Talk:Hunter Biden

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.[1] 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.

Sources on Devon Archer testimony

• WaPo
• CNN
• NBC

I’m too busy to add these myself, if anyone wants to add them. starship.paint (exalt) 00:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

“False allegations”

The sentence “ Since early 2019, Hunter and his father, Joe Biden, have been the subjects of false allegations of corrupt activities in a Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory.” Is very biased, misleading and funny enough, false. Allegations have been made. They have not been proven to be true NOR false. 2600:1007:A010:118A:B0EE:CA15:C3B2:FEA9 (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

See: Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree 119.56.102.151 (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Someone needs to send the Attorney General this wiki article. Apparently the allegations have already all been proven false. Not sure why they are even bothering investigating anything further. Really big waste of time to be investigating things incontrovertibly proven false already. Zaqwert (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

You don't know why they are investigating, still, after five years of investigations that turned up a couple of misdemeanors normally resulting in an interest penalty that he already paid? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/11/us/politics/president-biden-hunter.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/12/us/politics/democrats-hunter-biden.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/11/us/politics/hunter-biden-legal-troubles-timeline.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/12/opinion/hunter-biden-clarence-thomas-trump.html

The editing of this article continues to give a strong apppearance of bias, which has a negative effect on its credibility and that of Wikipedia in general. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Bookworm, you appear to be "thumping the toadstool" here. Your concerns have been answered many times over. If you have specific additional -- i.e. new -- suggestions, please prevent them. SPECIFICO talk 15:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "thumping the toadstool" means. I was agreeing with the original comment and listed several New York Times articles that give a timeline of events and the allegations against Hunter Biden in response to the other comments above. Incorporate them if you wish as the New York Times appears to be one of the sources that is still deemed acceptable by Wikipedia. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what thumping the toadstool means - How mobius!. It's similar to WP:BLUDGEON but more tasty or toxic, depending on the luck of the draw. IOW, I think this issue has been resolved on each of the various occasions it's come up and it's time to move on to any other suggestions you might want to offer. SPECIFICO talk 16:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I've already made them. if anyone wants to take anything from the New York Times articles, feel free. The analysis notes the appointment of the special prosecutor and the ongoing investigation. I do not have the time or the energy to edit this particular article given the number of entrenched editors. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

For future reference, there's no basis to assert that there is an "ongoing investigation". Things are well past the investigation stage. The next step is either a trial or settlement. Statements like "ongoing investigation" may be misleading to talk page readers, because it suggests that the appointment was prompted by unanswered issues of fact, new suspicions, or as yet unrevealed crimes. There's currently no factual basis for any such speculation. SPECIFICO talk 21:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear (though I said this down below, it's important to emphasize it), Weiss' investigation is ongoing, but it relates to the tax evasion and gun charges, since he was appointed as a result of the plea deal about those falling through. It has no connection to the accusations made as part of the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory (in theory a special prosecutor can of course branch out, as we've seen in the past, but there's no suggestion in the sources that that has happened or is likely to happen here.) So nothing about Weiss' investigation has anything to do with the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory; they're separate issues, and using sources about Weiss to argue that the unrelated accusations in the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory are not false, when they make no such connection, would be misusing them. --Aquillion (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

exactly Why listed as false allegations, as opposed to accused of alledged criminal activity

The biases of Wikipedia or contributors, kills the 100.12.87.124 (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes it really should just say that it’s been alleged but not proven that there are wrongs. Not only would that be correct but it would be good for the credibility of Wikipedia because what if one day some thing is proven and then the whole article was wrong for years and it was wrong because of people who protected the article from edits by the public and went out of their way to not only remove truthful edits but to block even discussion of those edits on the talk page. Unfortunately this type of bias is what Wikipedia endorses and increasingly it seems exist to promote. I don’t honk there’s any saving it. Maybe maybe once it’s gone something better will emerge. 12.16.115.131 (talk) 09:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: From USA Today yesterday:

• "the Justice Department's ongoing investigation of Hunter Biden".
• "The investigation is ongoing."

From CNN yesterday:

• "Garland’s order appointing Weiss said he is authorized to 'conduct the ongoing investigation … as well as any matters that arose from that investigation or may arise' as the probe continues."

What are you talking about? --Magnolia677 (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I stated it in my final sentence. Of course he is authorized. Just as Merrick Garland is authorized to investigate you, me, and the kitchen sink. SPECIFICO talk 22:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

It's always best in discussions to avoid stating personal opinions as facts. Thanks for your understanding. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

That's what I said. Your opinions are not helpful, and you are misreading the sources if you think that your opinion is verified by your bolded text extracts. SPECIFICO talk 22:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I've also read both the USA Today and CNN articles. Both refer to an ongoing investigation. Whether that will result in additional charges is yet to be seen. As far as I know Garland has no interest in investigating you, me or the kitchen sink. This particular investigation involves Hunter Biden, the subject of this article. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Strawman. See "authorized". SPECIFICO talk 18:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about "strawman"? Please respect the formality of this talk discussion. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

About speculation beyond the sourced statement in response to my post above. SPECIFICO talk 18:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

OK. what 'strawman' are you referring to? The latest articles are about Garland's decision to appoint a special counsel, David Weiss, who will have broad authority and the budget to conduct an investigation and will produce a report. The case could go to trial since the plea deal fell through. There is also an ongoing Congressional inquiry into Hunter Biden's financial dealings, mentioned in the articles, though it has not thus far turned up evidence of wrongdoing. So "ongoing investigation" is quite accurate here. Go to it if there's anything in those articles to add to the Wiki article. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

If white had total control and power, why they need to make him the special counsel 100.12.87.124 (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Weiss 100.12.87.124 (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Weiss was appointed in relation to the tax evasion and gun charges (as a result of the plea deal about them falling through), not anything to do with Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory (that is, the accusation that Joe Biden, while he was vice president of the United States, withheld a loan guarantee to pressure Ukraine into firing prosecutor general Viktor Shokin to prevent a corruption investigation of Ukrainian gas company Burisma and to protect his son, Hunter Biden, who was on the Burisma board.) In fact, the CNN one doesn't mention the Ukraine at all, and the USA today one doesn't relate it to Weiss' ongoing investigation, only mentioning it in passing as something Republicans are focused on in a "wide-ranging investigation" (rather than the specific conspiracy theory described here.) It's important to be specific about which accusations we're talking about where, otherwise we end up with a vaguely-defined cloud of doubt where any source can be used to say anything. The sentence doesn't say that it's false that Hunter Biden has ever done anything bad ever under any circumstances; it describes one specific conspiracy theory as false, which is well-cited and well-established by the sources. So if you want to change it, you need sources talking about that accusation specifically and not handwavy ones that indicate that investigations into some aspect of Hunter Biden's conduct exist somewhere. Note that we cover the other accusations against Hunter Biden (the tax and gun issues) in the final paragraph of the lead as well as elsewhere in the article, and neither of them are described as "false" in this way. --Aquillion (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  The text could be written more clearly. The "false allegation" was that VP Biden had the prosecutor fired in order to stop the Burisma investigation. The U.S. special prosecutor however will investigate other allegations of wrong-doing. Hunter's plea deal fell apart because U.S. prosecutors said it did not protect him from allegations of corrupt activity involving Ukraine. To be clear, these are at present allegations and nothing has been proven in court. However the allegation about why Biden fired the prosecutor has been disproven. TFD (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  There's no connection between Pres. Biden and his son's late tax filing or lying on firearms documentation. We should not be enabling discussion of whatever complaint gets the unrelated content onto this page for long circular discussions predicated in such a way that they will never contribute to article improvement. SPECIFICO talk 22:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  There's no connection between Hunter's taxes and firearms and the price of peanut butter either. What's your point? TFD (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  Well, if he was being investigated for the price of peanut butter, at least there would be some reason for inclusion in an encyclopedia. But, apparently, he is being investigated in the hope something can be found that isn't already known after five years of investigation by a DOJ prosecutor appointed by his father's opponent; a gun charge that the USSC has apparently ruled unconstitutional, and paying his taxes late, which normally results in an interest fee. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  That appears to be a personal opinion rather than a statement of the facts. The article states that there is some sort of ongoing investigation by a special counsel and a Congressional inquiry into his financial dealings that also has not concluded. The outcome has not yet been determined one way or another. It's certainly possible that he will be cleared of wrongdoing on all fronts but the cases have not concluded. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  Not a personal opinion at all. The Congressional inquiry has no place here as it is totally political and began with the assumption that he was guilty and continues to state so without proof of anything. Normally, an encyclopedia would wait for a five year investigation to come up with something in a WP:BLP. As far as financial dealings, he is assumed innocent. How do I know? Because you are innocent until proven guilty. He hasn't even been charged, much less proven guilty. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC){od}

  Beyond that, at the end of the day we have to go with what high-quality secondary coverage says. And reliable coverage hasn't been shifted by the congressional inquiry at all: The committee’s questions focused on the years that Archer spent on the Burisma board with Hunter Biden. Hunter’s time at Burisma has been at the center of a debunked conspiracy theory peddled by Rudy Giuliani that Hunter had convinced Joe Biden to advocate for removing the top prosecutor in Ukraine who was investigating the company. It’s that discredited theory that convinced then-President Trump to withhold aid to Ukraine in an effort to pressure President Vladimir Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden in the run up to the 2020 election, leading to Trump’s first impeachment for misusing the power of his office for personal political leverage. Especially for something clearly BLP-sensitive, when we're dealing with a bare unsubstantiated accusation that high-quality sources specifically describe as false, we have to make that clear whenever we mention it. --Aquillion (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no indication that any additional facts or possible wrongdoing is currently under investigation. SPECIFICO talk 02:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The special prosecutor may investigate matters in "United States v. Robert Hunter Biden, as well as for any other matters that arose or may arise from that investigation."[2] So that seems to be narrow.

It's strange then that the plea deal fell apart because the prosecution would not agreed not to prosecute Hunter for anything that fell outside the current prosecution.

TFD (talk) 06:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, wouldn't you want these interminable investigations and accusations on Fox News to end and get back to your life? (This morning, after 19 people including the President were indicted and the ongoing disaster in Maui, Fox had three stories on Hunter Biden.) Congressfolk are repeatedly saying he "took money from foreigners". That's something most every major US corporation does. It's strange then that the plea deal fell apart.... Are you saying where there's smoke there's fire? Let's assume he's guilty of something because it's somehow strange that he no longer wants his life turned upside down? We should not make ANY assumptions based on a person wanting investigations to finally end and this is improper in an encyclopedia. More like watercooler talk. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

TFD, you've repeatedly posted irrelevant snippets of your OR here. All special prosecutors have a budget, various authorities, etc. This is not Area 51 stuff. Five years after an addiction-addled Hunter Biden's misdemeanors and victimless misrepresentation concerning his drug use, there is nothing to verify anything currently being investigated. Plea arrangements are not done piecemeal. They are done to resolve all issues so that all parties can move on to other things. The bizarre recission of the plea arrangement has yet to be fully explained, but "ongoing investigation" is not among the credible possibilities except on Newsmax and Fox television. SPECIFICO talk 16:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Conversations would proceed in a more productive way if you eschewed your proclivity to be offensive to other editors. I would suggest also that you avoid cryptic statements which invite requests for clarification. Also, before referring to policy first familiarize yourself with it. OR is about posting text into articles, and specifically states it does not apply to talk pages, where we are supposed to discuss article content.

Comparing allegations against Hunter Biden with Area 51 is a gross exaggeration. I wouldn't put ufologists in the same category with police investigators. TFD (talk) 02:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea why you are talking about urologists, etc. Please put any personal attacks on my talk page, not in mainspace. SPECIFICO talk 04:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain the relevance of Area 51 to this article? TFD (talk) 11:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO We're talking about ufologists, not "urologists". Dervorguilla (talk) 04:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, but we have to cover things the way secondary sources do; we can't speculate when it comes to BLP-sensitive theorycrafting. And right now, at least based on the sources presented so far, high-quality sources are not generally treating it as changing the fundamentally false nature of the core conspiracy theory about Hunter Biden, which means that we have to continue to say that it's false every time we bring it up. --Aquillion (talk) 17:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  As I said above, the "conspiracy theory" that VP Biden had the Ukraine prosecutor fired to protect his son was proved false. But you cannot say that about other allegations. OTOH, we shouldn't give them any credibility. Neutrality requires us to craft the text so that we convey this. TFD (talk) 02:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)