they continue as separate articles, either they will duplicate each other, or people will have to be constantly clicking back and forth between them. MelanieN (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * These two events are sufficiently notable, as are Mueller special counsel investigation and Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. This article should only cover the incident as a whole, while the special counsel investigation article should only cover events regarding the special counsel investigation. See Smith special counsel investigation and the related articles regarding that investigation.


 * I agree with you on merging it, if only because there is little information on the Hur special counsel investigation as it is. However, as a major special counsel investigation, I see no reason why it can't persist on Wikipedia. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there is currently so little to say about the special counsel. He was appointed; that's about it. That will continue to be about all there is to say, for at least the next few months while he investigates, mostly out of public view. There might, at some future time, be sufficient coverage about the special counsel's work that the articles could be split back out. But in the short and mid term, either the "special counsel" article will continue to be a two-sentence stub, or else all the material from the "incident" article will be copied into it to flesh it out, creating two articles on the same subject. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with this point - whilst this article will be able to be updated fluidly in sync with the events unfolding, the special counsel page probably will not - and in my opinion, should not - be updated until nearing the conclusion of the investigation's proceedings. At least for the immediate future, I believe there to be a low chance that both pages will instantly and substantially diverge. VendettaCalls (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this article should be merged into the Hur article if only to avoid confusion as to what belongs where and to avoid duplication of effort. soibangla (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine to have separate pages and we will probably have to have them eventually, but we should wait for more information to give each page enough information to sustain being a standalone article. DecafPotato (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Upon hearing the arguments presented here, I have no choice but to agree with the points brought up by MelanieN and VendettaCalls. It will likely take months until information on the Hur special counsel investigation is released. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with points, merge back is good idea (for now). Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - there is very little potential for the Hur article to expand anytime in the near future. The one sentence in that article is already covered here.
 * The void century (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Hur special counsel investigation didn't have much room to improve for months. Impacts of the incident and other notable events may be happening that do not relate to Hur's investigation. &maltese; SunDawn &maltese;    (contact)   14:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support As expressed by others here, special counsel investigations by necessity result in very little public information or media coverage, leaving little for us to write. It is much better to combine these two closely linked topics into one article. Toadspike (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support No brainer. There is not enough for these to be independent from each other at the moment. Maybe one day, but not today. SecretName101 (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. Not for a lack of notability - the notability is obvious - but since the topics almost completely overlap. There may very well be opportunities for WP:SPINOFF or WP:SPINOUT in the future. Everything at the right time. Right now the time is right to merge. gidonb (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect for now - not really a point for that article to exist rn. In the future, as this controversy develops, it may however warrant being an article again. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support for now  Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 16:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

regarding this WSJ piece
WSJ is a solid RS, they don't tend to just make stuff up, and by removing the explanatory material it leaves the remaining sentence open to speculation, particularly relative to Trump's treatment, which I have already seen on social media. I recommend the full edit be restored. soibangla (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Biden_classified_documents_incident&diff=1134494244&oldid=1134492177&diffmode=visual soibangla (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with the "Biden cooperating" sentence per se, but I do with something like Current and former law enforcement officials said. We shouldn't be citing conjecture and opinion as fact-- it's WP:UNDUE. Maybe it has a place in the "Media Analysis" section though. The void century (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * So would you object to any RS citing anonymous sources? soibangla (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, for example if they're reporting on facts or events as they happened, it's ok. That's why I didn't remove the first sentence of that paragraph. The void century (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd also be more ok if the anonymous source was actually involved. For example the line in background People familiar with the process which is quoting from people who witnessed the packing. The void century (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * But you also removed "the DOJ found the Biden team was cooperating and was anticipating an investigation that might extend well into 2024." soibangla (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah maybe removing that was too strict. I guess I didn't like the word "anticipating", but I can add that line back in if you'd like. The void century (talk) 01:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I generally agree that domain-expert knowledge, cited in reliable sources, shouldn't be discounted as speculation or conjecture. We do not assume readers are law experts, so this type of content is usually beneficial, and helpful to readers. I also specifically don't think this specific instance counts as conjecture; it helps give context for the reasons behind a decision, according to experts. Not seeing any reason to exclude. DFlhb (talk) 07:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying it shouldn't be discounted even though it is conjecture, or that it's not conjecture? The "law enforcement officials" who gave the analysis, who are both anonymous and not directly involved in the situation, cannot know why the FBI agreed not to be involved unless the FBI literally says "this is why we agreed not to be involved". Whether or not a reader is a law expert, it's misinforming them and WP:UNDUE to include one expert opinion in a section that's narrating the events of an investigation. I agree, however, that it might have a place in the media analysis section, since it is reliable media analysis. The void century (talk) 13:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you read the full article, or just the out-of-context quote in the citation? This is being cited to "people familiar with the matter", who said that:
 * Justice Department officials were concerned that an FBI presence as the Biden team hunted for documents could complicate investigators’ ability to execute search warrants or subpoena documents as the investigation proceeds, some of the people said, in a sign that investigators are considering the possibility of a grand jury investigation into the matter.
 * It's quite clear that this is not conjecture. See also the first paragraph of the WSJ piece. DFlhb (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Your quote is from a different part of the article than the sentence I removed. That's from "people familiar with the matter." The part I removed is from "current and former law-enforcement officials," and there's no indication that those are the same people. I won't object to you adding your quote in, though the part where it says "in a sign that investigators are considering" seems to be the WSJ's own analysis, not from the "people familiar with the matter". The void century (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

There appears to be conflicting information in our article - and in the press
Right now our article says "On December 20, a second batch of classified documents was discovered by Biden's attorneys in the garage of his home. A one-page classified document was also found in a room adjacent to the garage. On January 5, another document was discovered in the library at Biden's residence, and on January 12 five more pages of classified documents were recovered from the library." But I have long suspected, and this article seems to confirm, that the "library" and the "room next to the garage" were the same room - and that there was just "one document" discovered on January 5 and it was in that room. And that the same room yielded five additional documents when searched by the White House attorney together with DOJ people on January 12. What do the rest of you think? MelanieN (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's important to remember that five pages of documents aren't always five documents. For accounting purposes, anyway. It's not important to the political story. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, according to White House lawyer Richard Sauber, there are six one-page documents. One, then five (and yeah, same room). Carry on! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, they are the same room. This source in our article says the additional documents were discovered "in the president’s private library, attached to his garage at his home in Wilmington". I will fix the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And I'll change "five pages of classified documents" to "five one-page classified documents", maybe some "twenty" to "20", maybe already have. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Currently, in the lede, it says Biden's attorneys discovered a second set of documents at Biden's home on December 20, followed by several more on January 9 and January 12, 2023. However, in the Timeline section, it says, On January 11, 2023, a one-page classified document was also found in a room adjacent to the garage, described as Biden's private library..... What is the correct date of the one-page doc discovery, Jan 9 or Jan 11? Sofeshue (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Revisiting whether this should be named a "scandal" or "controversy"
I've been meaning to address this since earlier today. The last person to bring it up did so relatively inelegantly, but there is a legitimate discussion to be had as to whether "incident" is the best term to use, and whether "scandal" (or perhaps "controversy") might make sense, as it does for things like the Clinton–Lewinsky scandal.

Numerous mainstream media outlets already have used the term "scandal" to refer to this.

Headlines such as:
 * The Biden documents scandal is a test for the media — and an opportunity (Washington Post)
 * Biden’s document scandal eats away at efforts to hold Republicans accountable (CNN)
 * Biden’s document scandal eats away at efforts to hold Republicans accountable This (CNN)
 * More classified documents found at Joe Biden’s house amid growing scandal (The Telegraph)
 * Why Biden's classified documents scandal could be worse than Trump's (The Telegraph)
 * This week in politics: Biden's document scandal, House GOP launch investigations (USA Today)
 * Trump’s and Biden’s documents scandals are different. That may not matter. MSNBC

Obviously, right-leaning outlets such as Fox News have run articles with the term “scandal” as well

An alternative term that can be used (and which is perhaps less loaded) is "controversy". This is most certainly one of the two. Incident feels inadequate to describe what this matter is.

One example I found easily of "controversy" in a headline:
 * Democrats worry Biden controversy will be Clinton emails repeat

Also: SecretName101 (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This CNN article uses the term "classified documents controversy" in its opening paragraph


 * Pinging those involved in earlier discussions @2600:4040:445D:C200:A631:8406:E77F:61A9 @137.188.108.203 @StrawWord298944 @ElijahPepe @Rexxx7777 @Soibangla @SunDawn @The void century SecretName101 (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Another example of controversy in a headline: Clip: How will Biden's classified document controversy impact the Trump investigation? (PBS Washington Week)
 * Also: This NBC News article uses “controversey” in its prose as does this Washington Post article. SecretName101 (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have been insistent on using the term "incident", but I'm willing to use "controversy" in place of it. "Scandal" is too politically loaded and connected to right-wing media to be safely used on Wikipedia. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, the word "scandal", as shown by, had been used by CNN and MSNMBC as well, outlets that are mainstream and not connected to the right-wing media. While I didn't think it should be the title of the article, I think it is prominent enough to be used as a redirect to this article. What do you think? &maltese; SunDawn &maltese;    (contact)   01:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't oppose a redirect The void century (talk) 05:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @SecretName101Can you make sure those aren't opinion articles? The MSNBC source is an opinion piece but Wash Post and Telegraph are paywalled so I can't tell.
 * I understand that some sources describe this as a scandal or controversy, but is that the most prominent view?
 * If anything, the title should change to "Joe Biden's retention of classified documents after his Vice Presidency" or something close to that, as supported by Neutral point of view
 * The void century (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @The void century Wash post article is a news article, not opinion or commentary. SecretName101 (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We'd need to be careful if we used a title of Biden's name followed by a verb used as a noun, like you proposed. We do not want to be implying at this point that this was a direct action of Biden, because we don't verifiably know that it was. We don't know that he is the one who directly packed the classified documents with his personal papers. It very well could be an aide who did so mistakenly, and that Biden truly only learned of this recently. We truly have no idea. We want to be careful not to imply something we cannot verify at this moment. Retention does not have that problem all to much, but many other verbs used as a noun (such as "handling") would. SecretName101 (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * yes agreed. "discovery" could be another neutral word as that's used very prominently across most sources. The void century (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe. Something like "Discovery of vice presidential classified documents in Joe Biden's possession"? Even though I'm not loving that. SecretName101 (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Still prefer "controversy" at least though. SecretName101 (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe just "Joe Biden classified documents discovery". It seems like "found" and "discovery" are the most prominent words used to describe the incident, while "scandal", "controversy" and "retention" are used less prominently. The title should reflect the way most reliable sources are describing it. The void century (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Echoing Donald Trump's disclosures of classified information this might be a good way to go. &maltese; SunDawn &maltese;    (contact)   01:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagreed about the use of "controversy". Controversy is usually about difference of opinion - such as about right or wrong about a particular matter. In this case it is obvious that Biden (or his team) is at fault - the matter that is being investigated is whether it had criminal intent or not. Controversy is usually a thing used when the facts are unclear or there is a moral or legal ambiguity, such things are not happening on this case. &maltese; SunDawn &maltese;    (contact)   00:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not at all the exclusive meaning of controversy. Look at the broad array of subjects under Category:Controversies. SecretName101 (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * See use at articles such as Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy SecretName101 (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There is legal ambiguity. Biden may not have obstructed justice, but the Espionage Act could come into play if the documents were willfully retained. Part of my reasoning for using "controversy" is that this is a very similar incident to the Hillary Clinton email controversy. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, controversy would be better for now. "Discovery" would be downplaying the seriousness of what the article is depicting. Rexxx7777 (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The seriousness is decided by the most prominent POV among reliable sources. If most reliable sources called it "Filegate scandal" then we'd call it that. But in this case, the most prominent words are "discovery" and "found." It would be original research to promote our own opinions on how serious the subject matter is. Neutral point of view covers how the prominence of a POV works in articles. The void century (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I can agree with controversy, the use of "Discovery" implies that there is no "case". &maltese; SunDawn &maltese;    (contact)   12:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The article's subject matter is the discovery/finding of classified documents from Joe Biden's vice presidency and the resulting investigations. The controversy/scandal is around the way the discovery was handled, perceived hypocrisy, and how Biden's case compares to Trump's case. How can we present a neutral POV and clear subject in the title? Most of the Trump titles relating to documents are matter-of-fact, not using the words scandal or controversy. This article should adhere to that naming convention if possible. The void century (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think both work, but leaning towards scandal if I have to pick. MaximusEditor (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Here are some sources to support my point-- none of these use the word "controversy" or "scandal" in the title, nor in the body (I haven't read every one though so feel free to prove me wrong). This wording represents most major publications. No offense to you @SecretName101, but the articles you listed are outliers.
 * Here's what we know about the classified documents found at Biden's home and office (NPR)
 * What we know about the Biden classified documents: A timeline of events (CNN)
 * Total number of Biden documents known to be marked classified is about 20, source says (CBS)
 * 5 additional pages of classified material found at Biden’s Wilmington residence (CNN)
 * Sen. Warnock supports special counsel in Biden classified documents case (ABC)
 * McCarthy rips Biden document discovery handling, calls out DOJ's 'hypocrisy' as a 'weaponization' (Fox)
 * Biden documents: Republicans want more information; Democrats say GOP defending Trump (USA Today)
 * House Judiciary Committee launches investigation into Biden documents (NBC)
 * No visitor logs exist for Biden's private home, where classified documents found, White House says (ABC)
 * Biden’s classified documents headache won’t go away quietly (The Hill)
 * Discovery of more Biden documents fuels GOP plans for investigations (Wash Post)
 * Republicans decry ‘double standard’ in handling of Biden classified documents case (The HIll)
 * House Oversight chair wants more information on Biden classified documents from White House (CNN)
 * More classified documents have been found at Biden's residence (NPR)
 * POLITICO Playbook: Three storylines to watch in Biden’s document drama (Politico)
 * How Biden’s discovery of classified files compares with the Trump case. (NYT)
 * "Scandal" implies that Biden's reputation has been harmed by this, but arguably it could help his reputation since he handled the situation differently from Trump. "Controversy" is a little more accurate, but it takes focus away from the discovery of documents and investigations, which is what's most prominent in the majority of reliable sources. "Controversy" is a loaded word, and it's very important for Wikipedia to be neutral in national politics articles. The void century (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If a scandal or controversy requires harm to reputation, it still wouldn't require net popularity or approval to take a hit. Something could still be regarded as a scandal or controversy even if it only scandalizes/upsets a minority segment of the population. SecretName101 (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Minority views don't decide the title of an article. The prominence of the view in reliable sources is what determines its due weight. That's why Neutral point of view says Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view.
 * It also says in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. The void century (talk) 04:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree regarding your view on the regards to "minority views". If only Fox News and Breitbart use the term "scandal" we can dismiss them as minority views, but evidence has shown that many other news outlets also use the term "scandal". It has been used by Washington Post, Vanity Fair, CNN, Newsweek, The Telegraph, and the USA Today.
 * While I do think we shouldn't use the term "scandal", only using the term "discovery" in wrong either. It implied that nothing is wrong in those "discovery", while it is pretty clear that news media see it as something wrong. From a reader that didn't know about how classified documents worked in US, using only "discovery" implied that there is no problem/incident/controversy. The neutral position between these two, in my opinion, is keeping the current title, using "incident". &maltese; SunDawn &maltese;    (contact)   05:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm ok with keeping "incident" for now. The void century (talk) 05:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I will note, the Wikipedia bar for naming something a "controversy" has not historically been so high (not that that bars us from applying a higher standard from now on out). We literally have Obama tan suit controversy for Obama wearing a tan suit one time. Again, this amounts to an "other stuff exists" argument, but it is worth noting that this higher standard for the word "controversy" does not appear to have existed prior. SecretName101 (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

A false tweet is not a conspiracy theory
A random tweet by a random Twitter user that gets amplified is not a conspiracy theory. After initially quickly going viral, the issue at hand was easily clarified to not be a rent payment to a house owned by Joe but to a rental payment for an office building. Why is this called a conspiracy theory? Since it’s from the laptop maybe it should be called Russian misinformation? Mr Ernie (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Feel free to change the section title soibangla (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I did, so now I’m following BRD. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You did good, but I like the current subtitle ("Misinformation") better. I mean, it was a real tweet, after all. Just a bit misinformative. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If "misinformation" is too loaded, maybe simply describing the crux of the matter could make sense. Something like "Hunter Biden's rent". Or something completely different. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oops, Kessler got the conspiracy theory wrong in his own tweet about it. Current wording - NEW: Conservative media jumped on the false claim that Joe Biden paid rent to his son for his home. Here’s how it unfolded—>. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * They do sort of blend together. Neat find. Of course, that extra layer of wrong will need secondary coverage if we want to include it it in the ??? section. And of course, it can't be secondary coverage from the only side of the political analysis spectrum that would even dare to challenge a WaPo fact checker. So yeah, food for thought is all, probably. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * "Misinformation" is better than "conspiracy theory". Only mention the ones that got a lot of press, not every little tweet. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Should the Pence docs be included here?
I'm inclined to think not at this point soibangla (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree as well. While both are similar, I don't think Pence's document incidents should be here. &maltese; SunDawn &maltese;    (contact)   03:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It should be mentioned only because it is a direct impact of this event. Pence's attorney's statement states that they only searched to see if he possessed any such docs following revelations that Biden possessed them. SecretName101 (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

"Included?" In what sense? There are three somewhat similar cases related to Trump, Pence, and Biden, with three articles here.

The answer is determined by RS. Do they discuss and compare all three cases? Yes, so we should do the same, and I suggest we do it in a similar manner in each article. Shortly mention the other cases and how they compare (similarities and dissimilarities) to the case at hand. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Trump and Biden teams both jump on Pence disclosure as a classified documents defense, CNN -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * There is a question of wp:weight here. It's probably not prominent enough to be mentioned in the lead, but is prominent enough to be mentioned in the body. The void century (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * A section in the body and a sentence in the lead. That's all. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If it's mentioned in the lead, the language should be very neutral, like "following Biden's discovery, former Vice President Mike Pence proactively hired attorney Greg Jacobs to search his own home, resulting in the discovery of a small number of classified documents from the Pence Vice Presidency. The void century (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes in the body, maybe a sentence (the above sentence is very good) or a brief paragraph, with a wikilink. Not in the lead at this point. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * P.S. Our current section is way too long. It should be trimmed by about half, with most of the quotes removed. Also, having "impact" as a section heading and then the Mike Pence information as the only subsection is poor formatting. "Impact" does not make sense in this context anyhow. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes I intend to trim the section today per WP:BRD. I don't think Pence's incident didn't deserve a section here, two-three sentences and wikilink to Pence should be enough. &maltese; SunDawn &maltese;    (contact)   01:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 25 January 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 21:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Joe Biden classified documents incident → Biden classified documents incident – There is no need to specify which Biden, there is only one such incident. Often scandals and events only utilize last names when involving public figures of such a high profile, such as the Clinton–Lewinsky scandal, Obama tan suit controversy, Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, particularly when there is no other figure with that last name sharing the same stature (which is the case for Biden, who is by far the most notable individual with their surname)SecretName101 (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This makes sense to me. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Hunter Biden is pretty notable in American politics as well. Readers that read the title "might" assume that this will also involve Hunter Biden, which is not the case. It is true that Joe Biden is more famous, but Hunter's "notability" in American politics can't be ignored. &maltese; SunDawn &maltese;   (contact)   03:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hunter Biden does not have a classified documents scandal, and is far dwarfed in notability by Joe Biden.
 * Just as nobody thinks the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal implicated Chelsea or Hillary as the culprit, or the Jefferson–Hemings controversy implicates Martha Jefferson, or the Obama tan suit controversy implicates either Michelle Sasha or Malia, etc.
 * Bush White House email controversy doesn't need to disambiguate which Bush, because only one Bush White House had such a controversy. SecretName101 (talk) 05:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hunter Biden is a controversial person. Chelsea and Hillary, judging from their history, are very unlikely to be implicated in Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. On the other hand, judging from Hunter Biden's controversy, any reader could falsely assume that he is the one implicated in the incident. I do think it is important to establish in the title that this incident only involved Joe Biden, not Hunter Biden. As also stated, there are clear efforts to bring Hunter Biden to this, and it is important to distinguish Joe from Hunter in this particular incident.  &maltese; SunDawn &maltese;    (contact)   07:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "are very unlikely to be implicated in Clinton-Lewinsky scandal" how do you make this determination about Hillary but not Hunter from the titles alone? Hillary is equally (if not more) controversial than her husband, and even in the 90s was quite controversial. The stronger point you made is about outside efforts to implicate Hunter. SecretName101 (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: per SunDawn, efforts have been made by some to drag Hunter Biden into this. soibangla (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support For those who don't believe Hunter Biden is relevant, "Biden" would clearly mean Joe. For those who acknowledge a section here already devoted to an incident regarding a Hunter Biden document, they can think it means both of them. Everyone else gets four bytes of concision, which is the best part for me. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: SunDawn did make a good point. The Joe should stay. — Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 05:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose ― No harm in being specific by including the first name. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 07:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As far as we know the only Biden this involves is Joe.  Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 16:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You apparently don't know Joe Biden classified documents incident. That's probably a good thing. They don't want you to know, y'know? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Neutral - How all this unfolds, will likely determined whether it's only about the president or about the president & his son. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per SunDawn, and others. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 03:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. The Hunter Biden argument makes little senese to me as he is not involved in this at all. Just because someone is controversial in other ways is not relevant here. Yeoutie (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Agree with SunDawn's reasoning. Precision is preferrable over vagueness, and is one of the article naming WP:CRITERIA. DFlhb (talk) 09:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per SunDawn
 * The void century (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2023 (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.