Talk:Hunter Biden

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Child[edit]

According to CNN, After having denied in a previous court filing that he had fathered a child with an Arkansas woman, Hunter Biden was found to be the biological father of the child on the 21th of november. The child was born in August 2018, which would place conception during the period in which Biden was already in a relationship Could this information be placed in the 'Personal life"-section of the article please? Thanks in advance.213.34.49.36 (talk) 13:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

 DoneTerrorist96 (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The CNN and Business Insider items are really just regurgitating the brief blurb from yesterday without doing additional reporting; I wouldn't say they add value, but I'll leave that for somebody else to act on if they so choose. XOR'easter (talk) 14:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Saying he was "found" is misleading, as all the claims come from papers filed by the suing party. It's not a court ruling nor a non-biased source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Text, personal life section, says 4 children but infobox says 3. Geo8rge (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

A fourth is claimed but has not yet been legally established/recognized as his. Let's wait for some outcome. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Mother has been named (Luden Alexis Roberts) and photographs of court document published.[1][2] Source may be suspect. (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
See WP:DAILYMAIL. Source is deprecated. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. MaynardClark (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC) Note Daily Beast as another source, where its reporters are often included on panels of major TV news programs (Washington Week on PBS, etc.). MaynardClark (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Update number of children to 4[edit]

Currently set as 3. Biden made a court filing on 30 November that he is not contesting that he is the father of the child in the ongoing lawsuit after DNA testing established he is the parent. So number should be increased to 4.RonaldDuncan (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

RonaldDuncan, you have sourced that to [1], which says Hunter Biden "is not expected to challenge the results of the DNA test or the testing process." That's not the same as saying he is the father - we'll need a source that actually says that. – bradv🍁 16:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
RonaldDuncan, thank you for self-reverting the number of children, but you still left in the sentence Biden is not contesting the paternity of a child born in August 2018 in an ongoing lawsuit, despite the source saying "not expected to contest". These edits are jumping the gun - the previous version, A lawsuit filed by an Arkansas woman asserts that Hunter is the father of her child, who was born in 2018 was more accurate according to the source. – bradv🍁 16:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks @Bradv: If it is sourced to https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2019/dec/04/judge-in-paternity-case-says-yield-file/ where is says "A separate motion filed with the clerk Wednesday said Hunter Biden "is not contesting paternity."
There is a copy of the court filing at https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/11/30/03/21638658-7740665-Any_such_disclosures_Biden_s_attorneys_claim_would_cause_their_c-m-24_1575082965933.jpg It is point 8. The Daily Mail is not a reliable source so I did not reference their article which refers to the filing. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7740665/Hunter-Biden-requests-Protective-Order-seal-financial-records-amid-child-support-suit.html
Let me know if thats OK RonaldDuncan (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
RonaldDuncan, WP:DAILYMAIL is deprecated, and for good reason. Arkansas Democrat Gazette is reliable though. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
AGREED :) - Thats why I used other sources for the article. RonaldDuncan (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Article update - I removed the out of date references (CNN etc) and just left in the arkansasonline ref with the line A separate motion filed with the clerk Wednesday said Hunter Biden "is not contesting paternity." RonaldDuncan (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

The most, if anything, we should say about this is that he was sued for paternity. Anything beyond that would be WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS.- MrX 🖋 17:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed consensus[edit]

First apologies for confusing things by opening the 3-4 child topic. There were multiple edits/reverts and I self reverted the 3 > 4 child change and opened up the discussion with a new section at the bottom of the page. Missing the first section which was already discussing the topic.RonaldDuncan (talk) 11:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

It looks like the Child topic had reached a consensus around mentioning the court case, and updating when there was a ruling. I found an accepted source that Biden had filed to the court that he was no longer contesting Paternity, and updated with this info along with further info from the case about debts and unemployment. I think the consensus is to mention the current state of the case with regard to paternity. MrX objected to I think the debts and unemployment (separate discussion) and removed the entire section. A separate point is that the article did not have the name of the mother, since she wants to keep the baby's name anonymous and I think the article should respect this and refer to her as the lady from Arkansas.RonaldDuncan (talk) 11:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Put current position of paternity case into article. Suggest that number of Children is updated when Judge finds on paternity (this was previously suggested )RonaldDuncan (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Mr. Duncan, please review the page sanctions on this article, 1RR and "Consensus Required" and check whether your recent activity conforms. If not, please roll back to make it conforming. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
It's also utter tripe what is being added. At best it requires a sentence "Biden has four children. In 2019 he went to court to establish bla bla bla" but Ronald seems to want to go with subtle and unsubtle gossip. I am generously assuming that he is not doing so in order to portray Hunter as some kind of doley waster avoiding paying alimony. Koncorde (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Grammatical Correction[edit]

Under Burisma Holdings header, sloppy language should be cleared up thus: In place of Shokin in May 2019, should be In May 2019, Shokin Tracymacl (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

POV problem here I believe[edit]

Disclaimers:

  • I hate Donald Trump with a passion. I think he's a [BLP violation redacted], a [BLP violation redacted], and even a [shocking and egregious BLP violation redacted].
  • I don't have a particularly strong opinion about Hunter Biden (not a fan tho), but he's obviously innocent of these recent ridiculous Ukraine charges, and I think any disinterested and informed person would agree.

Hunter Biden is completely innocent of these charges. That doesn't mean he's the bee's knees either. If I may be vouchsafed leave to quote from a liberal writer, Matthew Yglesias at Vox:

Hunter Biden’s whole career is being Joe Biden’s son... Hunter interestingly went to work right away for MBNA, a major Delaware-based bank (later purchased by Bank of America) that was also a big contributor to Biden’s campaigns. This was part of a much larger coziness between Biden and the bank... [I]t’s more like Hunter got the job due to his dad’s overall cozy relationship with the company.... In 2006, President George W. Bush appointed him to the Amtrak board of directors as a gesture of bipartisanship... It would obviously be a stretch to attribute any specific shortcoming of passenger rail in the United States to Hunter Biden’s service on the board. But the fact that the job is treated as a kind of patronage position to hand out to random senators’ kids who have no relevant knowledge beyond riding the train a lot helps explain why American passenger rail is low quality and exhibits little understanding of international best practices. When his dad became vice president, Hunter left the Amtrak board and instead got involved with a series of investment companies. As detailed by Ben Schreckinger in Politico, a lot of this work seems to have hinged on Hunter and his uncle James Biden sort of hinting around that the family connection to the vice president could help get things done and then not delivering. The Obama administration generally regarded Hunter as a kind of embarrassing family black sheep rather than a real scandal.

And there's a lot more. It's an opinion piece. That doesn't necessarily make it a poor analysis. Yglesias and Vox are generally trustworthy on facts, too.

But, I mean, you're not going to get any of this from the lede. You're not going to get any of this from the article. The lede describes him a blameless victim of a particular incident (true), but the article is pretty anyodyne -- he did this, he did that, which is... misleading, if you believe Yglesias. The article implies that he's a sterling figure whose main concern is to ensure that there's no possibility him taking advantage of his father's power and fame. The article is POV. The lede is POV.

I don't have exact specific changes to suggest at this time, but I wanted to start by pointing this out. Herostratus (talk) 07:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what you feel you have pointed out. There are dozens of comments and passing remarks about every politician and businessman out there that do not make the lede of an article, and few make it within the main body either, because they do not reflect any significant weight. What is it we should take from the above? Biden has had success as a result of his father being a major political figure?
Sentence 1, Early Positions section.
"After graduating from law school, Biden took a position at MBNA America, a major bank holding company which was also a major contributor to his father's political campaigns.[8]"
That seems to succinctly sum up the above?
Sentence 4, same section seems to reference the second portion of the Iglesias article too
"In 2006, Biden and his uncle, James Biden, attempted to buy Paradigm, a hedge-fund group, but the deal fell apart before completion.[8]"
Could it say "Biden was alleged to have traded on his fathers success"? Maybe, but it is denied by both James and Hunter, and Beau Biden is dead, and no other individual has come forward. So it's tittle tattle at best. So what exactly is it that you want us to include? What clarification of rich daddy's boy would help to 'balance' the POV you see? Should we say that he is unqualified? Not stated in any source, he has qualifications and demonstrates experience through the roles he has had however he got them. Should we say that he only got any job due to his name? Speculation. Should we blame the poor performance of Amtrak on him? Seems a stretch from a passing snide comment in an op-ed doesn't it? So what should there be? Bearing in mind that the only reason Hunter has a Wiki article about him at all is because of Burisma. He probably fails notability aside. Koncorde (talk) 08:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Technical addressing of Koncorde's last comment: this article has existed since 2008, six years before Biden was involved in Burisma. While that doesn't mean that it would've survived AFD if filed, there seem to have been a fair number of editing hands on it without AFD being proposed nor major tags resting on it in that era. --Nat Gertler (talk) 10:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I was being facetious about the mans relative lack of notability. That wikipedia managed to have an article on him dating back to 2008 is quite impressive levels of insight into his future notability! Koncorde (talk) 10:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
@Herostratus: If you believe the article omits important biographical information about Biden's career, why not make those additions yourself? Right now, the article is too heavily weighted toward his Burisma board membership because of the association with the Trump-Ukraine scandal. The lead is also heavily weighted toward current events, but I don't see major NPOV issues. - MrX 🖋 12:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I disagree that BLP was not the right forum. BLP require more stringent standards for NPOV and verification that other articles. And yet, almost the entire article here is taken up with polemics, using polemical sources. Virtually every citation is editorial opinion, which each side uses as ammo, not to inform but to advocate. There's not supposed to be a "side" in a Wikipedia article, especially BLP. I posted on BLP because BLP POLICY is being violated blatantly. It's so obvious, that those who claim it's not are part of the problem. Further aggravating the situation is one or more ADMINs using their privileges to block clean-up attempts and perpetuate this mess, which is why I headlined my BLP post thus.
As I reminded the abusive ADMIN, who shamefully participates in this POV travesty, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it journalism. Wikipedia is not a disseminator of "truth" but of facts uncolored by POV. Your telling me to "calm down" is offensive, because the POV here is so blatant—participated in and abetted by a rogue ADMIN—as to be outrageous. This disease pervades Wikipedia, making its reliability useless thanks to Mr. Wales' demagoguery that "We don't need peer review. You decide the facts." Crowd-sourced information. The glib "Well, if you don't like it, then don't use it," is disingenuous, because Wikipedia has become a monopoly. How could it not, when it enables any fanboy or fanatic or advocate to publish his/her opinion, which edits/deletion he/she can revert, with ADMINS, expert in clothing their bias with boilerplate, threatening the reverted editor with blocking? Wikipedia is not a soapbox is not a guideline but POLICY. Why should anyone who gives a darn remain calm when articles which patently violate POLICY not only are not allowed to be cleaned up but protected by reverts supported by biased ADMIN bullies?
To demonstrate how Kafkaesque this issue has become, the rogue ADMIN calls neutrality "equivocation" and "we" provide "truth" to the readers, as if "we" were the New York Times. Then, someone calling himself Mr. X says, just because I call my edits NPOV doesn't make them so. Look at my edits; see what they replace.
Just look at this Talk page. The rule is that article Talk pages only discuss whether the article is properly formed—NPOV, formatting, proper sourcing. "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject" What a joke! This Talk page is just a backroom version of the article's foodfight. Why do you feel the need to write a disclaimer about how much you hate Trump and how innocent Hunter is? To assure the partisans you're on their side? A Wikipedia editor isn't supposed to be on any side! He's just supposed to gather—not select, not marshal—information on a topic from recognized, non-advocacy secondary sources, or if there's controversy, then say "so-and-so says or alleges," then the citation to show where so-and-so comes from, not state your opinion as fact and then stick a footnote on it. To say "such-and-such was debunked" is opinion, not fact. The source's allegation is the fact; let the reader decide its credibility. The former is editorial journalism, the latter encyclopedic which Wikipedia claims it is, and which "articles" like this make a mockery of.
Believe me, I can be quite calm when discussing subject merits. I was calm when I suggested that the POV I tried to fix at least be moved from the lede to the debate below. But no, that wouldn't do, because the Rogue ADMIN wanted to score his point in the lede. What no one should stay calm about is the blatant and pervasive hijacking of articles and its condoning by ADMINS and their mobs, while Jimmy Wales, having created this Frankenstein-on-Autopilot, is off creating Wikipedia version of Facebook/Twitter/Google. That's great: Crowd-sourced news. A bit redundant, given we already have it here.
By the way, I appreciate your recognizing the obvious, that this thing is POV through-and-through. But I'm afraid any attempt to clean it up to BLP standards will be like cleaning up the Augean Stables, for which I don't have the time or fortitude and which, doubtless, the mobs who run this place count on. I wish you the best of luck.
J M Rice (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
If you want to propose an edit and work toward a consensus, this the place to do it. If you want to lecture experienced editors on the failings of Wikipedia, or your version of what NPOV looks like, this is not the place to do it. Please start a blog if you want to pontificate. - MrX 🖋 22:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Wholly echo Mr X sentiment. Koncorde (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
what they▲ said soibangla (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Seems to me that the Trump claim is that he made $50k/month at Burisma, and so is obviously guilty. On the other hand, as well as I know, he did have the experience in business and law to do what he was supposed to do. Sometimes having a known name is useful, even without using any undue (that is, illegal) advantage. The salary might be high compared to US firms, but is it too high for Burisma? Gah4 (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Moving forward[edit]

An editor did a kind of "shut up" closing of this discussion, which I'm reverting per WP:BRD. Let's not discuss that here, ANI would be the venue.

User:Koncorde reasonably asked what specific changes I wanted to suggest, and defended the article as it is. User:MrX suggested "fix it yourself", which I get, but I don't want to do that without discussion and trying to get consensus first; it's a fraught issue, and arguing via edit summary is not going to be sufficient. User:J M Rice is wrong that this is a a BLP issue -- it's not, and nobody else is going to agree with her, so she might as well drop it.

Alright. On the to merits.

User:Koncorde vouchsafed that article already covers Hunter Biden's... well, Hunter Bidenness... with

"After graduating from law school, Biden took a position at MBNA America, a major bank holding company which was also a major contributor to his father's political campaigns.[8]"

and

"In 2006, Biden and his uncle, James Biden, attempted to buy Paradigm, a hedge-fund group, but the deal fell apart before completion.[8]"

But the problem is only the first speaks to a conflict of interest. One sentence, and I believe that's all that's in the article, really, that addresses that aspect of being Hunter Biden.

I mean, look, there's a big difference between Senator Tom Carper saying

Hunter Biden is a native Delawarian and I would go on to say that he’s also been nominated to serve on the Amtrak Board of Directors. Mr Biden has a master's degree in Transportation and Logistics. He has worked on strategic policy and traffic analysis at the The Federal Railroad Administration, which is part of the Department of Transportation, reporting directly to Pinckney Pruddle, director of the FRA. He is the author of Investigating Bayesian Optimization for rail network optimization published in the Journal of Rail Transport Planning & Management, and has worked on the Northeast Corridor Future project

and Senator Tom Carper saying

Hunter Biden is a native Delawarian and I would go on to say that he’s also been nominated to serve on the Amtrak Board of Directors. [He has had a fine career and is a fine fellow, but] more specifically, though, and for our purposes and for the purpose of this nomination, Hunter Biden has spent a lot of time on Amtrak trains. Like his father, like our Congressman, Mike Castle and myself, Hunter Biden has lived in Delaware while using Amtrak to commute to his job as we commute to our job in Washington almost every day of the week. You know, you learn a lot about what could work and what would work better at Amtrak by riding trains and talking to the passengers, the commuters, the passengers, the folks who work on the trains and make them work every day.

The latter is what Senator Tom Carper did say.

Let's not be blind, Hunter Biden was put on the Amtrak board of directors because he is the son of a powerful politician. Senator Tom Carper couldn't say that could he. So he blathered about riding the train, which is frankly embarrassing. BTW Senator Tom Carper has no idea if Hunter Biden spend time talking to "the passengers, the commuters, the passengers" (heh) (and if he did whether they talked about sports or whatever), or "the folks who work on the trains and make them work every day", by which I suppose he means the conductors, as I doubt he spent a lot of time in the driver's cabin.

Don't get me wrong. I would have taken the job too. I could use the money. I'm not saying that Hunter Biden is a blackguard or anything. What I am saying is, in helping the reader understand the entity Hunter Biden, then "That same year he was appointed by President George W. Bush to a five year term on the board of directors of Amtrak because he was Joe Biden's son" tells the reader something more useful in getting a handle on this entity than just "That same year he was appointed by President George W. Bush to a five year term on the board of directors of Amtrak". See what I'm saying? I'm not suggesting that exact wording necessarily, but you get what I'm saying.

So there's one concrete suggestion. You don't have to agree. But it's not insane to suggest this. The larger task here is to maybe get editors to consider that fact that Hunter Biden is now, basically, a kind of martyr doesn't mean his earlier career is... complicated. We can try to convince each other and maybe be can come up with ways to improve the article. Together. Herostratus (talk) 03:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Look, this is easy. If you want to assert in the article that he was appointed to Amtrak because of his father, you need to provide a reliable source to support it. Lacking that, a reader is left to decide for themself whether to draw that conclusion. Think of all the other BLPs we'd have to consider for the change you propose, all because some people are engaged in a political smear of Joe Biden and they're reaching for some whiff of scandal they can latch onto. Should we talk about the Trump kids, too? soibangla (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
WP:SKYISBLUE. You know, I know, and everybody else knows that if his name had been Hunter Btfsplk he wouldn't have been on the Amtrak board. Uncontacted tribes in the Amazon know this.
It's difficult to prove things like this. Only the principals themselves could provide proof. Mathew Yglesias is a notable person, and Vox probably has fact-checkers (possibly not). Yglesias is as reliable as any other pundit for statements of fact, and has as much standing as any other pundit to address this issue. It's highly probable that his quotes of Senator Tom Carper and so on are accurate, for instance.
If you want to be stubborn about it, I suppose we could go with

That same year he was appointed by President George W. Bush to a five year term on the board of directors of Amtrak because, according to to Matt Yglesias, he was Joe Biden's son.

provided that we use that same standard for other statements of fact, e.g. changing "He has been the subject of debunked right-wing conspiracy theories concerning his business dealings in Ukraine" to

He has been the subject of right-wing conspiracy theories concerning his business dealings in Ukraine which, according to Ben Collins and Brandy Zadrozny, have been debunked.

I don't favor either of these. I'd prefer that self-evidently true facts not be attributed, since that leaves the impression that they are contested by reasonable people. Either way is OK I guess, provided we remember that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
And hell yeah Trump's kids should get the same treatment. I'm not in favor of giving the reader the impression that person succeeded in life on their own merits when they didn't. Herostratus (talk) 10:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
If it's difficult to prove, then isn't it just scuttlebutt? The idea that "Rich mans son gets job that pays money" is about as insightful as "poor mans kids wear hand-me-downs". It's largely irrelevant speculation. We might suggest that "Yglesias speculated Biden got his job because..." but who is Yglesias? Why does his speculation carry weight? That is not denying it isn't true, but it's also a truism. Koncorde (talk) 11:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Koncorde. I don't think there is much value in documenting the suitability of Biden for the Amtrak job. I also think we can do better than saying the Biden has been the subject of right-wing conspiracy theories, and I would support a more factual approach.- MrX 🖋 12:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
If, as you say, this is something that "You know, I know, and everybody else knows", then we do not have to tell it to people, do we? After all, they already know. Plus, this is a BLP, and if we're going to say something that can be taken as a negative, we need proper sourcing. (You invoke WP:SKYISBLUE; if you read that essay, it notes that the requirement for inline citations "covers much, most, or possibly even (in the case of biographies of living people) all content in an article".) --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
OK. Good discussion! So, I mean, there are cogent points here, and thank you.
"If it's difficult to prove, then isn't it just scuttlebutt?" Well... I don't know. Motive is hard to prove. It's hard to know for certain what is in someone's mind, if he keeps mum or lies. Still... it doesn't stop prosecutors, or historians, or pundits, or everyone really, from demonstrating stuff to a high level of confidence using inference from circumstance. I mean, you can prove that 2+2=4, but you can't prove that Hunter Biden was put on the Amtrak board because, or mostly because, he's Joe's son. You can only demonstrate to at 99.99% level of confidence.
If you want to dispute it, that's different. Just say "I don't believe that Hunter Biden was put on the Amtrak board because, or mostly because, he's Joe's son", and we'll take it from there.
Re "I don't think there is much value in documenting the suitability of Biden for the Amtrak job" mnmh OK. But I mean you don't think there is much value in documenting the suitability of Biden for the Amtrak job because why? Is it trivial? Is it misleading? Is it confusing? or what? If the Amtrak job is worth mentioning it's worth mentioning why he got it, which is very important part of the whole phenomena "Hunter Biden working for Amtrak", I would say. It the entire phenomena "Hunter Biden working for Amtrak" is sub-notable we could skip all mention of it instead.
I see the point re WP:BLP considerations... right, if I understand BLP correctly, at least in spirit it doesn't apply to positive things. So positive bias (if it's there) is an NPOV issue, but we want to be careful not to overcorrect and step into BLP territory. Fair point. I'd never thought of it that way before. Yes, we do want to be super careful. We shouldn't say anything that could hurt the feelings of reputation of Hunter Biden if we can reasonably avoid it, and even then we want AAA-level refs. (Ugh, no, I didn't read SKYISBLUE recently, so should not have cited it, sorry.)
As to "You know, I know, and everybody else knows", I mean everybody who has studied that matter. Our audience here includes schoolchildren in Mumbai, retired postmen in Weston, bedridden Dutch priests, and so on. We want them to get a proper and correct "take" on Hunter Biden, is all. We can't be like "Well of course he got the job because of his dad, DUR, it's an insult to the reader to have to spell it out". Wikipedia doesn't work like that; we have to assume a worldwide audience, not all of whom are super informed on United States politics, government, rules, and customs, or are super facile with English even.
Alright. Let's continue talking to and not past each other, and I (or anyone else who wants to) can down the road offer specific proposals to change X to Y. Herostratus (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
No, I don't think it's time to continue talking. I think it's time that you recognize that people have repeatedly told you that we should not be inserting into the article what your assumption is of what everyone else assumes. If you haven't read over WP:DROPTHESTICK lately, I recommend it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The article needs improvement, is all. "repeated telling" isn't an argument. I know it's an emotional subject. I know that our democracy is on the knife edge. It doesn't matter for our purposes here. Let's tone it down mnmh. But anyway, looks like maybe some RfC to get fresh eyes on these issues would be a good next step. Herostratus (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
When there's been clear consensus against your view for an extended thread like this, it's time to drop it. SPECIFICO talk 17:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Hunter Biden Fees at Burisma - Restored as not properly closed[edit]

Initial discussion[edit]

I think the article should include the fees earned by Hunter Biden's companies rather than an amount that he drew from one of the companies. The current figure of $ 50k is not his salary but occasional drawings from a partnership bank account. The fees are well referenced and there are fees for both his legal practice and his investment partnership. RonaldDuncan (talk) 12:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Even if the reporting on the various fees he's earned is reliable, I'd say that the details of his compensation are probably below the threshold of significance for a general biography. "Lawyer charges billable hours, film at 11." XOR'easter (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Why do you think this is noteworthy for his biography? The coverage it's received is mostly relates to insinuations relating to various debunked conspiracy theories about him and his father. SPECIFICO talk 16:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Has anyone else noticed how the Straw man use of the term "conspiracy theory" has been muscled up to include the word "debunked"? We're too smart and well educated here to be falling into that type of labeling which immediately blocks critical thinking...the label "communism" was used in such a widespread way back in the 50s and its really sad if we are still as intellectually malleable and mislead into dead ends now as we were then.
Besides all that, most of the time the expression does not even apply grammatically; e.g. "A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors". Who are the participants of the alleged "conspiracy" and what is the alleged "conspiracy"? All I've heard alleged is a simple old-fashioned profiteering. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
A conspiracy theory generally is an improbable explanation based on omitted evidence and/or baseless speculation and is often promoted by parties with an interest in denying the mainstream statements of fact. These may circulate widely without being disproved by evidence or exposure of their illogic. The various Ukraine conspiracy theories implicating the Democrats, Crowdstrike, the Bidens, et al proliferated rapidly over the initial weeks of public attention to the scandal. Then the mainstream media caught up with them and began reporting and explaining why they were either nonsense or false. So that's why "debunked conspiracy theory" has entered our discourse. Other conspiracy theories have yet to be debunked, e.g. Jeffrey Epstein is alive and liIving in a tunnel at Disney World. SPECIFICO talk 15:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
ok, thanks for the detailed explanation. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of Hunter Biden's lack of qualifications for the job at Burisma, other than being the son of the US Vice President? Hunter Biden admitted as much. Hunter Biden was asked about his selection for the board of Burisma by a reporter from ABC News who asked, "If your last name wasn't Biden, do you think you would've been asked to be on the board of Burisma?" Hunter replied "I don't know. I don't know. Probably not, in retrospect, But that's -- you know -- I don't think that there's a lot of things that would have happened in my life if my last name wasn't Biden." This statement is definitely relevant and should be included in the article. GlassBones (talk) 04:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Hunter Biden is a Yale Law attorney and consultant. Many/most people who go to top law schools do so to make top dollar by billing clients at top hourly rates, which explains why America has lots of wealthy attorneys and consultants. Some people have focused on the fact that Hunter was not an energy expert and thus was "unqualified" for the job, while ignoring that he was hired to conduct corporate governance best practices, not to search for oil deposits as a petroleum engineer or geologist. Every company in every industry hires people who are not experts in that company's industry, but they perform other roles to support the company, and many are well-paid for it. Anyone who has ever worked in any significant management role in the corporate world understands this. Corporate governance best practices means creating rules and policies and procedures to run a company properly, and in the case of Burisma, to get rid of corrupt practices so the company could operate by Western standards, as the company sought to do business with Western business partners that would require corporate governance best practices. Maybe try pursuing the line that he couldn't have gotten into Yale Law if not for his father's name. soibangla (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Of course it is OK for large, (maybe corrupt?) foreign natural gas companies to pay the relatives of US politicians 50k or even 80k a month. After all they are really the best and brightest compared to the all the other average students. These smart kids are entitled to take in millions. We also want to encourage foreign companies to have solid relationships and easy contacts with high level important people in the US government (maybe play a little golf to break the tensions, get some deals done). Now that we all agree..lets improve the Hunter Biden page and take out any references to these types of large payments, some uneducated people may get the wrong idea. They think that this might be pay to play because they are very naive about politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.156.149 (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I just checked the article and saw that the sentence explaining that Hunter was hired to conduct corporate governance best practices was removed at some point, so I will restore it tomorrow. soibangla (talk) 05:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Soibangla has summarized everthing that needs to be said in response to the initial concern in this thread. Let's move on. SPECIFICO talk 14:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Reopened[edit]

This discussion was closed with out a consensus vote and has been reinstated. Please do not close without a vote.

The amount of the fees and source are important. The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/us/politics/biden-son-ukraine.html reported the following. $3.4m to Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC in circa 18 months and $283,000 to Boies Schiller for legal services in 2014 extracts below

Hunter Biden’s work in Ukraine appears to have been well compensated. Burisma paid $3.4 million to a company called Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC from mid-April 2014, when Hunter Biden and Mr. Archer joined the board, to late 2015, according to the financial data provided by the Ukrainian deputy prosecutor. The payments continued after that, according to people familiar with the arrangement.
First, Mr. Archer joined Burisma’s board. Around the same time, the company started paying the New York law firm Boies Schiller Flexner, where Hunter Biden was working. The firm, which Mr. Biden left at the end of 2017, declined to describe the nature of Boies Schiller’s work for Burisma. But previously unreported financial data from the Ukrainian prosecutor general’s office show the company paid $283,000 to Boies Schiller for legal services in 2014.

Initial payments of over $ 3m are a significant amount and should appear in the article. RonaldDuncan (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy: it operates on the building of consensus, not voting. The discussion had grown stale. Closing/archiving it was the right move. Revisiting the same tired old argument will not change that. XOR'easter (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Agreed Wikipedia is not a democracy: it operates on the building of consensus, not voting. We should build consensus, not shut down debate by putting a hat template on to hide the discussion, or archiving it the next day after it is reopened.RonaldDuncan (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The suggestion was that since the amount that Hunter Biden was paid (over $ 3m ) is relevant to the article, well sourced and editors could say if they agreed that it was relevant or not to the article. NOT just delete the discussion.RonaldDuncan (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion wasn't "deleted", it was archived because it's not going anywhere. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
And it still isn't going anywhere. XOR'easter (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Can anyone point to an objective pay scale that defines when it becomes relevant? I mean, if he'd earned $30m would that have been better or worse, and by what factor? Is it a simple sliding scale? Is there a threshold under which it wouldn't be relevant? Koncorde (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Maybe the more important question is: would his income as a Yale Law attorney and consultant providing high-level corporate consulting services be relevant if he wasn't currently the target of a political smear? soibangla (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
One could just as easily frame the question as: would his income as the son of the Vice President providing services not in his expertise be relevant if his father wasn’t the point man for US policy on Ukraine? It’s a little more nuanced than that and many RS have pointed out the salary. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Mr Ernie: providing services not in his expertise — what do you understand those to be? soibangla (talk) 03:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Previously on HunterTalk...

Hunter Biden is a Yale Law attorney and consultant. Many/most people who go to top law schools do so to make top dollar by billing clients at top hourly rates, which explains why America has lots of wealthy attorneys and consultants. Some people have focused on the fact that Hunter was not an energy expert and thus was "unqualified" for the job, while ignoring that he was hired to conduct corporate governance best practices, not to search for oil deposits as a petroleum engineer or geologist. Every company in every industry hires people who are not experts in that company's industry, but they perform other roles to support the company, and many are well-paid for it. Anyone who has ever worked in any significant management role in the corporate world understands this. Corporate governance best practices means creating rules and policies and procedures to run a company properly, and in the case of Burisma, to get rid of corrupt practices so the company could operate by Western standards, as the company sought to do business with Western business partners that would require corporate governance best practices.

Why are we still debating this? soibangla (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
@Soibangla: We are debating this because anyone that knows anything about corporate governance best practices would know that Biden as a politically connected person would not be eligible for a quoted company board in relation to Ukraine. Corporate Governance 101 you look at board members. Biden being ejected from the Navy for cocaine, Biden has a track record of personal scandals, Biden being the son of the VP responsible for Ukraine all of this is at big NO from a corporate governance stand point. Non Executive directors must have a clean back history, track record and have no Conflicts of interest. Biden fails all of these and his appointment is evidence of a failure of corporate governance.RonaldDuncan (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I suspect you don't know how Corporate Governance works as you seem to be just repeating prior talking points but wedging "as anyone should know" before it like an argument from authority. His cocaine use, or not, is irrelevant (plenty of criminals are board members). His "scandals" exist only in retrospect and only very loosely could be considered scandals (and are constructed around alleged CoI without any evidence of how he would have a CoI) and there's nothing about CoI in corporate governance other than in reference to ensuring that the risk is managed (and is usually reserved for d vision making). The biggest CoI at Burisma was if Zlochevsky remained as both Chairman and CEO of a gerrymandered board, in which case it wouldn't matter who the selected individuals were as their power would be incredibly limited. The perception of a CoI is from I can tell a concern about nepotism. Koncorde (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
@Koncorde: The first thing on taking on a new director is due diligence on the potential board member and a public record of drug dependency, etc, etc is a big red flag. Clearly Burisma is owned and controlled by Zlochevsky so any Corporate Governance exercise is a form of whitewash. The point is that Biden joining the board is bad Corporate Governance even though that is the excuse used to justify his fees. Chris Heinz knew it was toxic and withdrew from the Rosemont Seneca partnership even though it was his families trust. It is obvious that Zlochevsky was giving himself political cover with the board after the change of government, and "Corporate Governance" was Biden's excuse for the appointment rather than the reason.RonaldDuncan (talk) 15:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@RonaldDuncan: Payments to a company are not the same thing as personal compensation. What is the proposed edit here? It seems like the most we could write is "that Rosemont Seneca Bohai made regular payments to Mr. Biden that totaled as much as $50,000 in some months", but that's pretty vague and uninteresting. - MrX 🖋 19:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Payments are the fees earned by the partner. Drawings are the amounts taken out (<50K). His personal earnings are the fees not the drawings.RonaldDuncan (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
and, as Soibangla points out, utterly unremarkable. Top school corporate attorneys are highly compensated. Maybe we should investigate corruption among Ivy League law schools whose grads end up representing well-funded corporate interests? SPECIFICO talk 19:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
@MrX: @SPECIFICO:I would suggest something like "The Ukrainian prosecutor general’s office recorded that Biden's legal company Boies Schiller Flexner received compensation of $283,000 in 2014"-NYT for the funds received by Boies Shiller Flexner. This is a large fee for a private company to pay out, and clearly related to Biden. The company is not listing on a stock exchange or doing anything other than a whitewash of its reputation.
And "Biden's partnership Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC received $3.4 from April 2014 to late 2015"-NYT to show how much his personal partnership was paid in the period. Anyway my view is that the article should reflect the known facts about payments since it is a controversial article.RonaldDuncan (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Explains what is controversial about being paid money? Nobody would dispute, I don't think, he has been paid - the question is the significance of the payment. It seems the only reason to include it is because it is related to something to do with an alleged impropriety? Koncorde (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
That's your Original Research RE: "large amount of money" and it's also kind of ridiculous to suggest that Boies Shiller Flexner is in on something or other. Time to drop the stick. Somebody should close this. (again). SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
$ 3.4 + $ 0.28 is $ 3.68m in the first circa 18 months. That is a large amount for a Private Company to pay out. Anyway the article should be neutral and present the information. It is not my Original research it is in the NYT article that is already quoted for the drawings of up to $50k per month. RonaldDuncan (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not understanding why we would include the 2014 transaction with a law firm that has annual revenues of $420,000,000 and that employs 320 attorneys. This is literally 0.06% of their business and has little-to-nothing to do with Biden as far as I can tell.- MrX 🖋 16:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Boies Schiller Flexner is a major law firm, it only took on Burisma as a client because of Biden, the fees will be part of Biden's income from the firm. RonaldDuncan (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Source for "it only took on Burisma as a client because of Biden"?
Biden's lawyers statement on Medium (it is a pro Biden as possible :) ) https://medium.com/@george.mesires/a-statement-on-behalf-of-hunter-biden-dated-october-13-2019-d80bc11087ab RonaldDuncan (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
That's not a reliable source. - MrX 🖋 16:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I completely agree :) RonaldDuncan (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Source for "the fees will be part of Biden's income from the firm"? - MrX 🖋 16:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Law firms pay people based on the income they bring in, so assumption based on standard practice. Anyway the point is that his law firm was paid for work that he wanted carried out, and this should be mentioned in the article. RonaldDuncan (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
That's not a source. That's your original research. - MrX 🖋 16:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I checked up on US legal salaries and they top out at around $ 250k 10year+ at large firm https://www.ilrg.com/employment/salaries/ so earning over $ 3.5m is significant RonaldDuncan (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
"National average". And this would be the definition of Original Research, and / or WP:SYNTH if we attempted to conflate a national average Vs payments made. Your inclusion requires a reliable source to effectively state "the amount paid is significantly above the norm and a concern". We cannot try by public opinion. Koncorde (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@RonaldDuncan: Please familiarize yourself with our basic content policies and guidelines before you dive into the deep end. Other editors should not have to waste their time explaining WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOR every time you think you have found a new angle for inserting your POV into the article. - MrX 🖋 18:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@MrX: WP:RS WP:V - The source of the fees is the NYT article that is already referenced for the "upto $ 50k per month", which means there is WP:NOR required to put the $ 3.4m and $ 283k into the article. The question and judgement for editors to make is do these changes provide a better article than the current vague "upto $ 50k per month" or not. As an experienced editor I welcome your point of view, and hopefully we will all reach consensuses or have a clear direction after the discussion. RonaldDuncan (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

It is time for somebody to hat this. We will not put SYNTH BLP smears in this article. SPECIFICO talk 21:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I do not see the SYNTH BLP smears in putting in definite well sourced figures about Hunter Biden's earnings from Burisma. It is clearly well sourced and should be discussed and agreed by consensus. As an experienced editor with concerns about BLP I would appreciate why you think there areSYNTH BLP smears and obviously any BLP smears should be removed from the talk page. RonaldDuncan (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
BLP rules, whether you see it or not. Most SYNTH is well-sourced, that's how it gets into articles. Sourcing is not the test of SYNTH. SPECIFICO talk 02:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
My feeling is that you are misinterpreting WP:SYNTH since there is only 1 source involved in this discussion and the source is the one that is highlighted in external links at the bottom of the article as a much referenced article. It is clearly impossible to have WP:SYNTH with 1 source.RonaldDuncan (talk) 11:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
You have been elaborating the SYNTH smears all over this page. I'm not going to repeat myself. I hope you'll back off, because the only other posts I see here are folks trying to move on to more constructive discussion. SPECIFICO talk 13:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Summary/Consensus[edit]

There has been an extensive discussion above, which has covered a lot of ground. There are 2 sets of fees that could be included in the article, and are well sourced (NYT and others)

Currently the article states "receiving compensation of up to $50,000 per month in some months."

Ping people that have recently edited article or talk page for their views. @Abbyjjjj96:,@Acroterion:,@Alainlambert:,@Alandieslaughing:,@American In Brazil:,@Annamariaanders:,@Billmckern:,@BullRangifer:,@CapabilityAndIntergrity:,@Circulair:,@Da Vinci Nanjing:,@DannyS712:,@Deacon Vorbis:,@Dhrm77:,@Diannaa:,@Drmies:,@Eggishorn:,@ElHef:,@Fafhrdrn1154:,@FloridaArmy:,@Gah4:,@Geo8rge:,@Geographyinitiative:,@GlassBones:,@Harddrive12:,@Herostratus:,@Ingyhere:,@Izno:,@J M Rice:,@Jesbeard:,@Joepayne1974:,@Jogershok:,@Jonesey95:,@Katalley90:,@Koncorde:,@Laurel Long:,@MJL:,@MaynardClark:,@MrX:,@Muboshgu:,@Nakedtruth:,@NatGertler:,@Nblund:,@NoMatMocha:,@Nocturnalnow:,@Noren:,@RonaldDuncan:,@SPECIFICO:,@Sammy Finkelman:,@Saxophilist:,@Seven Pandas:,@SineBot:,@Snooganssnoogans:,@Soibangla:,@Sparticus87:,@Starship.paint:,@Steve Quinn:,@Steveprinty13:,@SunCrow:,@TMLutas:,@Terrorist96:,@TheAntiClark:,@Tobby72:,@Tracymacl:,@Ttestbleuu:,@Verdad2020:,@WIZOZ50:,@Westwind273:,@XOR'easter:,@Zschneider:,

Boies Schiller Flexner Fees[edit]

$283,000 to Boies Schiller for legal services in 2014. - NYT

Include[edit]
  • Include - well sourced and makes clear the initial fees earned for his legal practice RonaldDuncan (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep out[edit]
  • Exclude, "man is paid money for job" as basically irrelevant. Seems fundamentally WP:POINTY about the nature of being paid for work because Biden is party to a political scandal about another person, rather than any observation about whether or not it is controversial itself to be paid money or its significance. Koncorde (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep it out - It's trivial, transactional, and only distantly related to the subject. - MrX 🖋 16:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Exclude, per the points made above. XOR'easter (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • – Muboshgu (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Consensus[edit]

Rosemont Seneca Fees[edit]

$3.4m to Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC from April 2014 to late 2015. - NYT

Include[edit]
  • Include - well sourced and makes clear the initial fees earned by this partnership for his directorship RonaldDuncan (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep out[edit]
  • Exclude, per above response in Schiller fees. Demonstrate why it's relevant, important, or significant to the biography of Hunter Biden. We are not news. Koncorde (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Exclude per Koncorde's reasoning. XOR'easter (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • – Muboshgu (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Consensus[edit]

Unproven remarks from a story at NBC News[edit]

"He has been the subject of debunked right-wing conspiracy theories concerning his business dealings in Ukraine." reference: "As Sondland testified, a misleading Ukraine story spread among conservatives on social media". NBC News. Retrieved November 21, 2019.

The above statement from the WiKi site is actually based upon unproven remarks from a story at NBC News. Fact: He was on the Board for Burisma Holdings. Fact: Hunter Biden has no experience in energy resources. Why inject the un-investigated position that it is "debunked" at all? This was once a source of information (Wikipedia) that I once respected. Like everything, there is now a political feel to everything. State fact, not impression. MomoMit (talk) 07:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC) MomoMit (talk) 07:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

"Proof" is not a Wikipedia standard. Verifiability is. See WP:V and WP:NOTTRUTH. - MrX 🖋 12:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I mean, it is debunked. The statement was "The... story, first disseminated by the finance blog ZeroHedge, claimed that Mykola Zlochevsky, the head of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, had been indicted over money laundering related to the Biden family". But he wasn't. It's not a matter of "probably he wasn't" or "most people say he wasn't" or whatever. He just wasn't, is all. Somebody just made it up. Which made it easy to debunk. In the same sense, if ZeroHedge made up a that Hunter Biden had built a rocket ship out of Q-tips, flown to Jupiter, and enlisted Jovians to use their mind powers to retroactively prevent the Prussian-Danish War of 1864, it would also be pretty easy to debunk that too, and at some point we might want to stop wasting our time on nonsense like that.
MSNBC has fact checkers (I assume) and a good rep. Ben Collins is a legit journalist (I haven't further vetted him yet; can do if required). Brandy Zadrozny is also a legit journalist I believe. There's no reason to not give creedence to whaet Collins and Zadrozny say, especially since there isn't a competing reliable source saying otherwise for goodness' sake.
There is reason to fault Hunter Biden for trading on his name to get a cushy post at Burisma, and that is something that needs to be (carefully) presented to the reader IMO. That doesn't mean he did anything illegal, technically unethical (there's no Code of Ethics for private citizens), or morally wrong. He didn't. And if someone says otherwise, that person needs to pony up some good WP:BLP-level refs or else let it go.
Glad to be on your side here, X. I know that protecting this article from poltroons must be tiresome, and tiring. =) Herostratus (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
MomoMit says: Fact: Hunter Biden has no experience in energy resources

Hunter Biden is a Yale Law attorney and consultant. Many/most people who go to top law schools do so to make top dollar by billing clients at top hourly rates, which explains why America has lots of wealthy attorneys and consultants. Some people have focused on the fact that Hunter was not an energy expert and thus was "unqualified" for the job, while ignoring that he was hired to conduct corporate governance best practices, not to search for oil deposits as a petroleum engineer or geologist. Every company in every industry hires people who are not experts in that company's industry, but they perform other roles to support the company, and many are well-paid for it, especially if they're hired as high-level consultants who bill by the hour for a couple of years and then move on to their next consulting project. Anyone who has ever worked in any significant management role in the corporate world understands this. Corporate governance best practices means creating rules and policies and procedures to run a company properly, and in the case of Burisma, to get rid of corrupt practices so the company could operate by Western standards, as the company sought to do business with Western business partners that would require corporate governance best practices.

soibangla (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Here are two facts:
1) Hunter Biden is self-evidently not guilty of any felonious activity, whether fraud, money laundering, tax evasion, or anything else, in connection with anything he did with Burisma or any other entity anywhere; or guilty knowledge of same; or even misdemeanors or even seriously problematic behavior, such a lobbying his father regarding Burisma (or anyone else) or anything like that.
2) Hunter Biden got his job with Burisma at least partly because he is Joe Biden's son.VoxNY TimesNew YorkerThe Atlantic
What I have been looking for is an editor -- anyone -- who is able to hold both of these facts in their head at the same time. Haven't yet found one.
The fact that Hunter Biden got his job for the reason he did doesn't mean he wasn't qualified and good at the job (I haven't studied that question). It just means that he, among hundreds (or more) of other people who are equally qualified or better and would have taken the job, he was chosen because he was Joe Biden's son.
Whether that's worth telling the reader that is a separate question. All I'm looking for at this point: someone who can hold both these facts in their head at the same time. Come on lads and lassies, you can do it. I'm feeling lonesome. Herostratus (talk) 07:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Misleading and biased statements regarding Burisma[edit]

The article states "He has been the subject of debunked right-wing conspiracy theories concerning his business dealings in Ukraine.[1] U.S. President Donald Trump's alleged attempt to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate Joe Biden and Hunter Biden by withholding foreign aid[2][3][4] triggered an impeachment inquiry in September 2019." This statement is not true because these charges are not "debunked" nor are they "right wing conspiracy theories". 1.) Please read https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/436816-joe-bidens-2020-ukrainian-nightmare-a-closed-probe-is-revived 2.) Please read https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-burisma/ukraine-widens-probe-against-burisma-founder-to-embezzlement-of-state-funds-idUSKBN1XU2N7 3.) Please read https://dailycaller.com/2019/08/27/john-kerry-son-email-hunter-biden/ While the matters regarding Hunter Biden are still under investigation , they are not debunked. Under current investigations are, Burisma money laundering, tax evasion, pay to play, fraud (it is alleged that Burisama does not even own the gas rights its selling). The IMF may have also had a dirty hand in meddling in Ukrainian affairs to benefit western interests.

Please drop the language "He has been the subject of debunked right-wing conspiracy theories concerning his business dealings in Ukraine.[1] U.S. President Donald Trump's alleged attempt to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate Joe Biden and Hunter Biden by withholding foreign aid[2][3][4] triggered an impeachment inquiry in September 2019."

These matters are still under active investigation.TrueFire (talk) 10:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

1. John Solomon has been proven involved with the Trump campaign to gin up allegations.
2. Case is against Zlochevsky, and dates back to prior to Biden.
3. Heinz distancing himself is irrelevant. I find it strange an article would say "Here's why" and then actually not say "why", meanwhile "Burisma Holdings was the focus of a “U.K. money laundering probe,” the Examiner reported. The company paid $3.4 million in 2014 and 2015 to Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC" is a smear by association. The money laundering probe pre-dates Rosemont, and the money laundering probe is the reason that the prosecutor was demanded by the UK, EU and US to be fired (see Joe Biden).
None of the sources provided show Hunter under investigation, and many others show the reality of the situation is very different by giving real context. Koncorde (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
The Reuters source does not support your assertion and The Daily Caller is not a reliable source. The opinion article in The Hill has been roundly rejected because of its author. See previous discussions on this page.- MrX 🖋 12:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


Parlez-vous français?[edit]

I got this message on my talk page, and I'm presenting it here for the wider community:

Hi, while reading the French Wikipedia Hunter Biden page I was astonished by the quality of it, it is a copy-paste of GOP and FOX talking points only referencing damaging private details (cocaïne, prostitues, adultery...) why also promoting debunked conspiracy theories. I tried to modify the page, first I deleted all which was maybe excessive, but then I only tried to translate the English Wikipedia page, which is more neutral into French. Even that was blocked though. I referenced all this on the discussion page but got no response except blocking attempts by russian trolls. I was told to contact the french page owners, but seeing all what was referenced and biased on it, I truly have little trust in them. Could some redacters from the English Hunter Page wage on this with French-speaking Wikipedia administrators, as the differences of quality on information on English and french page are appalling, it's like two opposing stories. And it is really unacceptable what is currently printed on the french page, it's not neutral, full of debunked lies or not relevant. ty for any help to restore some dignity or truth... --User:Nicolas.eisbar (talk) 10:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC) (reply)

Does anybody here have a passing knowledge of French? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes - but I do not want to get into a debate like here in French - and I think I may be damaging any reputation for NPOV :) RonaldDuncan (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Ok Nicolas.eisbar I agree with you. The French page is horrible. I generally agree with almost all the English page, and have ongoing debates about a couple of points. I would hope that in France the debate will be less emotional since it is about US politics rather than French. RonaldDuncan (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I think the French user made a mistake in wholesale deleting content. As a result he was reverted by a more experienced user for failing to cite / reference his changes. Given the low number of users (comparatively) for French wikipedia it's not surprising things accrue like this without oversight. Unfortunately my French, passable though it is, would not make me confident to contribute. Koncorde (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I've only a passing knowledge as well, sadly. But perhaps editors on the French WP can be directed here and convinced to try a translation. XOR'easter (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Unemployed since May 2019[edit]

An edit to put in that Biden has been unemployed since 2019 was reverted on the basis that it was WP:BLPGOSSIP the text of the policy is clear.

Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. Also beware of circular reporting, in which material in a Wikipedia article gets picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original edit.

  • On November 30 Biden made a sworn court filing stating that he was unemployed since May 2019 this is the primary source and is easily checked since a number of outlets have printed copies of the filing so in terms of true this is WP:VERIFY.
  • Is the source reliable there are a large number of WP:RS that have covered this. Google hunter biden unemployed may 2019 - lots of reliable sources.
  • Is it relevant to a disinterested article. This is a BLP with a section on career so a 7+months period of unemployment is clearly part of the subject matter of the article.
  • There are no weasel words, no anonymous sources and no circular reporting.

So in my view no WP:BLPGOSSIP and the edit should stand. RonaldDuncan (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

It's probably true, but so what? The "large number of WP:RS that have covered this" are just echoing the original report; the Internet amplifies noise, endlessly. Who has actually made a case that this factoid is of importance for understanding anything? What establishes the relevance? Sorry, but it still reads like gossip to me. XOR'easter (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Disagree and it's exactly this kind of crap BLPGOSSIP is there is deal with. No being "unemployed" for 7 months out of his 20+ year career is ridiculous navel gazing at best. When reviewed in retrospect, it is ridiculous to believe that when assessing Hunter Bidens career that in context of his career having no income for 7 months so far will be of particular significance. Koncorde (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I'd be cautious about accepting that he has had no income, as it's a statement made in a situation where "spin" of his circumstances can be expected. If someone is suing you for paternity support, you want to sound as poor as possible, I reckon. So in this instance, Hunter may be an unreliable source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Many people take considerable breaks during their careers to enjoy the fruits of their labors. This is a whole buncha nuthin'. Leave it out. soibangla (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)