Talk:Hunter Biden

Why was the discussion about naming Hunter's daughter closed?

Why was this discussion closed? The matter of Hunter Biden's daughter with Lunden Roberts was nowhere addressed in the discussion at SPECIFICO's talk, I could not find it. Please give me the exact lines where I can find the discussion about naming Hunter's daughter at SPECIFICO's talk page, or — to make things easier — just copy these passages here? —Menischt (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

This has already been explained to you. See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion was erroneously closed and there is no compelling reason to redact the name on this talk page. That being said, there is a strong argument against naming the child in the article per BLPNAME and specifically per note f. My understanding is that the daughter's name is mentioned in reliable sources rather rarely. It is obvious that the daughter is a non-notable person and it would be extremely difficult to argue the name should be mentioned in the article. Politrukki (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC) edited 13:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS is on you to find a reason to add a non-notable, living, minor, granddaughter to an encyclopedia. You have been asked for a rationale and have provided none. Instead, you came up with some nonsense about the "highest ranking members of Wikipedia". It has become really tiring to put up with conspiracy theories and attempts to attack people because of relatives. The supposed sins of the father's father should not be visited on the daughter or vice-versa. Leave her alone. (And, I think it should also be redacted here.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Both Beau and little Navy Joan are "significant family members", see Family of Joe Biden#Grandchildren. Navy Joan has received significant media coverage. Moreover, when Karine Jean-Pierre needs to field questions about her at a press conference, she's hardly a "loosely involved, otherwise low-profile person". Magnolia677 (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I really don't care where the name is or isn't mentioned, if it is already being name-dropped in the Biden family tree, then I don't see a strong argument to exclude it here. But to say that a 5 year-old has received "significant media coverage" is a bit absurd. What coverage that exists is a just mention of the child's name in the context of her parentage, that is all. Zaathras (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The BLP policy is clear. There is no reason to add her name to the article. TFD (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

BLPNAME is quite clear: her name should not be mentioned in this article. Her actual name is not relevant to an understanding of what matter for Hunter here; also, special care should be taken since she is a non-notable child who is involved in something relatively contentious. However, her existence, her mother, and relevant legal proceedings around her can be included if due for Hunter Biden's biography -- as it is now. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 03:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Please explain to me why Hunter Biden's son Beau (born in March 2020, not his brother) is notable and mentioned by name in the article Melissa Cohen Biden but his daughter Navy Joan (born in August 2018) is not? I tried to insert the name into both articles and the name Navy Joan was deleted in both articles but the name of his son Beau was not. You are clearly establishing a double standard here. All this fuss about the name his daughter Navy Joan but no problem with the name of his son.

The name of his 3-year-old son which is in the article Melissa Cohen Biden since the article was created is not a problem but the name of his 4-year-old daughter causes high ranking Wikipedia members to immediately intervene. There is one clear reason for this double standard: Joe and Hunter try to deny her existence ("six grandchildren") and left-leaning Wikipedia members here do everything to support this denial. Or why else is there such a double standard? —Menischt (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The is a violation of WP:AGF and WP:PA, as well as being absurd. I suggest that you strike it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

You have an interesting profile, Objective3000: You claim to be retired on Wikipedia but you still engage and you do so only on talk pages to fight for the left wing causes, see here: [1]. —Menischt (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Menischt, focus on content, not on contributors. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe Beau's name should be mentioned either for the same reasons. It's not important or relevant. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 20:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Menischt: I would like to add that you have my intentions wrong. I'm not a left-wing POV pusher, trying to create a double standard, or trying to protect the Biden's. I'm trying to shield a small child's name from being plastered on the internet for the whole world to see because of the circumstances of her life that she can not help at all. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 20:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The horse has bolted. Having her name on Wiki makes absolutely zero substantive difference when her name appears in media reporting at the level it already is.

Whatever privacy this person once has is no longer there to protect. We shouldn’t be censoring for the sake of pedantic rule-keeling when there isn’t any actual human benefit to the censorship Jack4576 (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Let's see if we get it. First editors post a child's identity in response to a policy-based effort not to publish it. Then it is repeated many times, and then you compare her to a 4-legged beast? Please stop. This thread is ripe to close and archive. SPECIFICO talk 14:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: "Close the stable door after the horse has bolted" is an English idiom which means that is is difficult to stop something that has already happened. Let's cut some slack, idioms like this are a dime a dozen. Hang in there. It's raining cats and dogs. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

No. See WP:BLP. The relevant weather reference would be WP:SNOW. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Its comically over-the-top to claim the idiom is 'comparing a child to a 4 legged beast'

User:SPECIFICO if you genuinely think using such an idiom is a BLP breach, you're not understanding the guidelines properly Jack4576 (talk) 04:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Jack: Stop misrepresenting other editors' words. SPECIFICO talk 11:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

You've claimed I 'compared a child to a 4 legged beast'. Then you claim I'm misrepresenting people. Baffling. Jack4576 (talk) 07:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the IP editor they were flipping out over, did you see my responses below? I tried to point out the miscoverage related to the recent whistle-blower allegations surrounding Hunter and the lack of including any reference to those statements on this page and was immediately shutdown with strawman-like dissent. Thank you for trying to point out the lack on important information on these articles, but unfortunately for us both this seems to be a losing battle. I'm only saying these things as a concerned reader, I'm not an editor by any means but clearly something is wrong here. 174.218.1.114 (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

There's your problem, there is no "battle", just a discussion based on Wikipedia policies where consensus is against you. That we're still going on about this shows you're not being "shut down". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

What about the "concensus" discussions Hunter's daughter being deleted? That is not discussion, that is belligerent censorship. 174.218.1.114 (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, where content is (somewhat) curated - it's not a record where every single piece of information about anything can be found. That's not "censorship" - it's thoughtful "curation." Put simply, wikipedia articles include information that wikipedia editors want them to include, as long as all material is compliant with the policies and guidelines. If you want to see material in an article, become an editor, and put it in - but DO abide by the Ps & Gs. Of which there are many. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

What about it? That consensus is overwhelming, and the discussion cites lots of policy. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

So that merits deletion? Citing policies and discussing consensus, like how a concensus is suppose to operate and yet an editor who was actively participating is said discussion raises concerns on how the discussion was deleted shortly after the fact? I'm starting to sense a pattern here. It's small things like this incident and other things like the WAPO article describing the source siting itself as the predominant source throughout the entire article that raises a lot of questions in some folk about the integrity of this organization as a whole at this point. 174.240.23.126 (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

raises a lot of questions in some folk about the integrity of this organization as a whole at this point. Why would we care about those folks? This is an encyclopedia. We are not trying to pander to some folks. There is no way to make everyone happy. We will continue to follow our policies and consensus. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

WP does pander, which is why I will longer support it. Ya don't listen to your critics and potential editors. This is now WP as I knew it. Some sort of biased uber-editors with high privileges are in control - not the truth. Signed 2600:6C48:7006:200:5C10:C716:750B:C3B2 (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

RfC about including the name of Hunter Biden's daughter

The following discussion 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.

---

Should the name of Hunter Biden's daughter be mentioned in the article? Magnolia677 (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support - Biden's daughter, Navy Joan, meets the criteria of a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Her name, and details about her, have been published in "a multitude of reliable published sources". As well, WP:BLPNAME does not apply because Navy Joan's name has appeared in multiple, unrelated news events:

Forbes mentioned her name in Hunter's child support case last month.

The Toronto Sun mentioned her name in a report about White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre fielding questions from reporters about why Joe Biden will not acknowledge Navy Joan as his granddaughter.

Magnolia677 (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

That is not what the bit you cited in WP:PUBLICFIGURE means; the bit you quoted is covering accusations against public figures, not about what defines whether someone is a public figure or not. The definition of a public figure vs. a low-profile one is in WP:LOWPROFILE. --Aquillion (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Aquillion: You have misinterpreted the policy, and shoving your comment right to the top of the discussion is not appropriate. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Since the suitability of including the name is the subject of this discussion, would you consider removing her name from your comment here? It doesn't seem necessary to the argument you're making. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 22:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Personally I don't think this is an important enough thing to merit redacting. The child's name is mentioned 17 times on this talk page, are you going to want to strike them all out? Zaathras (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they should all be stricken. Why on Earth is it mentioned 17 times when everyone knows who we are talking about? And, the repeated statement that it is everywhere in the media is false. It is everywhere in the right-wing echo chamber and conspiracy theory sites. But, they will move on to other nonsense. (RFK now says Covid was designed to exclude Chinese and Jews.) There really are not that many mentions in mainstream sources -- and they will all fade away with time. This TP in an encyclopedia will be publicly archived and will be here when she is a teen. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

"Right-wing echo chamber and conspiracy theory sites"? The New York Times is a reliable source; it would never spread false information about something related to Hunter. Let's stay on topic and keep it real. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

1. I said rarely, not never. 2. The name was in an op-ed, not news. 3. Where did I say anything like the name being "false"? Yes, Let's stay on topic and keep it real. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The name was in the op-ed. the story about that name was in an at-length feature piece

O3000, Ret i’m concerned that you’re displaying a lack of objectivity here. we’re not here to play blind-side for the DNC, and I hope you’re remembering that Jack4576 (talk) 11:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

This is about the name. It was NOT in the NYTimes news article written by another person in another issue. Are you suggesting this was some sort of game the NYTimes was playing? I have no problem with the NYTimes or anyone else publishing the story. I have a problem with a blameless, 4-year-old's name in a news article. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the DNC. Nothing. Zero. It has to do with a 4-year-old child. You should strike your WP:PA and WP:AGF O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• Weak Support - (summoned by bot) Generally feel that we should be cautious about naming minors in situations like this. That said, WP:WELLKNOWN probably applies. NickCT (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The DUE coverage is that he has a young child out of wedlock, not that their name is XYZ. I don't think this child is a public figure; even Forbes only mentions her name once and otherwise calls her "the child," reflecting that people don't know who she is. I'm not a fan of falling prey to tabloid level coverage of all the sordid details of Hunter's transgressions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: First, the coverage of Navy Joan originates from two distinct news items; this was mentioned in my example above. You write, "I don't think this child is a public figure". Could you explain why you think that, with regard to specific policy? Second, you write, "I'm not a fan of falling prey to tabloid level coverage". Forbes is considered a generally reliable source, per WP:FORBES. Could you explain why you feel Forbes is a "tabloid"? Magnolia677 (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

First, it's WP:WELLKNOWN, which evinces our general practice to protect unknown individuals from invasive coverage of them. A little girl who has done nothing aside from be born to a famous man falls under that criterion. Second, even reputable publications can fall prey to the demands of the media environment. I didn't say it was a tabloid, I said the coverage was tabloid level. I.e., it is salacious gossip of little substantive value. Plenty of children are born out of wedlock. The only reason people care that Hunter has a daughter out of wedlock is because he is the President's son. Therefore, the DUE coverage is that he has a daughter out of wedlock, not her name. As a comparison, I point out Elon Musk's article. Man has minimum of ten kids, whose names you can easily find in tabloid level coverage. But we only include the names of 1.5 of his kids, mostly cus he named one of them some absurd symbols. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: Where in WP:WELLKNOWN does it say "our general practice to protect unknown individuals from invasive coverage of them"? That policy specifically says, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article." To that end, this article in The Daily Telegraph provides details of how the son of the sitting US president will be providing paintings to help support his daughter. The article mentions Navy Joan six times. How is this "salacious gossip of little substantive value"? Magnolia677 (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Because she is four years old and not notable. Her name is unimportant. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

its about her treatment by a prominent political family

the story has moved on from the wedlock issue Jack4576 (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Weak Support As others have said, even though she is a minor, she has received enough coverage in reliable sources to warrant a mention. Such as The Times, Forbes, and Telegraph. I'm a bit conflicted because she is really young, but I feel she is notable enough. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The question asked here is the wrong question, the the much more fundamental question is if a double standard should used or not, see the RfC below. I plead for not using a double standard! —Menischt (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, per CaptainEek. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is a very young child who is to blame for nothing. What does her name add to this encyclopedia article other than to tell the world the circumstances of her birth? As if bullying isn't enough of a problem in schools. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose – So far I have not seen a citation to a reliable source for this. If someone wants to provide one I would look at it. GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@GA-RT-22: I provided two reliable sources, and User:Grumpylawnchair provided three. Which of these do you consider unreliable? Magnolia677 (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The child should not be named per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. We should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. Here, the material relevant to the person's notability in relation to this article does not include their name. Therefore, we should exercise restraint and not include the name. The child is clearly not a public figure. WP:PUBLICFIGURE does not define public figure, but does link the Wikipedia page. In the United States, a public figure is "a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs." The child is neither a public official, nor involved in public affairs. The child's parents are both probably public figures, but that status is not WP:inherited. We should exercise restraint here, per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. Especially considering this is about the privacy of a living minor child of public figures. Finally, WP:BLPNAME says it is generally interpreted by the community to include the removal of names of non-notable minors from articles about their notable family members, such as when a notable individual births or sires a non-notable minor. You can only argue it doesn't apply if you don't read the footnote. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The footnote is there so editors don't add the names of movie star's babies. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The daughter is clearly notable, so BLPNAME doesn't apply. Ortizesp (talk) 03:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per CaptainEek and my comments in the above discussion. Her name is not relevant to the understanding of the issues regarding Hunter Biden and a violation of BLPNAME. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 20:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual: "A low-profile individual is a person, usually notable for only one event, who has not sought public attention." The subject obviously is not responsible for being Hunter Biden's child and therefore her privacy should be respected. Also, providing her name provides no useful information about her since she has no notability beyond being Hunter Biden's daughter, unlike Joe Biden who has notability beyond being Hunter Biden's father. IOW the article must name Hunter Biden's father in order to be informative, but not his daughter. TFD (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: this is not acceptable, for reasons outlined by Tryptofish, the Four Deuces, and others. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment There really isn't a point to this rfc if the larger problem is inconsistency across the project. There are 14 children listed by name at Bush family that are 12 or younger, 4 of those age 3 or younger, all of them with their exact day/month/year provided. Zaathras (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Hundreds of articles could be impacted, such as Patrick J. Kennedy#Personal life and family and Chelsea Clinton#Personal life, where the names and birth dates of children are listed. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment There's more, Boris Johnson, Barbara Bush, Meghan Markle .. the list goes on? -- Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Strong support, the daughter is named in notable articles, and notable in and of herself. The names of various other folk are included in similar situations. BLPNAME and PUBLICFIGURE don't apply due to significant coverage. Ortizesp (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support: The name of the a POTUS's grandchild is notable information and this has been widely reported. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support because nobody cared about sharing the names of presidents' minor relatives until one became personally embarrassing for Joe Biden two days ago. This project should not flex its rules to carry water for politicians whom the project's back-office addicts like. Townlake (talk) 04:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don't know what you mean by back-office addicts. And, I don't see how the situation is personally embarrassing to the grandfather. Further, I can't imagine how the child's name makes an iota of difference to Joe Biden. Is her name Let's Go Brandon? But, the child's name in an encyclopedia in a sentence saying she was born out of wedlock to a drug addict makes a difference to the four year-old child just now at the beginning of life's journey. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Objective3000: If the parent of the child was not a recovering drug addict, and the child was born to a married couple, such as the children at Patrick J. Kennedy#Personal life and family, would that be ok? Or should these kids' names be removed as well? Magnolia677 (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see the purpose of names of minors who are not notable for their own actions at all. But, that has zero to do with my position. What I am saying is that this child is an innocent who is about to enter the slings and arrows of her school days, which in the US are fraught with social media bullying and suicides. Why would we do this to her? What has she done to deserve this? And for what value? What does her name add to this article? The tabloid like articles by some irresponsible sources will quickly fade. An encyclopedia is permanent. With freedom of the press comes responsibility. Frankly speaking, I personally think this borders on child abuse. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons." WWGB (talk) 11:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - It is a child's name, who is in no way at all a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Mentions of her name in sources does not make her a public figure as others have argued. Related to a public figure, of course, but not a public figure herself. The article goes into full detail about her birth and the paternity suit, so her existence isn't being censored here, despite arguments to the contrary. The argument about other grandchildren's names is different, while also not public figures, their names and details are being published by the White House and Biden family, her's is not. She herself isn't putting herself or her name out their for the public, her mother isn't putting her name out there, and her paternal family isn't putting it out there. It only is media coverage putting her name out there in relation to Hunter Biden and Joe Biden. There is no need to name her here. WikiVirusC^(talk) 12:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support including the president of the United States grandchildren names should not be forbidden, this presents a significant double standard. If editors feel the details around this child's lineage are WP:UNDUE, I suggest making that argument at RFC instead. -- Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• Question. Is the outcome of this RfC relevant to the existence of Navy Joan Roberts? WWGB (talk) 12:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  So what's the next step? We follow her around with a camera? O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose — of course her name shouldn't be included. Agree with CaptainEek — Because she is four years old and not notable. Her name is unimportant. And additionally, just because reliable sources reported her name, doesn't mean we are required to do the same.— Isaidnoway (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support conditionally - she's been covered in the mainstream media. People are going to go looking for her. I recommend a terse mention and then leave it at that. I also recommend creating a redirect page (Navy Joan Roberts) that redirects to the relationships section of Hunter's page.

For instance, in the relationships section, where it says:

"Biden also has another daughter, born in August 2018 in Arkansas to Lunden Alexis Roberts."

insert "Navy," after the words "another daughter". Don't even include the rest of her name.

This avoids a double standard. It's both minimal and discreet for the child's sake while also not feeding the narrative that Wikipedia is censored or biased. That censorship issue is especially touchy considering the heat that Wikipedia and Commons have historically taken over inappropriate editing and images that sexualize children. "You mean they allow all that sick stuff but you can't even mention Hunter's daughter"

Also, this will partially head off some people making their own, more inflammatory additions.

It's the right thing to do, both for the child and our own editorial values.

A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per CaptainEek. She is not notable. Her name is not important for the understanding of the article. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 00:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support - care needs to be taken to ensure any material is BLP compliant. Her featuring prominently on the NYT in op-ed’s and in a feature piece makes her a public figure, which warrants inclusion.

Editors that make the claim she’s not famous ‘for anything she’s done’ miss the point. She’s prominent due to her family and status, and her story has captured the public imagination.

I’m also frankly a little disturbed by the idea that editors seem to be of the view that discussion of her life is shameful or embarrassing or would cause her harm. There is nothing shameful about being born out of wedlock, and we shouldn’t be perpetuating these kinds of moral norms by erasing information about people on the weak presumption that it is ‘shameful’. Including a small amount of text on Wikipedia couldn’t reasonably seen as perpetuating harm… she’s on the front page of the NYT, the horse has bolted, she doesn’t have privacy anymore. Such is the case for many family members of world leaders. Jack4576 (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

We do not use op-eds. We most certainly are not saying being born out of wedlock is shameful. Show me one single editor who has said anything approaching that. But, the fact that millions of people believe it is, is most certainly not a weak presumption. In some places, it can still be a death sentence. Frankly, I do not understand your continuing efforts to put this 4-year-old's name in an encyclopedia. Spelling out her name adds nothing whatsoever to the article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

When an editor claims a simple explanation of a person’s life story is an ‘attack’, despite there being no information about their life at all excepting for circumstances of their birth; then by implication, that editor is claiming that the circumstances of a person’s birth are so negative such that to merely note them is to be in and of itself, an attack. I don’t think so. I don’t think any of this person’s life story reflects negatively upon her or is embarrassing or shameful for her

We don’t use op-ed’s as a RS for claims made within an op-ed. We can however use an op-ed as a primary source to merely note the fact that a op-ed did happen. It’s worthy of note that an op-ed was written about this person at all

I think spelling her name does add something, it tells the reader who is curious about who Hunter Biden’s relations the name of those relations. I don’t think there is any harm in adding it. Privacy is a moot point as she is already the prominent subject of news media. I don’t understand why editors want her name off here, at this point she’s a public figure; and isn’t this what we do regularly on Wikipedia ? write information about public figures ? Why is this person an exception ?

Jack4576 (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

You still don't get it. No one here is saying anything about her is negative. What we are saying is that many of our readers take these things as negative. Why do you think the right-wing press has pushed this story so hard? And, it is not worthy of note that an op-ed was written. And, she is NOT a Public figure. She doesn't even know what it means and, given her age, has never read anything. And she is not a prominent subject. I subscribe to the NYT, WSJ, and Barron's and listen to news in the background most of the day -- and I never heard of her before this page. And, in an encyclopedia, Privacy is a moot point are words that should never be uttered. And why must you keep repeating the name of this 4-year-old, innocent child, as if no one here knows who you are talking about. Please reread the comments made in the AfD of your article attempt. They should be instructive. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

1) Since when do we care if some readers take this thing as a negative. We’re not here to right great wrongs. I don’t think the fact that some readers would do so is relevant

2) Multiple reasons, with one of the biggest reasons the right wing press has pushed this story being because how the presidential family treats their relation says something about the values of that family

3) Subjects don’t need to know they are public figures to be public figures. It doesn’t matter if she’s young or can’t read

4) She is prominent. I’m surprised you claim to be a NYT subscribed and have never heard of her. She’s already been the focused subject of a lengthy NYT op-ed, as well as a feature piece; both in the last 2 weeks. She features prominently in other outlets too.

5) Privacy is a moot point is a reasonable thing to say about someone who is in no plausible way going to have their privacy affected by a wikipedia article. She already has zero privacy due to being the subject of multiple NYT articles. Wikipedia can’t disturb a person’s privacy if they no longer have any in the first place. (at least if we’re only relying on SIRS, as we should be). What you’re saying is akin to saying we should respect the privacy of princess Diana.

6) Why is the name of this person a problem. Many people already know their name, it’s easily Google’able, I find this ‘think of the innocent children’ stance a bit much

7) Some of the words at that discussion were instructive. Most were hyperbolic, and I suspect driven by my unintentional walking into a U.S. Politics buzzsaw. I did take to heart some of the feedback I received afterwards from users Liz and A.B. afterwards regarding it. Jack4576 (talk) 01:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: to the editors saying ‘why is she a public figure? she’s just an out of wedlock child to Hunter’

I disagree, the story has moved on from that now.

Recent coverage has been about the girl’s treatment by the presidential family; including whether or not she is accepted as a member of the family. This is a matter that many of the public care about. Understandably really, as the coverage has discussed the meaning of her acceptance (or lack thereof) and what that says about the values of the presidential family

This is what has captured the imagination and made her a public figure.

It’s a little bit akin to saying “Diana was just a royal! she didn’t do anything famous herself, why all this attention when she died??”. Some people capture the public imagination because their treatment seems to tell us something about the values of other important people. Jack4576 (talk) 01:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Are you seriously comparing this to Diana? O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I think the situations are very comparable actually.

Both involve the capture of the public imagination due to the perceived mistreatment of someone relatable by a powerful family

It’s really not that far-fetched a comparison.

“are you seriously” … I mean, please. Jack4576 (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you need to rethink your position here. This was not a front page story in the NYTimes. It was an op-ed, an opinion piece, on the next to last page in section A. It was about a letter Maureen Dowd received from her sister, not a news story. Yes, the right-wing media picked this up, which is not surprising as they have been constantly bashing Hunter and Joe Biden. Chuck Todd, long time moderator of Meet the Press, said it was ugly for Republicans to exploit Hunter Biden's personal problems. The mainstream press and reliable sources have said little about this. You are now comparing her to Princess Di. Over 60 books have been written and ten movies and documentaries produced about Princess Di. She traveled the world representing Queen Elizabeth II at functions of the royal family, was heavily involved with charity work, help changed the attitudes about AIDS, and was a fashion icon in the 80s and 90s. The Encyclopedia Britannica calls her one of the foremost celebrities of her day. You are building Mt. Everest out of a molehill. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The NYT's op-eds are the most prominent op-eds in the world

I think your arguments would be better served by conceding the point that NYT op-eds are extremely prominent. Your argument minimising the reach of those columns is self-evidently is (respectfully) pretty ridiculous

I do think the political narrative is analogous to Princess Di, insofar as it is a story about acceptance or lack thereof within a prominent family for reasons of 'legitimacy'

I am not saying this has the same level of coverage as Princess Di, of course not. All I'm saying is that its in the same narrative genre

For that reason, I disagree with editors claiming this is a 'mere smear'. It is not. It is a family story that has captured the public imagination; that just so happens to coincidentally have been picked up by the right-wing press for quite cynical political reasons.

However, the right-wing cynicism does not explain this story's prominence and resonance outside of those circles; and especially it does not explain the story's prominence in the New York Times. Jack4576 (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per CaptainEek. This level of coverage in RSs would most likely be sufficient to include a name if she was an adult, or perhaps if she was a teenager who was proactively seeking publicity. That is assuredly not the case here given the young age, and the mere inclusion of her name isn't necessary to communicate the important facts of why this is important for Hunter Biden, the actual subject of this article. In this case it is better to defer to the privacy concerns for now. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per TFD, Drmies, Patar and others. If the child is truly "notable" people should make a separate article for her and argue the merits there. Right now her name is incidental to the need to know Hunter has a daughter and there has been coverage of the relationship. Articles like Family of Joe Biden, List of children of vice presidents of the United States and List of children of presidents of the United States are equally problematic for the record. Koncorde (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  It seems there was an article on the subject, and the consensus for deletion mentioned a number of times that the subject being covered at all was likely more appropriate here, on the Hunter Biden BLP. -- Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

And the matter is covered here, without needing to name the child. WWGB (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

And note that instead of the common seven days for an AfD, it took three hours with several comments on how appalling it was to have such an article about a 4-year-old child. Indeed, it was a G10 deletion: Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose. We need to stop abusing this child. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The above was kind of my point. This is a very niche subject in a niche article about a niche person person related to a niche event. Koncorde (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:LPNAME. It is very noteworthy that Hunter Biden has a child, but the actual kid is not notable in herself. She's relevant for a minor part of a saga in Hunter's life, but otherwise out of the direct spotlight. She's named in newspapers as the kids of famous people generally are. But Wikipedia takes a stricter view on privacy than newspapers do: The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. Endwise (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  Obviously that doesn't apply to this talk page though. Don't really know why it's being argued that we should be forbidden from mentioning it even here. Articles are forever and the product of the encyclopedia; talk pages are our space, and her name will not be made any more public than it already is by being mentioned in this niche chatroom on the internet read by almost no one. Endwise (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  Well, keep in mind that article talk pages are permanently stored in a public archive and fall under WP:BLP. Seems to me it's obvious to us who we are talking about without repeating her name. Common etiquette, if nothing else. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think we censor on Wikipedia on the basis of 'common etiquette', generally speaking

  The name's presence in a niche Wikipedia archive is pretty moot when their name already features prominently in the worlds most high-profile news media Jack4576 (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  And of those three readers in the next century who dig through the talk page archives, maybe one of them might stumble upon her name, who knows. But I think what's an arguable matter for editorial discretion in article space is generally okay here, as it would be other debatable material on a BLP. Minor point but regarding it being obvious, Hunter actually has 4 daughters, so you do actually need a decent bit of context to know who "Hunter Biden's daughter" refers to. Endwise (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: (cross-posted from a thread at Talk:Family of Joe Biden) I've done a lot of reading this morning. IMHO this is the Obama tan suit controversy writ large. The tabloid press must have something to rant about, and they've latched onto this unfortunate child because they don't have any substantive arguments against the current president's policies, and the previous Hunter Biden smears weren't sticking. That's coatracking. This is a story about how corporate media in a maniacal search for profit uses preconception and resentment to frame a false narrative against a quasi-public figure. They'd be doing it against anybody close to the current White House if it gets them pageviews. This is pointing a camera into a toilet, calling it stinky, and charging folks to see the photo. This concocted narrative is entirely about winning elections in 2024, not about any sense of well-being for the child. BusterD (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@BusterD: Some of the sources cited in this RfC are Forbes and The New York Times. Do you consider these "tabloid press"? This topic was brought up last week at a White House press conference. How is reporting on that "pointing a camera in a toilet"? Magnolia677 (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:FORBESCON is utter rubbish. The Times is better but only because of scale. They too must point their cameras in the same toilet because that's what the modern news audience demands. BusterD (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

How did you come to the conclusion that the writer of the Forbes article was a contributor and not staff? From what I can tell, Sara Dorn, the author, is a staff writer. -- Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Any former employee of NewsCorp is suspect, as far as I'm concerned. BusterD (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you should have – for the sake of transparency – directly disclosed here that you were the one who previously closed the AFD about the child. Politrukki (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

That's correct. I'm sorry for not saying so upfront. I was the speedy closer of the AfD on the minor subject in question. I'm not sure I qualify as involved. I have no editing history on this or any other recent presidential article or sub-article, and generally I avoid directly editing modern political articles. I saw an editor's urgent request for admin help on another admin's talk page and I stuck my nose in, deciding that the discussion was clearly in favor of deletion on BLP grounds. I acted urgently myself, perhaps even rashly. I'm willing to accept criticism for speedy deleting the article of a minor child, if such critique is offered. Since that time I've been at keyboard for very brief periods. Thanks for calling me out. BusterD (talk) 02:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, since the entire premise here is incorrect and based on a flat misreading of policy; she clearly fails the criteria for a public figure per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, and WP:LOWPROFILE. This is almost a textbook case for that policy, since she is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event - the idea that she could be considered a public figure is flatly absurd and would negate the purpose of that policy if taken seriously. We don't name people who unequivocally fail PUBLICFIGURE so casually, especially in a context where there is no conceivable value to including her name. Note also WP:BLPNAME, which specifically says that When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories; the misguided and groundless-in-policy arguments that people have made, above, in order to try and strip away this individual's WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE protections all rely on brief mentions in news media, which WP:BLP specifically instructs us to disregard even before you get to the fact that no reasonable interpretation of policy could conclude that this is anything but a low-profile individual. --Aquillion (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The daughter is non-notable low-profile individual who has not sought attention. Per BLPNAME a significant family member can be named "if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject". I don't see how the name would be necessary for "complete understanding" in this case. (Then again, I'm not aware of any real case where naming would be necessary for "complete understanding".) Politrukki (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The sourcing provided so far is slim (Forbes and an op-ed). The presumption against naming a living non-notable minor should be high. I don't mind saying that I'm less likely to support mentioning a minor when the context of the mention could be harmful. I don't see that as a double standard, just prudence. Though not applicable directly, the spirit of this is in parts of BLP policy like WP:BLPCRIME: we're more sensitive to naming when the context is negative. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, there are definitely more sources. The Times and The Telegraph have already been mentioned. I would add Hindustan Times, The Independent, Elle magazine, and Reason ("The Volokh Conspiracy" blog) to name a few. Jake Tapper mentioned the name on CNN discussing Dowd's op-ed that received much attention. The number of reliable sources that do name the daughter is still very low compared to all sources covering the topic. Jonathan Adler in Reason mentioned that Roberts wanted the child to bear the Biden name (this was later settled outside the court, against using the Biden name, if I'm not mistaken) and that "Roberts had previously sought to protect their daughter's privacy by redacting her name and identifying information from court filings", which is now moot. Politrukki (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  Is that from the Hindustan Times Arkansas bureau or from wire sources? One can always google a bit of text and find the few sources that mention it. That's how google is supposed to work. Google is not editing an encyclopedia, nor is it bound by WP's BLP, among other policies here. SPECIFICO talk 17:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Just two days ago, the usually left-leaning USA Today attacked grandpa for campaigning on "decency", but refusing to acknowledge little Navy Joan, who was mentioned three times in the article. Sad that people can be so heartless. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

First time I've ever heard anyone call USA Today left-leaning. Even ignoring that the article author is a self-described conservative and tweets show her anti-Biden position.[2] And watch it with the word "heartless". Biden is still covered by WP:BLP. (Assuming you weren't referring to people who want a 4-year-old's name in here.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks, Politrukki. I struck that part of my comment.

• Oppose - I understand the story is all over the news cycle now, so it feels important and urgent, but that should make us really think upon WP:10YT - "In ten or twenty years will this addition still appear relevant?" I feel the need to be cautious, especially since it's a minor child involved in something scandalous. While it's not a crime, I feel that same kind of care should be taken. WP:Gossip if you will. BLP, Crime - all of these guidelines asking us to be considerate of the privacy of people who are alive. Just because we know her name doesn't mean we have to include it. I might feel differently if she were an adult, and the story persists and continues to be talked about as a part of the president's legacy. Maybe we should ban adding any news that isn't at least X old. Denaar (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see why we need to include the name, I think a mention of offspring is fine, as long as it is generic. I do understand policy and I would agree with Aquillion in the assessment that this is a case of WP:LOWPROFILE. With minors I do believe that we should use WP:BLP protections. MaximusEditor (talk) 01:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons laid out by CaptainEek and TulsaPoliticsFan; she is not notable (notability is not inherited) and there is no encyclopedic value gained by adding her name. WP:BLPNAME clearly covers this in its second paragraph (The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects). The arguments that other politicians have non-notable children's names listed is not convincing; they should likely be removed in many if not all of those cases as well. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 22:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Spelling out her name adds nothing whatsoever to the article, but represents a grossly insensitive invasion of a 4-year old's privacy IMO. Pincrete (talk) 09:37, 16 July 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.

@SPECIFICO: Could you please explain your closing of the above RfC after five days? The snowball test states that "If an issue is run through some process and the resulting decision is unanimous, then it might have been a candidate for the snowball clause". How is this a "snow", with 9 editors in support and 23 editors opposed? Also, the instructions at WP:RFC specifically call for an "uninvolved editor" to close discussions. You commented in the RfC? Magnolia677 (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed their strong and emotive language would suggest they were particularly WP:involved in the RFC. Agree this was a bad close, 9:23 isn't necessarily a snowball when only 5 days have passed. Things weren't necessarily heading in either direction as the most recent 10 comments show, even of 'oppose' seemed a probable outcome Jack4576 (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The RFC (about inclusion) was initiated at 16:52, 11 July 2023, the last bolded support assertion was at 13 July 2023, 32 hours into the discussion. Since that datestamp, nobody has supported inclusion, not in the last oppose assertion at 09:37, 16 July 2023 (80 hours later) or SPECIFICO's closure at 13:48, 16 July 2023 (4 hours after that). There's a very high standard for inclusion on BLPs, urgency in such disagreements IS an issue, and the discussion is clearly against the include position. SNOWBALL was the correct close on this BLP-related discussion. You can seek closure review if you'd like... BusterD (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Things weren't necessarily heading in either direction as the most recent 10 comments show is an odd claim, as the most recent ten top-level comments are all opposed. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 20:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I am only seeing this after the RFC close but Wikipedia must be careful about legal issues around BLP and privacy. There's no encyclopedic value to adding this child's name and many legal and ethical reasons to stay on the right side of this line and I believe that Wikipedia's policies create a strong consensus against doing so. Jorahm (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Let’s not restart the debate here. Jack4576 (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• Jack4576 has now taken this to Family of Joe Biden. He selected a cite of an op-ed, the opinion of one person, containing her name. I see no reason to include an op-ed or the opinion of any one person unrelated to the family. Indeed, we normally would not even include the opinion of a psychologist who had not interviewed the persons. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  ?

  I’ve done no such thing. This is a discussion about whether or not the granddaughters name should appear on Wikipedia

  My edits respect this RfC and don’t mention her name

  So what if a source mentions their name. It’s not being relied upon for that reason. It’s a source for a separate issue; the family relationship and media coverage Jack4576 (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  You did exactly as I said. And reinstated after a revert. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  My edits didn’t mention her name, only mentioned the controversy regarding Joe’s relationship with that granddaughter Jack4576 (talk) 10:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't say you did. Would you read a post before responding? O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Given that the above discussion is about the mention of her name, I did not take "this" to that page Jack4576 (talk) 11:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I received a bot request to comment but have arrived too late and the discussion has been closed. I have, however, read through everything and put in my own tuppence worth here in case the subject is revisited in some form. I would have supported inclusion of the child's name. Children of notable subjects are routinely named in articles without themselves being notable. The child in question is not unknown in spite of being very young; on the contrary she is more famous than many notable people the subject of Wikipedia articles. Her prominence extends from her connection to a sitting president who is facing legitimate questions about the consistency of his public asserted family values (whether or not one agrees with the thrust of those questions), and as the daughter of a person of high prominence; but it also extends from the specifics of her own case. There is no meaningful breach of confidentiality since the name is included in thousands of readily available articles. Finally, a note from the UK here; and I do not write this in earnest and not in jest. Boris Johnson, the former UK prime minister has fathered a fairly large number of children to a number of partners. It is often speculated, quite legitimately, that there may be others as yet unknown (perhaps even to him!). Such discussion is often entirely legitimate and follows a clear public interest. The different cases could only be discussed in each case by naming the child referred to. I think this has some read across to this case. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Boris Johnson was a PM. Hunter Biden has never held or sought public office. Try as I might, I cannot find these thousands of articles. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Hunter's lack of desire for public office bears no relevance to the question of whether or not he is a public figure. Jack4576 (talk) 11:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

It was obviously in response to Emmentalist's analogy, if you don't mind. As for his existence i nhe public eye, this is mostly due to constant claims of illegal activity fueled DJT's repeated claims that there is a "Biden crime family", a Mafia reference, not borne out by investigation no matter how some try. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I think your view on this issue might be overly narrow if you think that it is 'mostly' because of public attacks by DJT. He has other reasons for being publicly prominent. I think most people recognise that Jack4576 (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

RfC on using a double standard on Hunter Biden's young children

The following discussion 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.

---

Should a double standard on mentioning Hunter Biden's two young children be avoided? —Menischt (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Malformed RfC. The RfC question is non-neutral, and assumes a preferred outcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Improper RfC. It declares that there is a double standard and is therefore not neutral. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• The question above is also improper, that's the problem! I asked this question here to make clear that both questions are improper. Read the discussion above! Using different standards for two very young children, in light of the question that the existence of one of them is denied by the president ("six grandchildren") and his son, is the problem. This question is more fundamental than a question that can be solved just by opinion, in the same way as the question if bias is okay or not is not just a question of opinion. —Menischt (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• Denying the name of a person is an attack on the core of the existence of this person like deadnaming a transperson. —Menischt (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  Please self-strike this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  The omission of naming of a non-notable minor is not at all like deadnaming a transgender individual. Not the same ballpark, league, or sport. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  User:Menischt you need to strike this, and take my advice, step away from this Talk page.

  Its not a meaningful analogy you've drawn and its a pretty provocative one too.

  I agree that its problematic to not name a person seemingly on the mere basis that their existence as a out-of-wedlock child is presumed shameful; but I don't at all think that is analagous to deadnaming a person. It is an entirely different issue with very different moral considerations. Jack4576 (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Closed as malformed per WP:RFCNEUTRAL EvergreenFir (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• Close as malformed per RFCNEUTRAL, RFCBEFORE, and it's redundant to the RfC above. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 20:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• Close as malformed per RFCNEUTRAL, RFCBEFORE, and it's redundant to the RfC above since anyone wanting to make this point is quite able to do so there. Pincrete (talk) 09:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
• Close as malformed - The RFC question doesn't appear to be 'neutral' based. GoodDay (talk) 14:00, 16 July 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.

Neutrality issues

I note that an IP editor has raised they are concerned about neutrality issues. It’s an important reminder to us all that we must remember WP:HERE, especially on contentious topics like the subject of this article that is a high-profile person in the political cycle Jack4576 (talk) 23:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

You're just restating the same, tired issues as the reverted IP editor did. Keep reading a little further down from your link, and review WP:NOTHERE. Zaathras (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

If it’s a tired issue it’s because it remains relevant

It is clearly a WP:HERE thing to raise and remind people why we’re here. Doing so is not WP:NOTHERE Jack4576 (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

We have a constant stream of one-edit, flyby editors with "concerns" about "neutrality" because, for example, we don't talk about the child labor camps on Mars or tap water makes children gay. It is important to remember that this is an encyclopedia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the removal of a major news cycle story about the Biden family; and resistance toward that story’s inclusion, is indicative of neutrality issues

O3000 your hyperbole only detracts from the point you seem to be trying to make. I’d encourage you to speak less hyperbolically both in respect of this page and also other topics Jack4576 (talk) 00:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Nothing I said was hyperbolic. The IP's nonsense was deleted by an admin. Did you see what the IP editor posted on the admin's TP in response, deleted by another admin? This is what it is like here. And you are not helping. Every family has some personal problems. We don't really know the story here, other than the mother sued with the help of one of Trump's lawyers and there was a fallout. This is NOT a major news cycle. It is barely mentioned in reliable sources, yet you keep pushing it. It is you falling for the hyperbole in the media and insisting on bringing it to three articles that is the problem. This is an encyclopedia, not a scandal sheet. Stop degrading it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

In fairness, comments like child labor camps on Mars or tap water makes children gay are hyperbolic. Unfortunately, nonsense statements like the Clinton campaign grooms children in the basement of the Comet Ping-Pong are very real ones that we do get on these talk pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I've seen editors defend these on Alex Jones/InfoWars, and RFK just pushed the water/gay/trans nonsense. And the funny thing about Comet is it has no basement. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair point. All talk pages were created equally, but they don't always end up the same. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Yep. And that requires vigilance. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Given the timing of this post, I presume that it's in reference to this, the previous edit on this talk page? That IPs post was concern trolling, which is NOTHERE behavior. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes that was the IP i’m talking about. I wouldn’t so readily conclude it is concern trolling, but I can’t speak for that editor to defend them against your aspersions

Regardless, it’s important that we uphold neutrality on this page given the prominence it’s likely to receive in the coming cycle; if nothing else, to uphold Wikipedia’s reputation as a source of lau information Jack4576 (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

When an IP complains about "community integrity" and "progressive political bias" without bringing one concrete example, we've got nothing to work with. We've been down that road over and over again, and WP:DENY is the only workable answer. We are continuing to uphold the 5P here and will continue to even after the election. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

You are now going beyond WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS and have proceeded to WP:CRYSTALBALLing. We are not trying to scoop some competition. We are not here to pander to the beliefs of all readers. Some "news" sites have fallen into that trap. We follow our policies and guidelines on neutrality to remain actually neutral -- not look like we are neutral. We do not worry about folks who think neutral means regurgitating what they hear on goofy sites. Patience is important. WP:NODEADLINE Think of the WP:10YT. This story will pass. We must continue. To keep the respect of those people who in the past actually bought physical encyclopedias, we must be careful to not fall into the traps that befall cub reporters calling the newsroom and yelling "stop the presses". O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

And now you have created yet another article about this Lunden Roberts. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Why is that an issue. She is notable, and she is an adult, and there appear to be parts of her biography that other editors regard as WP:UNDUE on this page Jack4576 (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

We will see if the community believes that she is notable at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lunden Roberts. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Wow! Some "articles" make it really hard to AGF. WWGB (talk) 03:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I was in process of removing that same edit but was beat to it while writing edit comment. The post doesn't even talk about Hunter Biden or this article's content. It was a general comment about Wikipedia in general and it doesn't randomly belong here. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I think this page has particularly bad neutrality issues. It omits major parts of Hunter’s life that a non-partisan reader would expect to see given the volume, prominence, and detail of coverage Jack4576 (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

The IP made no indication of that, which was point I was making and why it was removed. There are plenty of discussions about the content of article on talk page and archives. If someone randomly post about Wikipedia not being neutral, its gonna get removed every time. If they have a general point on neutrality of this article, they can bring it up and point out specifically what are referring to. Broad or vague statements with no detail and not even specific to this article statements are not helpful here. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok then, how about the fact that details surrounding the controversy of Hunter's recent prosecution as well as the continued laptop allegations, which are still ongoing and were not just a one time deal, are underrepresented on this article. Yet, to compare, Don Jr's article goes much more into the controversies surrounding the political fallout of actions related to his father in recent years. Both men are surrounded in deep controversy and should both have an equally expressive subheadings related to such. For instance, where is the subheading relating to the quite recent allegations by whistle-blowers of Hunter's involvement with CCP government individuals as reported by even NYT:https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/22/us/politics/hunter-biden-joe-business-deal.html , ABC (interview), CNN, NY Post, etc? In the least, this can be included in the subsection of the laptop controversy. 174.240.21.154 (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Don Jr's article is a nonsequitur. It is not relevant here. Address issues with Don Jr's page at Talk:Donald Trump Jr.. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm trying to give you what I belive would be a revelant example of undue bias in representation of these public figures, since you kindly asked. 174.240.21.154 (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

And I'm trying to tell you that whataboutisms don't work here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Claiming irrelevance in not a refute for a comparison of representation. Without even a comparison to Don, Hunter's article alone is under represented in including relevant current mainstream news surrounding a Public figure as large as Hunter. Same standard should be as is applied to Don, which was what I was pointing out, not the scale of issues but rather basic acknowledgement of them. Please do not turn this into a straw man argument and at least acknowledge the point I'm trying to present. I know I'm not an editor here on this site and that you do have considerable relevant experience, but as a reader I simply want to voice my concerns on substanent virality on concerning relevant and current world issues and people alike. I respect what this site tries to accomplish and brilliant skills of editors such as yourself but this article is an example of what I mean when I say "Intregity of Neutrality". 174.240.21.154 (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree, for the reasons I stated above. It is interesting that assorted conservative publications have been deemed unreliable by Wikipedia but even more noteworthy that coverage of assorted issues regarding this person by centrist and liberal publications has also been deemed beyond the pale. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes and to the point as stated in 'Reliable Sources' subsection 'Context Matters': "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." 174.240.21.154 (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the article goes into great detail describing his problems. It describes the charges for which he has pleaded guilty. Which were minor. We can only go so far with accusations which have not been proved and for which there is little public evidence when it comes to the biography of a living person. We have stronger standards than much of the media. Indeed, much of the media pushes outright lies. This article goes for beyond what would be written here for a person who has just been proved to filing his taxes late -- which normally ends with an interest payment, particularly considering he has never held public office. Should he face further charges, obviously they will be included.

The fact that many sources have been deemed unreliable is due to the fact they are unreliable. It took many years to even lower Fox despite the fact many of their hosts admitted to pushing lies. We can't do anything about that other than to avoid bad sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, I'm not taking about the official charges, but the massive allegations from whistle-blowers separate from those charges but still related to the laptop case as reported by multiple, non-rufuted sources such as NYT and ABC. I never once mentioned Fox nor did I intend to. This is exactly the point I was trying to make, but regardless I have said my peace on this issue and brought up an example to my claim of neutrality as requested by some editors^. -'contextus rerum' 174.240.21.154 (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

What "massive allegations"? That they don't think Weiss prosecuted Hunter on every charge that he could have? That's called prosecutorial discretion, and as has been noted, is also the reason Donald Trump hasn't been charged with more crimes than he has been. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

-> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/07/19/irs-whistleblowers-hunter-biden-agent-x/70424952007/ , https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/07/19/politics/oversight-committee-hearing-irs-whistleblowers/index.html , https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4071864-hunter-biden-irs-whistleblower-defends-claims-doj/ , https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/22/irs-whistleblowers-hunter-biden-case-00103252 , etc. ->(Insert spongebob pointing to piled trash meme) These alleged statements Relevant enough for you? There are a few dozen more reports detailing the statements as well as the official house committee report hearing release discussing the allegations. Is this top national coverage from 'reliable sources' not reliable enough to warrant even mentioning in minor detail on this page? They are some very serious allegations in ongoing dispute surrounding the actions of this person. If this warrants no relevancey then I don't know what does. 70.162.120.142 (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

We know that yesterday's hearing got news coverage. You're not getting that Wikipedia is WP:NOTEVERYTHING and that includes speculative claims by an IRS agent that a prosecutor didn't prosecute all of the alleged crimes he could prosecute. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

If this was about Trump you'd be the first person to edit his article. Stop with faux neutrality bullshit and just come out and admit it. 2600:8805:C980:9400:20EF:9EFD:43CC:C514 (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

You don't know me or what I'd do or not do. Focus on content, not contributors. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

yeah i do 2600:8805:C980:9400:20EF:9EFD:43CC:C514 (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Are the whistle-blower hearings you are talking about same hearings where Marjorie Taylor Greene Wednesday held up naked pictures of the President's son, a private citizen, taken from his laptop.[3][4] If and when Hunter Biden is charged with a serious crime; it will be added to this article. Until then, this is how Congress is spending it's time and use of the laptop. These hearings are an embarrassment to the US and we should not be using them for uncorroborated allegations in an encyclopedia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Stating them as an embarrassment to the US is an objective line of reasoning in of itself. Regardless of whether the statements bring charges against the man, the severity of the issue to even be raised this high is important and should be stated as such. Not to make a direct comparison of the issues with both men, but in the instance of the allegations against justice Brett Kavanagh those statements are still stated on his page to this day, despite still being disputed overall. A similar approach should rightfully apply to an equally if not more so higher public figure in this case. Playing favorites with whom you want to deem a 'private citizen' is a very disingenuous game to play. He is by all intents directly related to a high public figure such as the president and has been accused by federal employees of corroboration in conjunction with his father regarding business deals in foreign nations. Not a small press matter by any means. 70.162.120.142 (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

He is a private citizen. Period. Playing favorites with whom you want to deem a 'private citizen' is a very disingenuous game to play is a WP:AGF WP:PA violation. You need to stop talking about editors. This article is about Hunter Biden. Please stick to the subject. The DOJ/FBI or any other enforcement agency has not charged him with his father regarding business deals in foreign nations. If they do, it will be added. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Hunter Biden is clearly a public figure. The fact you claim he is a ‘private citizen’ as if the fact of his lack of political office is in any way relevant, shows that you are not being reasonable or politically objective as a contributor. If you’re not able to identify Hunter as a public figure, it raises WP:CIR issues. This is not an aspersion, this is a serious and justified concern. You need to stop making this argument. He’s the son of a president, who is frequently reported on for his business career that has overlapped in indirect ways with his father’s career. If he is a ‘private citizen’, so are Brad Pitt and Kanye West. I hope you are able to pause for a minute and identify that what you’ve said here is obviously wrong and totally out-of-step with the reasonable expectations of the wikipedia readership. I’m pleading with you to please reflect and begin taking WP:NOTCENSORED seriously as a guideline. Jack4576 (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The miles of ink spent on Hunter Biden would strongly suggest he is more than a "private citizen." Like it or not, he will have a prominent place in the history books for as long as anyone writes about Joe Biden and this period of history. At this point, the whole discussion and the position taken by some of the editors on this article is just plain comical. It weighs against the general credibility of Wikipedia and its usefulness.Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

yesterday's hearing was about allegations the DOJ and IRS impeded the Hunter investigation, not about allegations against Hunter. this is part of Comer's allegations of government cover-up. it doesn't belong in this article. soibangla (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Hunter is at the centre of that political issue. A brief mention would be warranted Jack4576 (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

This is better discussed at RSN soibangla (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

This topic wasn't brought up to discuss Don Jr, or Hunter's articles themselves. It was brought up about an IP raising concerns about neutrality. The IP literally didn't even mention Hunter Biden or this article, hence it was removed, and I was explaining why in a response to the person who made this topic. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The fact we have editors in this thread claiming Hunter is a ‘private citizen’ as a basis for excluding certain information about him; is manifest of the neutrality issues we’ve allowed affect this article

No editor acting neutrally and objectively would seriously attempt to make the claim that Hunter is not a public figure

I raised these neutrality issues because I think what the IP editor had to say was somewhat justified if poorly expressed. I think the page’s edit history and talk page history are seriously concerning when considered in aggregate, editors are being protective of this subject in ways that go beyond what is required under WP:BLP Jack4576 (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

We are protective of all BLPs. I know you don't agree with our policies and guidelines. But, we will continue using them. Look again at the unanimous comments in the two coatracks you tried to create off this article. In the meantime, you must stop claiming editors have said things they have never said. Words are important in an encyclopedia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The fact that editors are misapplying the BLP guideline in non-neutral way, does not mean that I disagree with those policies or guidelines. In fact, I do agree strongly with those guidelines

The two sets of 'unanimous comments' are indicative of the severe neutrality problems on this site more than anything else. I note those deletion discussions were closed too quickly for an opposing view to be expressed. At the relevant talk page, this one for example, you'll see that opinions are far from unanimous.

You have claimed Hunter is a 'private citizen' which is the equivalent to claiming that he is not a public figure. I am not misquoting you. Jack4576 (talk) 03:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Words matter. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Obviously. Jack4576 (talk) 11:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Red herring. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Movie stars are both private citizens (that is, usually not politicians) but also public figures. Gah4 (talk) 11:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

They're public figures for the purpose of our policies regarding appropriate coverage of persons per WP:BLP, and that is the only thing that matters

Editors that are claiming Hunter's article should be restrained because he is a 'private citizen' are making a point that is either nonsensical, or totally moot

I agree wholeheartedly with Bookworm857158367's comments above Jack4576 (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I repeat, ALL BLPs have restrictions. Public figures somewhat less.

There are differences between those who seek public office parading their manicured bios in front of the public and private citizens who are thrust into the public eye, often by the enemies of a relative. In this case, having a Congresswoman inexplicably holding up nudes of Hunter Biden taken from his hacked, private laptop in front of the US Congress. But, all are subject to WP:BLP. This is why your coatrack articles failed unanimously.[5] O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

This is an absurd argument. Hunter has voluntarily gone on prime-time talk shows and has been the topic of numerous White House press briefings. He's absolutely a public figure through his own actions. Also, if the laptop you're referring to was actually "hacked", I presume there are charges or a conviction in relation to that? Are you suggesting here that MTG is an accessory to a crime? Please consider redacting per WP:BLPCRIME -- Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I have never heard of him being the topic of numerous White House press briefings, and even if he were, it would be because he is under constant attack. I do know that all kinds of questions are asked. As for MTG, all I did is repeat what RS stated. Where did I make an accusation of a crime? You know, discussions would work much better if editors would stop putting words in other editors' mouths. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

You're really missing the point regarding 'public figures somewhat less'. Consistently throughout the above discussion, you've claimed Hunter is a 'private citizen' and called for widely-reported, high-profile, and public interest aspects of his public life to be omitted Jack4576 (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I, and most others by far, have definitely come out against your constant efforts, here and elsewhere, to include the name of a 4-year-old girl along with described circumstances that could cause her damage during her formative years and years beyond. Why you claim this could not harm her is beyond my ken. I have come out against including allegations without evidence of crimes and participation in such, again without evidence, with his father. I will continue to do so. This is not a scandal sheet. It is not even a newspaper. It is an encyclopedia. Now, I curiously await your interpretation of what I said and meant as clearly you know my mind better than I.

It is time this thread be closed. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Her name is in the New York Times, multiple newspapers, and the front page of Google. There is zero chance that her name being in a Wikipedia article is going to result in her being caused additional harm

If anything, a balanced Wikipedia article about her life and circumstances would be a -good- thing for her welfare, as it’d be a NPOV source people would be able to click on instead of the Fox News junk currently at the front page of Google

Information about highly newsworthy allegations is encyclopedic, and what’s un-encyclopedic is censoring that information. Even more so when it’s being done under the thin guise that a front-page lobbyist and businessman son of the united states president is a ‘private citizen’ Jack4576 (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

"You have claimed Hunter is a 'private citizen' which is the equivalent to claiming that he is not a public figure." You don't get to put your spin on another editor's words, especially when they have explained several times what they meant. It would be best to stop that before it leads to something sanctionable. Zaathras (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

To an outside eye, it looks like one group of editors has been trying to shut down another with whom they disagree and now are talking about sanctions for the same reason. Hunter Biden is very clearly a public figure about whom verifiable details should be included in a Wikipedia article. My main problem regarding the names of the children was that the name of the minor son was included but the minor daughter's name was deemed beyond the pale even when it was mentioned in various sources. If one kid is mentioned, the other should be for consistency. If one child is not, neither should the other child. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. I see that as the claim that they were making, impliedly, and I don't withdraw my remark. Jack4576 (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I made no such claim. Do not put words in my mouth again. Not one more time. Understand? O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

You were making a claim that because Hunter is a ‘private citizen’, and in previous comments you’ve made comparisons between Hunter and people who’ve made a decision to pursue political office

Implicit to that comparison is an argument you’re putting forward; that the distinction means we should alter our editorial approach toward Hunter versus other political figures. That’s your argument, and you should just be straightforward and own it, rather than claiming i’m putting words in your mouth

I disagree with that argument. I think Hunter is clearly a public figure, and should have his life written about on Wikipedia the same way we’d write about Julia Gillard, Barack Obama, Tulsi Gabbard, or Donald Trump. As in, it’s pretty indefensible for editors to be opposing the inclusion of recent major coverage regarding Hunter and his antics on his page Jack4576 (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Folks, please read my words and my arguments as I state them and do not depend on Jack's interpretations of such. He is allowed to argue his case -- not mine. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

You have objected the inclusion of certain information for the reason that he is a ‘private citizen’ Jack4576 (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

certain information See where this started and tell me you actually believe that is an honest representation of what I said? I objected to MTG holding up enlarged photographs of Hunter Biden in the nude in Congress. You then repeated the term "private citizen" nine times. Why did you say "certain information" instead of what I objected to? Do you believe that photographs of Hunter Biden taken from the thousands of photos on his laptop should have been held up in front of Congress? Photos of him playing with his family. Photos of his brother and the aftermath of his death? No, it was nudes held up in front of the US Congress. Do you think this was ethical? Do you want to include them here under your concept of "private citizen" and full disclosure? For once in your life, make an honest post. You continue to completely misreperesent my posts. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

No it doesn’t particularly bother me given his prominence as a public and political figure Jack4576 (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Then you do not belong here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Check yourself. Whether something is fine to be shown up at congress (your point) is a different question to Wikipedia's policies.

User:Objective3000 for all your complaints about other editors in this thread you repeatedly conduct yourself in a manner that lacks civility. Please reflect on your contribution to this discussion. Jack4576 (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining the point in a more coherent way. I a not too familiar with the full extent of policies here, but Cleary can see that something is amiss with the lack of information presented. 174.218.19.2 (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have digressed and I recommend it be closed. There was a previous malformed RFC about it, so maybe someone can start a new one, but sheesh, I hope not. soibangla (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The RfC was about name inclusion, this discussion is about neutrality more generally. That said, if someone wishes to close it go ahead. Jack4576 (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Jack4576 I'm confused about what your current block means. soibangla (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Happy to clarify on my talk page. This isn't the place. Jack4576 (talk) 02:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Spelling and grammatical errors

Although I can't edit it, I've rewritten a small section that currently has multiple spelling and grammatical errors.

In the third paragraph of the 'Personal Life' section, one sentence after citation number 147, I would revise to the following updated version:

“As part of the settlement, Biden agreed to turn over several of his valuable paintings to the child and pay an undisclosed monthly amount in child support. In return, Roberts agreed to drop her bid to change the child’s surname.”

Original for reference:

“As part of the settlement, Biden agreed to turnover several of his valuable paintings to the child and pay and undisclosed monthly amount of child support, and Roberts agreed to drop her bid to change the childs surname.” 2603:8000:3F01:90CD:65DD:7CF2:74EE:B48F (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Changed to: As part of the settlement, Biden agreed to turn over several of his valuable paintings to the child and pay an undisclosed monthly amount in child support. Roberts also agreed to drop her bid to change the child’s surname. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Add Description

Should the guilty plea proceed as expected this morning, Hunter Biden's wikipedia entry should also state he is a "criminal" in addition to his other ventures (artist, lobbyist, etc.) 149.101.1.116 (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Nope - see WP:ROLEBIO: "The noteworthy position(s) or role(s) the person held should usually be stated in the opening paragraph. However, avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various and sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-noteworthy roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph.

Hunter's WP:Notability comes primarily from his position as a relative of a well-known U.S. politician. He only has some notability in his own right as an investor, lobbyist, etc. And at this point, he's not primarily notable for his criminal activity. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Earlier this year there was an RfC that had strong consensus to remove the words "convicted felon" from the first sentence of David Duke.[6] Same with Jussie Smollett[7] and Dinesh D'Souza.[8] – Muboshgu (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe there was a discussion for Klete Keller[9] as well, with the consensus to retain the label in the lead (but at the end of the sentence vs opening with it). If we follow the same logic here, we should probably remove it from the first sentence there as well. -- Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The application of a label like "convicted criminal" in the first sentence of any biography article relies on too many factors to try and apply a black-and-white rule. There are specific guidelines for things like this - MOS:ROLEBIO, MOS:FIRSTBIO, and WP:FIRST to name a few. Within those guidelines, I think it's fine to leave each instance up to editorial consensus at each article.

Personally, I like how Aquillion put it in this discussion a few months back: We need to consider if some aspect of notability is downstream of their main source of notability. Meaning, would they be notable for what they did, independent of their prior notability?

For this article: Two counts of tax misdemeanors aren't exactly notable crimes in and of themselves. If the only thing a person had done were commit tax misdemeanors, I don't think they'd even pass WP:GNG criteria. BUT they've risen to the level of "notable" because of who Hunter is (the son of a sitting U.S. president, among other things). PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a good argument. However, would Klete Keller be notable because of his involvement with the J6 stuff independent of his Olympic career? I highly doubt it, how is this situation different though? -- Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The Klete Keller situation is... complicated. His case really is similar, though. I just spent the last while reading up on it and trying to form my own judgement. In his case, I think the current lead is acceptable (if maybe not perfect) - it calls him a former swimmer first, and a Jan 6 "participant" next. Truly, Olympic swimming is notable. And his Jan 6 participation was notable mostly because it was done by "a U.S. Olympic swimmer", according to the reporting of most RS. But in the end, for him, his overall notability appears significantly impacted by his actions on Jan 6; a good visualization of this is this Google Trends search. Of the top 5 'related topics', number 1 is still "swimmer", but 3 of the 5 are related to Jan 6. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Typical. 149.101.1.116 (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, "typical" in that we don't want to bias an article against its subject when information about their convictions can be presented neutrally after the first sentence. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

There are rules governing content on Wikipedia: the policies and guidelines. It's not the information free-for-all you might have expected. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Muboshgu. He is not primarily notable for his criminal conviction criminal allegations. His plea is already duly mentioned in the lead. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 15:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Should the guilty plea proceed as expected this morning..., well, this is why we tend to not listen to people who want to rush to add content based on conjecture. Hunter Biden pleads not guilty after plea deal is derailed. Zaathras (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2023

Change "Hunter and his father, Joe Biden, have been the subjects of false claims of corrupt activities in a Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory pushed by Donald Trump and his allies"

To

"Hunter and his father, Joe Biden, have been subjects of claims of corrupt activities in Ukraine." 173.216.47.62 (talk) 05:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• Not done. There's no evidence in the article which supports the version requested. There is abundant evidence in the article and from many other reliable sources of the version which is already on the page. The only sources I can find which agree with the suggested edits are considered unreliable at WP:RSNP. BusterD (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  You have lost all credibility. There are legitimate questions about corruption, which are being investigated by Congress and the DOJ, so it is dishonest simply to dismiss those allegations as "false". 68.197.131.42 (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  There are legitimate questions about Hunter Biden's acknowledged misconduct. So far, no solid evidence has been produced of any misconduct by his father Joe Biden. Cullen328 (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia has lost all credibility. Biased news publications are not credible evidence. 107.9.242.246 (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia summarizes reliable sources. All news sources have biases. We do not use sources that regularly lie to their readers and viewers to advance their agendas. Cullen328 (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The article you want is Comer investigation of Biden family. soibangla (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Additional Information

Can we include additional information with regards to the recent judge hearing? This article: https://www.wsj.com/articles/hunter-biden-guilty-plea-federal-court-3b15f98b , it states that the judge had constitutionality questions and that there were "atypical provisions" in the plea deal. Surely this would be relevant to add. I just can't edit this protected page. 2600:1008:B148:6F28:B848:83EB:98AC:8E74 (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Remember that this is a biography of Hunter Biden, not an exhaustive, detailed article on a legal proceeding. I think this is diving too far into the weeds to be of real value. Zaathras (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. However, the substance of the hearing is only given a passing reference that she "cited concerns over the scope of the terms." The whole investigation section on Wikipedia has roughly 900 words. Just giving an indication of how legally questionable the deal was (in the opinion of the judge), which is the center of a very high profile case is undoubtedly of "real value". Just an additional passing reference to these questions, in my opinion, would aid the readers understanding of the context: just a few words or phrases, not "in the weeds". There has been discussion across the media about the dubiousness of the plea deal, in plain legal terms. 2600:1008:A101:5050:A88A:1409:3EA6:107 (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Names of children

There seems to be some confusion in this article, as well as in the article Family of Joe Biden, regarding names of children. It is important to note that WP:BLP does not prohibit naming the children in the personal life section of a biogrpahy. It is the template {{Infobox person}} that says that the infobox should only have a number and name only notable children.

The articles for Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump, and Eric Trump all list the names of the children (Donald Trump's grandchildren) in the Personal life sections of the respective articles.

While I think all 5 of Hunter Biden's children should be listed in the personal life section, I'll make separate subsections here about the different children, as the different children have different circumstances. I understand that an RfC about Navy Joan has already closed about a week ago, but this new reference means that circumstances have changed, and warrent a new discussion. A girl in Latvia (talk) 23:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I've lost count of the number of times you have needlessly added the name of this child to this article and talk page. The RfC was overwhelming. An article in People cannot change this. As per WP:RSP: ...but the magazine should not be used for contentious claims unless supplemented with a stronger source. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Preisent Biden named her. Our son Hunter and Navy’s mother, Lunden, are working together. This is no longer contentous. A girl in Latvia (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Finnegan and Maisy

• Support: Both adults, and both listed in their sister's bio, Naomi Biden. A girl in Latvia (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

[redacted name of daughter with Roberts]

The following discussion 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.

---

• Support: Initially the court concealed her name, and under that scenario it was legitimate to suppress the name on Wikipedia, even though tabloids published the name. Now that the daughter's mother has gone out of her way to place the daughter's name and photo in the public domain, there is no reason to exclude her name. A girl in Latvia (talk) 23:51, 28 July 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.

[redacted name of daughter with Roberts]

Re-opening discussion per this edit. A girl in Latvia (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support: Initially the court concealed her name, and under that scenario it was legitimate to suppress the name on Wikipedia, even though tabloids published the name. Now that the daughter's mother has gone out of her way to place the daughter's name and photo in the public domain, there is no reason to exclude her name. A girl in Latvia (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  Of course there is. Do you not care about this innocent child who did absolutely nothing to be an encyclopedia -- who, at this age, likely cannot even read? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Did you even read click on the link to the article? I'm not the one naming the girl. It was President Biden himself who named her. Our son Hunter and Navy’s mother, Lunden, are working together. A girl in Latvia (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Beau Jr.

• Support: His name and photo is published in the same article that published Navy Joan's name and photo. Furthermore, in the case of Beau Jr., the name of the son helps the reader understand the relationship between Hunter and his brother. Beau Jr. is also listed in his half sister's bio, Naomi Biden. A girl in Latvia (talk) 23:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  Please see #RfC about including the name of Hunter Biden's daughter, which closed 12 days ago with a consensus to exclude the name. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

1. Not releveant to the discussion about Beau Jr.
2. The old No-consensus needs to be re-opened now that a new reference came out today. A girl in Latvia (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

   Stop repeating her name over and over again. Why are you doing this? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

• Close and block the filer, please This was just settled via RfC, one lone recalcitrant user doesn't get to disrupt this article and open the proverbial can all over again. Zaathras (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)