Talk:Hunter Biden

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hunter Biden article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8: 30 days

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:

You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message

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.

Further information

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

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.

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.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Hunter Biden. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Hunter Biden at the Reference desk.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Q: Why does this article call the recent allegations "discredited"?

A: Please see Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory and the discussion at its talk 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 must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance).

United States: Delaware / Presidents High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Delaware portal This article is supported by WikiProject Delaware (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents.

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Business High‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Joe Biden Top‑importance

	Hunter Biden is within the scope of WikiProject Joe Biden, a project dedicated to creating and improving content related to Joe Biden. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Joe BidenWikipedia:WikiProject Joe BidenTemplate:WikiProject Joe BidenJoe Biden articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Politics: American Top‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance).

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Isaac Stanley-Becker (September 25, 2019). "Checking the Web on Hunter Biden? A 36-year-old physicist helps decide what you'll see". Washington Post. Retrieved September 25, 2019. The page has been viewed nearly 230,000 times in the past 30 days, more than the page for Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, or for Vice President Pence. Wikipedia dominates Google's search results and helps supply the information spit out by Siri and Amazon Alexa.
Fang, Lee (August 15, 2023). "Emails Show Hunter Biden Hired Specialists to Quietly Airbrush Wikipedia". Lee Fang. Retrieved August 17, 2023. Powerful individuals and corporations routinely tap specialized consultants to edit Wikipedia for more favorable entries, often through anonymous accounts designed to appear organic. Emails from Hunter Biden's laptop show that he made continuous efforts to airbrush his image and the Wikipedia articles associated with his Ukrainian benefactors.
Rondón, Emmanuel Alejandro (August 15, 2023). "Hunter Biden hired specialists to clean up his image and that of his Ukrainian associates on Wikipedia". Voz Media. Retrieved August 17, 2023. Independent journalist Lee Fang released a series of emails and evidence showing that Hunter Biden . . . hired specialists to quietly edit biographies on Wikipedia in order to launder his image and that of his Ukrainian associates.

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

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 9 times. The weeks in which this happened:

False and baseless[edit]

"subjects of false and baseless claims"...should be "unproven claims" 2601:408:C001:F0C0:990E:19C0:A68F:657C (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

see reference #4 soibangla (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly would be a more objective/unbiased way of stating an issue. But I am not an intellectual. HillbillyWoman (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The wording reminds me of Gertrude's comment in Hamlet: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." The article loses the appearance of objectivity and doesn't help Hunter Biden. TFD (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are not here to help Hunter Biden. SPECIFICO talk 03:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people are here writing this article to help Hunter Biden. I think @TFD was just observing that they are so blatantly biased that thankfully it shows through. It’s supposed to be an encyclopedia with no bias but it’s not. 65.195.242.118 (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yup HillbillyWoman (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this statement. ExpertPrime (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Casting aspersions about the intent of long-standing editors is a swift road to being at best topic-banned from politics articles, or at worst blocked from the Wikipedia entirely. Curb the behavior, please. Zaathras (talk) 05:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess folks should not judge intent. Objectively, the article was way biassed. It would be good to be able to point out bias, suggest corrections, and develop an unbiased, objective article without being given the boot. HillbillyWoman (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to point out what in the article you think is biased and suggest corrections. Whether or not they will be implemented depends on what you'd propose. Be sure to use reliable sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn’t the China alleged scandal have a separate page as it is dfferent than the Ukraine alleged scandal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:4300:ee90:df1:d661:cdf5:7f34 (talk)

it is all part of the same made-up accusations, so, not really. ValarianB (talk) 19:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the trump-zelensky transcript[edit]

Trump falsely told Zelenskyy that "[Joe] Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution" of his son; Joe Biden did not stop any prosecution, did not brag about doing so, and there is no evidence his son was ever under investigation.

In bold above should be deleted. In the original transcript it is completely unclear whether he is claiming Hunter or Joe Biden or both prevented a prosecution of Zlochevsky and Burisma holdings. This is non factual and a very much biased lie. Sorry guys, if it's worth getting impeached over, it's worth correcting the detail here. The last bit is speculation. Trump could literally have been curious as to how Hunter Biden could have been able go be on that board and not given bribes from over him across to prevent prosecution. His own guy was proven guilty, so it was pragmatic to check all close to the scene. 78.17.60.189 (talk) 08:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the CNN source at the end of the bolded text: According to a White House transcript released Wednesday, Trump said to Zelensky during a phone call in July: “There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it…It sounds horrible to me.” So, it's clearly about Hunter. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Name of 4th daughter[edit]

OP checkuser blocked and no one agreed anyhow. O3000, Ret. (talk)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The article has the following hidden text: "As of July 2023, there is consensus against naming Hunter Biden and Lunden Alexis Roberts's daughter in this section. Please do not add her name to this section without first establishing a new consensus"

Is this an obsolete consensus? At the end of July 2023, Joe Biden named the daughter, and in November 2023, USA Today named the daughter in an article. The article Family of Joe Biden also names the daughter.

~~I am thinking this is probably an obsolete consensus, from the days when the name was kept private.~~

~~All of Hunter Biden's other children are named. Up the Walls (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Well, you managed to link to a lot of sources for the name of this young child. I don't know why and hope we don't have to go through all this yet again. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "obsolete consensus," there is simply "consensus," until there isn't. Consensus can change, and if you feel there is something new you wish to bring to the table, something different that has come up since the last RfC, where it was found that that listing the name of the child in this article is inappropriate per WP:BLPNAME, you are free to do so. Zaathras (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, two things have come up since the last consensus:
Joe Biden publicly named Hunter Biden's fourth daughter

The girl's mother publicly named the daughter in a reference deprecated from Wikipedia, but it was reported on by USA Today

Perhaps there is no such thing as "obsolete consensus", but you can have consensus based on obsolete information. The fact that the daughter's name was sealed by a court order is now obsolete. Up the Walls (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Her name is excluded per WP:BLPNAME. The fact that her name has been published is irrelevant and in fact had already been published when consensus was reached. TFD (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the name was already published, but per above, it's now been publicly said by her own relatives. I don't know if the previous publishing of the name was authorized by the family. Up the Walls (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not release of her name was authorized by the family has absolutely nothing to do with the criteria established by WP:BLPNAME. IOW nothing has changed since consensus was reached. TFD (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that Family of Joe Biden now includes the name, but you neglected to mention that you personally added it a few weeks ago. --Noren (talk) 05:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~You'll note that I added it to the list. As the edit summary says, it was already in the tree section of the article before I ever touched that article. Up the Walls (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Oppose naming non-notable minor children in this or any other article, and therefore support the consensus. Hunter's three oldest children are adults. His two youngest children should not be named. Frankly, I think that Naomi Biden is the only one who should be named, because she is notable. Cullen328 (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The US is not yet a monarchy. Let the child alone. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose The name of the child is WP:NOT and potentially dangerous for the minor child. -- Sleyece (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You violated page restrictions[edit]

You may be unaware, Sleyece, that you violated the active arbitration remedy of enforced WP:BRD on this page with this reversion of my reversion. See the top banners on this page for more detail. And the content you removed is cited with the WaPo article directly following it. I recommend you self-revert and seek consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And you were reverted by someone else. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not required to self-revert when you're reverting to keep half a sentence in the lead that had no source because you like reading it. Someone else reverted my revert, so I'm now subject to leave the opinionated information that has no source. -- Sleyece (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source is right there, like I said. You are required to follow BRD, which you did not. And it's not "opinionated", it's factual. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"In March 2022, The New York Times and The Washington Post reported that some of the emails found on the computer were authentic.[6][7]" Literally the next sentence --Sleyece (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You really should become better informed of the subject matter before editing the article. The authenticity of the device and the authenticity of the contents of the hard drive are \separate matters. Zaathras (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the accusation that I don't understand policy or that I do understand policy and am willfully ignorant of the subject? -- Sleyece (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're misapplying policy because you do not know the subject matter. So, a twofer. Zaathras (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're just mad that the paragraph is in the lead in the first place. It just seems like you're butt-hurt over the encyclopedic data cited in the article to me. -- Sleyece (talk) 02:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're getting needlessly antagonistic, and forgetting that the actual issue here was your "if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit" violation. Take a breath, have some tea, try again. Zaathras (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're leaving out a lot of contextual policy to make it seem like I violated something. I'm the only user getting attacked here and a lot of the basis is stuff about me not being able to "understand". Does any of it have to do with the fact that I shared that I have a genetic condition that affects the nervous system if left unchecked on my user page? What exactly am I being randomly bombarded for all of a sudden? -- Sleyece (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You did violate something, the editing restriction placed on this article. I have never viewed your userpage but if you're going to play the disability card, then this engagement ends here. Zaathras (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm playing the I dog-walked you on policy card. -- Sleyece (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is an accusation of impropriety against my character, I'd like to know the nature of it so I can respond. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If any user would like to make an official accusation against me, let's get to it. If not, that'll be all Chief. -- Sleyece (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]