Talk:Weiss special counsel investigation/Archive 1

scope
, I disagree with This article will cover every single event from the beginning of this investigation in 2018 to now. I think we should have a solid background section and proceed with new events beyond that. I especially don't see the need for Joe's WP:MANDY comment about Hunter from last October. soibangla (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The investigation doesn't change when a special counsel is appointed, and Weiss is so intrinsically linked to the case that it would be hard not to include details from then. If a person is promoted in their job, their article doesn't omit everything before their promotion. I support a background section but only to establish what led up to the investigation, e.g., the gun purchased on October 12, 2018. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Two or three background paragraphs can accomplish both what led to the investigation and what Weiss did about it before being named SC. soibangla (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The investigations are the same. This is equivalent to leaving all of the timeline information on 2023 Hawaii wildfires into the background section. There is nothing special about this being a special counsel investigation other than it necessitates a move and a rewording of the lede. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We disagree. What do others think? soibangla (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The focus should be on getting as much information written down as possible, which is why I said, "Definitely going to need help to piece this together." elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * the "October 2018 firearm purchase" section is wildly excessive detail soibangla (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * How many times has this been added to the page. Feels like edit warring. It's gratuitous. SPECIFICO talk 18:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Once. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Janssen's Market, a high-end grocery store frequently visited by the Bidens. Seriously? Come on. soibangla (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Is "high-end grocery store" a thing, a meme, or a joke? SPECIFICO talk 18:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ask Politico: "Hallie took the gun to Janssen's Market, a nearby high-end grocery store where the Bidens are longtime regular customers." Regardless, high-end grocery stores do exist; the now-closed Whole Foods at Eighth and Market in San Francisco is a good example of one. Whether or not Janssen's Market is high-end is not my concern. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh I get it now. It certainly does not belong in this article. SPECIFICO talk 02:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

these "Reactions" aren't reactions to the SC
they're reactions to other stuff that preceded the SC.

I'm now preparing some relevant reactions soibangla (talk) 03:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the Joe Biden reaction and the swing voter bit are UNDUE and not really about the topic of this page. SPECIFICO talk 02:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

"among others"
we have no idea where Weiss is going with this, it may involve people and things unrelated to Hunter, maybe people and things we've never heard of, but the order says "among others." soibangla (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The order may say "among others" but the order of the text was out of order. But I would tend to wait until there is some RS emphasis on the "among others" before highlighting it in the lead. Or it could be placed more clearly within the sentence, as I believe an editor was trying to tell us before I erroneously removed his post. SPECIFICO talk 02:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * yeah, I'm kinda ambivalent about going with a primary, but Weiss is kinda a black box at this point. soibangla (talk) 02:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Hoping a more experienced editor will consider a change
When it comes to current and politically touchy events, I am hands-off.

Having said that, it really reads like Hunter is the son of, among others, Joe Biden.

If someone wants to be bold, that could be made more clear. FranMichael (talk) 05:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I believe this has now been resolved. See also the discussion below. Politrukki (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Appointment of special counsel in the body
An editor keeps removing the date of special counsel appointment from the article body without citing a policy or guideline: ,

It would be undue to omit this widely reported information. The appointment is later mentioned in passing in "Responses and analysis" section, and comes out of nowhere. Politrukki (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * is an active editor, so "an editor" is an unfair descriptor. As for the contents of the edit, Soibangla appears to be removing this specific paragraph because it's already mentioned in the lede. The basis for removing this specific paragraph is pretty flimsy; an article can repeat what's mentioned in the lede in prose. September 11 attacks doesn't omit the date in the Attacks section in spite of the article's name because the date is important to note. Political biases should be noted, especially in regards to the investigation's subject, but this is a content issue and not undue. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Really, one could argue that per MOS:LEAD, particularly MOS:LEADNOTUNIQUE, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the contents of the body, so it really should be mentioned in the body. – Recoil16 (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, Recoil16 and ElijahPepe. I will restore the appointment per unanimous consensus here and tag this thread resolved (if there is any disagreement later, feel remove to remove this tag). Politrukki (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

28 CFR § 600.3 - Qualifications of the Special Counsel. Is Weiss qualified?
28 CFR § 600.3 (a) requires that "The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government." This seems not to have happened in the case of David Weiss's appointment, as he is the US Attorney for Deleware. I reviewed the order appointing him, and find it interesting that it omits 28 CFR § 600.3 from the cited sections of the special counsel regulations. Can any explain this? Burt Harris (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Adding link to ECFR on Special Counsel t Burt Harris (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * there has been some analysis in reliable sources, e.g. a Politifact piece. If your question is whether this question should be covered in the article, I would say probably not. First, this is not entirely trivial matter, so explaining all the relevant aspects could possibly give undue weight to the topic. Second, the question is largely meaningless unless a court finds the appointment unlawful, which seems unlikely. Politrukki (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Gun usage
An editor have false claimed that the second paragraph of this source (NYT) does not support the notion that Hunter Biden did not use the gun "to commit a crime". Here's a quote from the source: The same idea is repeated in paragraph sixteen. I am removing the misleading sentence "Hunter Biden never used the gun." pending discussion. Politrukki (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)