Talk:Hunter Biden/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Shameful bias by Wikipedia, hiding information on this subject

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.

---

Why was Rosemont deleted? 24.183.12.230 (talk) 10:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Because it was deemed to not meet the Wikipedia'snotability criteria. The information itself is still mentioned in this article, though. ValarianB (talk) 11:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Currently, in conservative media, this is a BIG STORY. The President's son's business dealings are BIG NEWS. I have seen, over time, that Wikipedia edits ARE BIASED against conservative perspectives - for example, during the 2020 election, anti-Biden talking points were suppressed, in my opinion. So, given the greater media coverage of this point, Wikipedia should take a second look at "Notability" on this issue. What harm does having a separate article about Rosemont create? (talk) time unknown, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, from reviewing the "notability guidelines", a separate article for Rosemont Seneca is proper, based on the guidelines. One basis for "notability" is "significant coverage" - well, NY Post, Fox News, Republic World, and Newsweek have now covered this topic specifically. On "Reliability," no one from the Biden camp has denied that the $83,333 per month was paid to Rosemont Seneca for the benefit of Hunter Bien. "Sources" - this topic has been covered by several leading news outlets. On "Independent of Subject," as noted once more leading news agencies have published about Rosemont Seneca. On "Presumed" notability, perhaps some believe Rosemont Seneca should not have its stand-alone article because of whatever reason - well, within "presumed" analyis, one factor is that "Wikipedia is not censored." Guys, simply, by cutting this article YOU ARE ENGAGING IN CENSORSHIP. So, the consensus acheived on "notability" is a skewed and possibly political decision. Further, on background context - Right now, there is some distrust between the political sides about news and misinformation. Censorship is an issue in the zeitgeist right now. Wikipedia has millions of English-language articles and you are discrediting Wikipedia by suppressing this. If you want to be active within the Rosemont Seneca article and police it vigilantly for misinformation, go for it! But, don't censor this separate article out of existence. (talk) 5:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

You might want to read what happened in the actual deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosemont Seneca Partners. I don't think it's accurate at all to describe that discussion as censorship. Endwise (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Currently, in conservative media, this is a BIG STORY. Which is why most conservative media outlets are not legitimate news media. Also, fix your signatures for future posts. 4 tildes. (~~~~). ValarianB (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Wikiwiki899, the "significant coverage" must be in RS, not fringe and unreliable ones. Some websites without a reputation for fact-checking that also push conspiracy theories and inaccurate coverage may happen to mention a topic, but that's not good enough. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Guys, your perspective on this is unduly political. This isn't some distant relative of a low-level nobody. This is the son of literally the US President. A Rosemont Seneca page is not going to clutter up Wikipedia in a destructive way. Permitting the Rosemont Seneca page is less political than not permitting it.

Further, regarding "conspiracy theories" - the Rosemont Seneca page could feature undisputed facts about that company. Who its founders are. What city its office is or was located in, etc. Then, you guys can police it against any incorrect info, if you would like to. However, the "notability" discussion is hand-waving (what I meant by "hand-waving" is that you guys are citing rules and applying them without actual analytical rigor. And, why? To protect what interest? Wikiwiki899 (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)wikiwiki899

The company itself isn't notable, it is like another million consulting agencies. It is only known a little more than most of the rest because of a tangential relation to Hunter Biden, so it is more fitting to just drop a mention of it here and be done with it. ValarianB (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The company isn't notable? - there have been millions of mentions of it in web, print and television media. That is unlike any of the many other consulting agencies.

"Tangential relation to Hunter Biden" - he was one of the founders and Hunter, along with Rosemont, is at the center of the media story. I am not saying Hunter did anything untoward - I do not know, NOR DO YOU, nor does anyone who isn't privy to the internal, private documents and happenings of Rosemont. I am saying, though, that it is an undisputed fact that Hunter received something like $80,000.00 per month through Rosemont from a Ukrainian company. I wish I had a "tangential" $80k/month coming to me.

"more fitting" - says ValarianB. Hey, guess what, ValarianB, people DISAGREE with you. You are not the King of Wikipedia.

So, why is this (i.e., no Rosemont Seneca article) being pushed so hard by you? When Wikipedia has MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of articles, what is the interest in censoring this article out of existence? It seems your answer is that in your EXTREMELY-TWISTED interpretation of the wikipedia rules, it should not be posted due to it being "more fitting" within the Hunter Biden article. I am merely asking for your advocacy to move one degree back - let the article be created, but then you can police it viciously - let stand only content which is absolutely undisputed by leftist news sources. So, even the NYTimes or Washington Post can admit the name of the consulting company, who its known founders are, when Hunter left his employment there, etc.

Like, come on, the NY Post wrote a newspaper article about this Rosemoney Seneca wikipedia article deletion in April and you guys are STILL holding the line on this. Go apply wikipedia rigor to something else and leave this point alone - it is literally so biased that the NY Post felt it would be interesting to its readership. Anyone out there in the center politically seeing how outer-space-far-from-reasonable this collection of editors is being on this point? Wikiwiki899 (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

The company itself is not notable. The only notable things are what Hunter Biden did via various corporate vehicles, and all that is presented in multiple articles. soibangla (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

"more fitting" - says ValarianB. Hey, guess what, ValarianB, people DISAGREE with you. You are not the King of Wikipedia.. My position is based on the policies of this project, e.g. WP:N and WP:NOTINHERITED. Yours seem to be based on histrionics and emotion. ValarianB (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Your position is also based on the community's WP:CONSENSUS at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosemont Seneca Partners. I think this thread has run for long enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2022 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2022

Hunter laptop which was deemed Russian misinformation by many, has now been verified as Hunter Biden's. RayQ1726 (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

This has been verified by multiple news sources and deemed to be true RayQ1726 (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk  19:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

UNDUE?

@SPECIFICO: You're telling me that a leak covered in several reliable media outlets is UNDUE? This is ridiculous. X-Editor (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I count one source we can confidently consider WP:GREL. And yet we have an entire article on it now. soibangla (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, correct. I am. SPECIFICO talk 20:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: How is it UNDUE? X-Editor (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Sparsely and weakly soured BLP content about a circumstance the facts of which are reported as unknown. About as bad as it gets. If you want to find additional material for the bio, start with widely reported information from mainstream RS references, bearing in mind the standard for WP:BLP content is even higher than our usual standards of Verification and WEIGHT. SPECIFICO talk 20:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Thanks for explaining. I think we should wait a bit before adding the content to the article. For now, I'm taking a break. X-Editor (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The Vice story is probably 70/30 more about the possible insecurity if iCloud itself than this being a Hunter Biden-specific saga. A tabloidish nothingburger, as far as Biden himself is concerned. Zaathras (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Citation needed

“ An analysis reported in March 2022 confirmed the authenticity of thousands of emails found on the laptop.”

Is there a source for this? 2601:18F:900:2BC0:D99A:5A13:A3A8:E4F2 (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

NBC News

I see edit warring over the NBC News piece, but no talk page discussion. Discuss what to add and how to add it here. @RonaldDuncan, Soibangla, and Izzy Borden: – Muboshgu (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the sentence I added/reintroduced (minus the "NBC changed their tune" comment) is relevant and accurately represents the NBC article. contrary to what Firefangledfeathers wrote in his comment, it does not state that NBC did the validating, only that it reported on it. If there are better sources, it's fine to use them or add them, but that's really not justification for removing this. Izzy Borden (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@Muboshgu @Izzy Borden @Soibangla There is a talk page discussion about the NBC News piece on the

Main article: Hunter Biden laptop controversy

Suggest we wait for the results of that, and see the best way to mention the NBC article in the laptop part of this article if at all. RonaldDuncan (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@Muboshgu @Izzy Borden @Soibangla The talk page discussion on Hunter Biden laptop controversy came up with the following wording ( update in bold )

NBC News requested a copy of the hard drive from Giuliani, who told them that he would not provide one; they said Giuliani offered them copies of a small number of emails but would not give them the full set. In May 2022, NBC News published an analysis based on a copy of the hard drive and documents released by the Senate.

There is no mention of the previous non usage by NBC news in this article, so should the decision to start usage be covered here? RonaldDuncan (talk) 07:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

No. The text here is a summary of the event, and does not need to be expanded further. ValarianB (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree, we should probably close this discussion with a consensus to not include in the biography article, it is relevant to the laptop article. RonaldDuncan (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

We need eyes on the Hunter Biden laptop controversy article and talk page, where editors are insisting on inserting this content, with only the primary source of the NBC article and no verification as to its significance other than a vague SYNTH suggestion, perhaps, that this somehow validates conspiracy theories as to the content of the laptop in its current state. I have referenced both the WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLP issues there, but so far it remains in the article. @Muboshgu, Valarian, and Soibangla: SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Pinging editors like this is canvassing. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Rosemont Seneca Parters =/= Rosemont Seneca Thornton

"In 2009, he, Devon Archer, and Christopher Heinz founded the investment and advisory firm Rosemont Seneca Partners.",b/>
"Two Republicans on a Senate investigation committee in 2020 claimed that Russian businessperson Yelena Baturina, the wife of former Moscow mayor Yury Luzhkov, wire-transferred $3.5 million in 2014 to Rosemont Seneca Thornton, of which Biden had previously been a partner. The Washington Post reported in April 2022 that ,b>the partners of Rosemont Seneca Thornton had agreed to dissolve the organization before the 2014 wire transfer, though it continued to be operated by Devin Archer to facilitate real estate transactions for eastern and central Asia investors, while Biden was uninvolved."

This needs to be cleaned up. As far as anyone knows, the Rosemont Seneca Partners and the Rosemont Seneca Thornton have nothing to do with each other.
"Hunter Biden was a co-founder and CEO of the investment firm Rosemont Seneca Advisors. But Mesires said Hunter Biden did not co-found Rosemont Seneca Thornton. It’s not clear what connection exists between Rosemont Seneca Advisors and Rosemont Seneca Thornton."
https://www.cnn.com/factsfirst/politics/factcheck_e879bcfe-4b2a-4b4a-a823-8c6d512c4e5e — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:582:4A82:3CF0:0:0:0:F61C (talk) 12:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Correction needed. the mention of DEVIN Archer is incorrect, it is DEVON Archer.

Devin Archer is an actor. 180.222.68.55 (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

More Leaked Audio: Bannon Bragged That He Used Porn to Help Smear Hunter Biden

This RS mentions false claims about Hunter Biden:

• More Leaked Audio: Bannon Bragged That He Used Porn to Help Smear Hunter Biden

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a biased source, so its statements (particularly on political topics) may need to be attributed. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I am more curious to know if CNN now considers the Biden laptop authenticated or still Russian disinformation, now that they are running articles on its content. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Mother Jones is biased, but I don't think they're inaccurate. (EDIT: Mother Jones is listed as reliable at WP:RSP.) The first bit of audio released by Mother Jones earlier in July did get picked up by reliable sources. I'm curious to see if this audio does as well, but it does not seem to have at this point. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Since the CNN source you presented refers to it as a laptop that turned up at a Delaware repair shop and again mentions that Hunter hasn't claimed it as his, I assume it's status quo on that. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean? Is CNN platforming Russian disinformation? And re: mother jones my first comment is a quote from the classification at RSN. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

You know as well as I that some of the emails have been authenticated. What's more interesting here is Bannon's attempt at the October surprise. Hunter Biden's tax problems are not so interesting. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I’m I reading you correctly that (parts of at least) the laptop story is not Russian disinformation? Mr Ernie (talk) 00:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Here’s another good article from RS Tablet Mag. When can we put to bed the false Russian Disinformation bit? Mr Ernie (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Tablet publishes WP:FRINGE nonsense, in particular some of it from the author of that article. Tablet has gone downhill rapidly in the past few years, but was never greenlighted at RSNP. So Ernie has misrepresented two sources, calling greenlit Mother Jones inaccurate and mislabeling Tablet. I think we can disregard those comments. SPECIFICO talk 00:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

RSNP says Motherjones is biased on politics and should be attributed. Calling it "greenlit" in the context of politics is somewhat misleading. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 00:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

That's a flat out misrepresentation. Please give a careful read to the RSNP entry you're claiming to represent and strike your accusation. SPECIFICO talk 02:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

There is no accusation? I'll just quote the entry here: There is consensus that Mother Jones is generally reliable. Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a biased source, so its statements (particularly on political topics) may need to be attributed. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article. (directly from WP:RSNP) Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 02:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Please weigh in with your expertise at AE, where Tablet mag’s status as RS is a critical point in an ongoing case. Looking forward to it. I will ask for diffs of your accusation of me misrepresenting sources, thanks in advance. Specifically where I called Mother Jones inaccurate. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

You said Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a biased source, so it is pretty clear what your opinion of their accuracy is. I also see no discussion of Tablet at WP:AE. Zaathras (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

This makes me lol. This is a direct quote from the perennial source section of RSN. Tablet Mag is cited as a RS by @Volunteer Marek and @Levivich here. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

issue with the links - I will fix tomorrow. fixed Mr Ernie (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Tablet Mag is cited as a RS in the case at AE concerning content added by Volunteer Marek. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Tablet Mag should not be considered reliable, especially not opinion pieces. Andre🚐 17:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Let alone his accuracy. Meanwhile, on the WP:FRINGE front, here is s the Tablet opinion columnist offered as RS, despite neither Tablet nor the author having been vetted at RSNP.

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2022

"An analysis reported in March 2022 confirmed the authenticity of thousands of emails found on the laptop." Is there a missing citation for this statement? Unless there's a source, shouldn't this be removed? 2600:1700:10B2:2C10:A5B8:2D5B:62B1:66C9 (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

It probably refers to the NYT and Wapo reporting in the body. If it's cited in the body, it doesn't strictly need to be cited in the lede. However, perhaps we should change the wording to reflect the sources more closely, or add the citations for clarity. Andre🚐 23:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Added a citation needed for now, if no one can figure out what source that is the sentence should probably be removed.

Basedeunie042 (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Done. Confirmed that was sourced from NYT/Wapo reporting and rephrased accordingly. Basedeunie042 (talk) 12:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Can't believe someone would bother to write on a talk page without actually checking the news first. LOL! 126.156.173.77 (talk) 13

26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikilinking first instance outside of lead

@DeXXus: I am noting this here as I believe that there may be a misunderstanding of the manual of style that resulted in this edit (which, in part, reverted my edit) and want to clear it up for future as it applies to nearly every article on the English Wikipedia. MOS:REPEATLINK states that "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers...and at the first occurrence after the lead." There was no need to remove the wikilinks in the first part of the revert. I don't doubt your intentions but wanted to clarify this to prevent future misunderstandings. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Noting this has been resolved. Special:Diff/1118515023. Thank you, @DeXXus:. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2022

'ADD TO "Laptop controversy Section":'

On March 17, 2022, an MSN article confirmed that the New York Times now "Admits Authenticity of Hunter Biden's Laptop." [add reference footnote: "https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-new-york-times-admits-authenticity-of-hunter-biden-s-laptop/ar-AAVcQ2V"] Rpdeamicis (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done this link is to the Daily Caller.. Andre🚐 00:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

OK how about NYT for the source then? "https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/16/us/politics/hunter-biden-tax-bill-investigation.html" 51.9.50.251 (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

This article is reference currently numbered 7 and is used here and here Andre🚐 00:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Before asking us to add something to an article, please ensure it's not already there. Wikipedia editors are very busy, so please don't waste their time. TFD (talk) 03:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Naomi

In early life section: His sister Naomi is not dead, she just got married at White House. 204.195.180.168 (talk) 03:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Joe Biden's grandchild Naomi, who was married today, was named for her aunt, Joe Biden's daughter and Hunter's sister. See Family of Joe Biden Acroterion (talk) 03:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Two different Naomis. Hunter Biden's sister Naomi got killed in a car crash in 1972 at the age of one year old. Hunter Biden barely survived that crash. The Naomi Biden who got married at the White House today is Hunter's daughter, named after her deceased aunt. Cullen328 (talk) 03:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Two people named Naomi. One was Joe Biden's daughter, the other his granddaughter. GoodDay (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Names of children in infobox template

I see no reason to go against the instructions in the Template:Infobox person which clearly states that for the children, the information for the field should be entered as "Typically the number of children (e.g., 3); only list names of independently notable or particularly relevant children." Unlike the children of the President of the United States, the grandchildren are not presumed to be notable. Banana Republic (talk) 03:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Name of daughter with Lunden Roberts

I just noticed that of all the references in the personal section regarding Biden's daughter with Lunden Roberts, the only reference that explicitly lists her name is the reference by the New York Post. Per WP:NYPOST, the New York Post is not considered reliable. Should the child's name therefore be removed from the article? Banana Republic (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Generally, I would avoid putting names in articles unless there is a reason for it, which appears to be the approach of reliable sources in this case. TFD (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Apparently the "identity [of the child] has been sealed for privacy", so the name must be removed until the identity is unsealed. Banana Republic (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• The subject of this article will be under attack by the new Congress. Whether or not the subject is guilty of anything -- what is the point of bringing up the name of someone that may be somehow associated by DNA? Death threats on social media seem to be the new idea of entertainment by some. WP:BLP WP:TABLOID O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The subject is not under attack by the new congress. Please take your forum and bias comments else where, this is not the place for them. --Malerooster (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Early Career

A CBS news article erroneously said Hunter Biden left credit card company MBNA in 2001. The very next line talks about Biden's time in the Commerce Department working on ecommerce issues. The citation for that is a CNN news article on Hunter Biden, which lists his time at Commerce from 1998 to 2001, which are the correct dates. The Clinton Administration left office in January 2001, therefor Hunter Biden could not have worked at MBNA until 2001 and worked at Commerce 1998 to 2001. The CBS article was simply wrong in its dates. Scottca075 (talk) 08:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Here is an additional source on Hunter Biden's early career; a timeline from OpenSecrets.com, Employment Timeline. Scottca075 (talk) 08:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Your replacement of the inline citation WP:RS that clearly indicates a 2001 date for the end of Biden's MBNA employment with a CNN cite that does not provide any date makes no sense. Are you under the mistaken impression that it is impossible for a person to be employed by more than one entity at the same time? I note that you have violated the WP:BRD rules imposed on this page by reverting without waiting 24 hours after starting a discussion, so to prevent any doubt I have now alerted you with the DS-aware template. I request that you self-revert the DS-violating edit. --Noren (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The Employment Timeline from OpenSecrets.com, clearly shows the correct timeline for Hunter's employment. No, you cannot work as a Director of the U.S. Department of Commerce while also being a Sr. Vice President for a private banking company. Scottca075 (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Another article citing the correct dates on Hunter Biden's employment. Business Insider Scottca075 (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for pointing that out, it's very useful. Quoting from it, "His role at the bank raised eyebrows as MBNA was known as a massive donor to several of Joe Biden's campaigns over the years, but he stayed with the company for nearly five years." This supports the contention that he worked there from 1996-2001. I don't understand why you think this supports a 1998 MBNA employment end date- are you contending that he started work at MBNA in 1993 or 1994, years before he graduated from Yale Law and in conflict with the current article and other citations? Do you have any citation to support your claim that it was not possible to hold the two positions simultaneously? --Noren (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC).

The "five years at MBNA" that is being referred to his years consulting MBNA after leaving Commerce in 2001. Biden founded a consulting firm and was well paid by MBNA 2001 to 2005 as a consultant, but not an employee. That is covered in these two articles NY Times and NPR. If you go back to the OpenSecrets.com employment timeline, you can see the sequence, MBNA employee, Commerce Department, lobbying/consulting firm. Scottca075 (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

A new conspiracy theory about Hunter Biden

A New York Post "journalist" is implicated, and the story then went up the chain of usual unreliable source suspects to a promised congressional investigation.

From WaPo fact-checkers:

• Analysis - How a Hunter Biden conspiracy theory grew, from lone tweet to a big megaphone

I'm not sure if this will warrant its own article, but it does deserve a section. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Weird, massive gap between Early life and Early career

I don't know if it's just me, but is there a big gap between the Early life and Early career section? Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 05:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

It's because of the {{clear}} template at the end of the section. Possibly there used to be an image in the "Early career" section and this was to stop the infobox pushing it down, idk. But there's nothing there now, so I'll go ahead and remove it. Endwise (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing this Endwise. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 16:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Hunter Biden gap!

"No clear evidence of criminal activity"

I have removed the bit from the lead about the no clear evidence of criminal activity for 2 reasons. The first is simply that this content does not match in the body which mentions his use of illegal drugs fueled by payments discovered on his laptop. The second is that reliable sources no longer support it. See this article from reliable source New York Magazine (which ironically was the source used for the statement in the first place) which opens Texts from Hunter Biden to a former employee obtained by the Daily Mail show that in 2019 the president’s son threatened to withhold back pay from a legal assistant unless she had sex with him on FaceTime. This alleged behavior would be illegal, as the article goes on to say the allegation of withholding pay for sex could be a big new problem for the president’s son. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Clarified by Soibangla. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

"Detractors" reverted see diff

Based on the wording in the NY Magazine citation and the narratives there, I replaced the weasel "some have claimed..." with "some of the Bidens' detractors..." This was reverted to reinsert the weasel wording, with the edit summary objecting that "detractor" is an inappropriate label. Well, IMO this is an accurate representation of the source, which uses words like "pursuers" and other phrasing to convey the stalking of the Bidens regarding alleged corruption. I think "detractors" is a mild, inclusive, NPOV representation of the narrative in the source. Either "detractors" or "pursuers" should be reinstated. The source is this article. SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree "detractors" is not a value-laden label. It is a synonym for critics. Andre🚐 02:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you at first, SPECIFICO: "pursuers" sounds odd outside of a physical context, but I considered "detractors" equivalent in connotation to "critics". The Cambridge English Dictionary, and many others copying their definition, however, say that "detractors" are partaking in unfair critiques. Heavy Water (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I think that is the sense of the RS narrative here. It describes obsessive, hopeful but, to date, empty searches for smoking gun evidence against the Bidens. I think detractors captures that without calling them anything particularly negative, and without deviating from the RS narrative. SPECIFICO talk 02:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

True. One continuing to seek "evidence" so voraciously after years of finding none seems obsessive or unfair. But Magnolia677 probably reverted it for its negative connotation. Heavy Water (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Allegation that Hunter Biden's texts show he withheld employee pay for sex

From New York (magazine):

The assistant, who was not named in the report, was employed by Biden’s legal firm, Owasco, for administrative work. Documents from his laptop show that the woman emailed in January 2019 asking why she had not received her paycheck for December 2018 and why her health insurance was not active. Two months later, the texts show that Biden sent her $1,000 via Apple Pay for “small stuff.” “I will bake [sic] up for back pay,” he texted her on March 7, 2019. “You have to make up for back work.” After he sent $2,000 more, she agreed, and Biden set the terms: “The rule has to be no talk of anything but sex and we must be naked and we have to do whatever the other person asks within reason.” The texts go on and Biden continues to send her money as the two have sex over the video-chat app. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/02/the-latest-hunter-biden-revelation-is-a-new-low.html

Should we mention something about this? Endwise (talk) 12:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Clearly, yes. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Please elaborate. "Clearly" is not a policy-and-sourcing-based rationale. The issues are NPOV and V. SPECIFICO talk 13:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

It's odd that you are changing the heading to "naked chat" or "chat," and your reverts have violated the CT rule in force here. The source says "...as the two have sex over the video-chat app." Could you point to where in the source Biden allegedly withholds pay for "chat" or "naked chat?" Otherwise please undo your CT infraction as you've introduced a BLP violation against the women whose pay was withheld. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

"...obtained by the Daily Mail" is a bit of a super-sized red flag here. Zaathras (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't need to be mentioned at this time. There's literally only one RS that covers this. WP:V and WP:ONUS can't be met without more reliable sources covering this. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 15:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, it lacks WP:WEIGHT at this time. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that only being mentioned in the NYMag article means it currently lacks weight. I hope that the editors who are arguing for exclusion based on weight will argue for inclusion if it gets picked up in mainstream sources. Arguments such as what's wrong with that, it's Russian disinformation, etc., are not valid reasons for exclusion. TFD (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

No need for poisoning-the-well comments about a discussion that has yet to, and may not even, happen. Worry about yourself, please. Zaathras (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

There’s no issue with verifiability. The reliable source is quoted word for word up above. There’s no doubt what the source is reporting. Likewise NPOV is not an issue either, as this is the only reliable outlet writing about this. That leads to the true issue which is undue, as content that only one outlet runs with usually isn’t enough to merit inclusion. That said, if more outlets pick this up then it’s certainly acceptable to include. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

UNDUE and WEIGHT are our NPOV policy. SPECIFICO talk 03:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Faulty sentence in lead

No longer constructive
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The lead currently contains the following illogical sentence "Though some of the Bidens' detractors have claimed the laptop contents exposed corrupt activity by Hunter Biden's father, President Joe Biden, as of September 2022 no evidence of criminal activity by Joe Biden has surfaced". The issue is that the laptop contents have actually shown evidence of corruption by Biden and members of his family including his father Joe. I changed it to reflect that fact but another editor reverted with a vague and meanignless edit summary of "Don't get ahead of the story". This sentenced needs to,be re-worded for accuracy, especially for the lead. Yodabyte (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC) What "evidence of corruption" by Joe Biden? There's no evidence of Joe Biden doing anything involving Hunter's business that I'm aware of. If Burisma only hired Hunter because of who his father is, that's standard nepotism. It's not great, but it's not "evidence of corruption". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC) It's not even nepotism, a word to describe unethical favoritism within the family: "the practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives, friends, or associates, especially by giving them jobs." Hunter, like Trump's children, exploits his famous name and connections. Nothing new here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC) Good point. Nepotism would be if POTUS gave his son-in-law security clearance even when he couldn't pass the FBI background check (though it's not illegal since anti-nepotism laws don't apply to the White House for whatever reason). – Muboshgu (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC) Correct, and we need to be mindful of how deeply the Trump/Republican media have polluted the narrative. Hiring folks with connections, experience, etc. is so widespread that similar conspiracy theories could be spun about a good 1/3 of the board members of corporations and thousands of think tanks, lobbyists and nonprofit organizations. The level of scrutiny given the Bidens has, if anything, shown them to be relatively scrupulous in this regard. Moreover, with Hunter's behavior apparently out of control in many respects, one would think the absence of any signs of corruption would be quite remarkable. SPECIFICO talk 20:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC) "Hiring folks with connections, experience, etc. is so widespread" I'm a little confused by this, what exactly are you trying to say? By the way, all evidence points to Hunter Biden getting high-paying jobs and lucrative deals (including according to WaPo approx $3 million in payments from the Chinese Communist Party) due to him being the son of Joe Biden. Again we don't know if anything ILLEGAL was done but that is why the sentence in the lead needs to be tweaked (right now it is illogical). Also are editors really still tying to suggest the Biden family isn't corrupt? Just try this simple thought experiment: bank accounts linked to Trump Jr had received payments from companies tied to Putin or the CCP. These same editors would probably being calling him a traitor and say he should be impeached tomorrow if Trump did same or similar. Just to be clear I am not saying Joe Biden is a traitor and deserves to be impeached but certainly he deserves to investigated based on everything that has been uncovered. I believe sometime this week investigations will commence looking into Hunter Biden's shady business dealings. Hopefully they will find out if there is anything serious/illegal, or if it's just garden-variety political corruption. Yodabyte (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC) Again, Hunter Biden working for Burisma is not evidence of corruption by Joe Biden. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC) Nor was it illegal. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC) Yoda, sounds like you disapprove of elites acting like elites. Welcome to Planet Earth. No corruption, illegality or even violation of societal norms has been demonstrated in this case. He's got a fine pedigree -- Yale Law, just like Clarence Thomas and the Oath Keeper guy, top law firm. Etc. etc. None of them is Mother Theresa. SPECIFICO talk 21:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC) You still didn't answer what you meant by this confusing sentence "Hiring folks with connections, experience, etc. is so widespread". Also, sorry I'm not buying what you are trying to sell when you say "elites acting like elites welcome to planet earth". If people who are in positions of power abuse that power that should not be OK and justified by talking about "elites". I'm not exacly sure what you mean by "elites" or "elitism" but what the Bidens appear to have been engaged in APPEARS (again we don't know 100% as far as illegality but corruption has been confirmed from the data and emails found on laptop verified by CBS and other RS) to be pretty serious stuff especially if it actually broke laws. Yodabyte (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC) corruption has been confirmed from the data and emails remains incorrect. pretty serious stuff especially if it actually broke laws Yeah, if. Yet there's still no evidence of that. And the entire contents of the laptop has been in the public domain for anyone to examine for many months. soibangla (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC) Like it or not, being the offspring of a rich, or powerful, or celebrity figure in the US helps you to get good jobs, deals, acting roles, etc. Children of University alumni are more likely to be accepted to a school. It has always been that way. It is not corruption or nepotism unless the parent took direct action involving a conflict of interest. As for your claim that the same editors would take a different position if it were Trump, Trump received far more from China during his presidency. In one deal during his presidency, the Trump Org sold a penthouse for $15.8 million to a Chinese power broker believed to run a Chinese intelligence front. [1][2][3] Could have missed it; but don’t see it in Trump articles. In any case predicting other editors’ actions in a hypothetical is a violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIV. As for your last sentence, that looks like a WP:BLP vio. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC). "Like it or not, being the offspring of a rich, or powerful, or celebrity figure in the US helps you to get good jobs, deals, acting roles, etc. Children of University alumni are more likely to be accepted to a school." That is the United States' class system at work. Middle class and upper class children get opportunities that working class children will never have. Nothing to do with corruption. Dimadick (talk) 10:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC) And thank goodness we're not talking about Europe or Asia, where such privilege and entitlement would not even be remarkable enough stuff to spin a conspiracy theory. SPECIFICO talk 13:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC) That may be true but that is a relatively normal and harmless thing, it may be unfair but it is a totally separate issue from potential influence-peddling and getting millions of dollars from foreign adversaries of the US. Once you are at a high level of govt there should be no reason a politician should receive millions of dollars from a foreign intelligence operation posing as an international business conglomerate (CEFC). How could that be a harmless thing unless I am totally missing something about the way things work in govt? Are people suggesting somehow that most politicians behave the way the Bidens do and receive money from large corporations/conglomeratea from foreign countries? I don't like Trump or the Christian right and a pretty centrist person politically but this stuff makes anything Trump might have done (AFAIK there was never any evidence he received large amounts of money from adversaries unless I missed something and I try to follow politics pretty closely) look small. Yodabyte (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC) Hunter Biden was not a politician at a high level of government. He just happened to be a child of one. And there is 0 evidence in RS that Joe Biden benefitted or was corrupt in any way. Andre🚐 16:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC) the laptop contents have actually shown evidence of corruption by Biden and members of his family including his father Joe remains incorrect. Sex and drugs, perhaps unlawful, sure, but not corruption. Because China has a state capitalism economy, it's nearly impossible to do business there without having "links" to the CCP. Donald Trump can vouch for that, because he had a partnership with a major government-controlled company in China.[4] soibangla (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC) Sex is legal in 38 states now. SPECIFICO talk 22:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC) I actually made a mistake with my post above when I said the Biden family received $3 million from CEFC (a CCP-tied company), apparently the non-corrupt Biden family actually received $6 million in total payments. I guess it pays good money to be an "elite" in the U.S. This is a small portion from a NYpost article published last week: More consequentially, Congress is free to consider the laptop evidence in probing the Biden family business. The Biden administration and its friends in the media-Democrat complex would like us to believe that what matters here is an investigation that involves only Hunter and only puny tax and false-statements crimes. They want us focused on that, and wringing our hands over whether the president’s troubled son is a victim — of a computer repairman, or of his own demons. Don’t fall for it. What matters here is why corrupt and anti-American regimes thought it was in the interest of those regimes to pay the Bidens millions of dollars. Put another way, when CEFC, an elaborate Chinese intelligence operation posing as an international business conglomerate, paid the Bidens $6 million in a year’s time, and when it was planned that 10% of an even more lucrative CEFC deal would be held by Hunter for “the big guy,” what was Beijing expecting to get out of its investment? Yodabyte (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC) NY Post isn't a reliable source. "The big guy" email AFAIK was not among those authenticated. "Media-Democrat complex" is a right-wing conspiracy theory. So, no to all of the above. Andre🚐 00:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC) The "big guy" email was not forensically authenticated, but a recipient of it vouched for it. It was written by a Brit, James Gilliar, as a proposal in a deal he was negotiating with Hunter and other Western guys, but the proposal was rejected and the deal never happened. I can't imagine why many continue to insist the Bidens are responsible for what others say, especially since nothing ever came of it. Nope, just can't imagine. soibangla (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC) What you lifted from WP:NYPOST remains incorrect. soibangla (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC) At some point, folks need keep in mind this is an encyclopedia -- not a scandal sheet. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC) Except that all (or most) of the encyclopedic Wikipedia articles on Trump are scandal sheets. Many articles unfortunately still push the debunked Russia-collusion narrative/conspiracy theory that was recently debunked again by former NYT investigate journalist Jeff Gerth in a series of articles for Columbia Journalism Review. It's just sad to see Wikipedia become so biased and obviously slanted in one partisan direction. I don't even like Trump and was glad Biden won in 2020 but the bias in many US politics articles is overflowing and yet many editors still have their heads deep in the sand (or worse they know what they're doing and have a political agenda). Yodabyte (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC) It certainly was not debunked. [5] Andre🚐 03:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC) It was also debunked by Robert Mueller in 2019 when he didn't charge anyone (including Trump) with collusion or conspiracy with the Russian govt. For about two years before Mueller finished the special counsel, journalists were constantly writing and talking about how Trump was somehow in bed with Putin and Russia. Then nothing happened and nobody was charged but everyone just went quiet. Gerth writes about this in the recent article and debunks a lot of myths that mainstream media pushed about Trump/Russia back in 2016-2019. Yodabyte (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC) Again, nope. Mueller found that Trump's campaign welcomed Russian interference. He convicted Stone and Manafort of felonies. He laid out a clear case of obstruction of justice, and then Barr/Rosenstein curtailed the investigation and wrote a spin doctor version so that Trump could falsely claim "no collusion," which of course wasn't true. Gerth's article doesn't go into that, and it doesn't debunk any mainstream media myths. Gerth is interested in the sensationalization of the Trump Tower meeting and the Steele dossier. Which, again, no smoking gun, but plenty of "there" there. Andre🚐 04:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC) We've discussed this ad nauseam for years and it's not nearly as simple as you depict it. It's not as simple as Hannity's teleprompter depicts it. soibangla (talk) 04:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC) When the OP begins with a literal falsehood, The issue is that the laptop contents have actually shown evidence of corruption by Biden and members of his family including his father Joe., I'm really not seeing the usefulness in engaging with this discussion. Zaathras (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC) That's not a falsehood, there is copious evidence. Now whether or not it rises to the level of criminality is still to be determined. My guess is it probably won't but we will have to wait and see as the investigations unfold. Yodabyte (talk) 04:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC) there is copious evidence remains incorrect soibangla (talk) 04:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC) This is WP:1AM and the 1 is now just making sarcastic remarks and WP:BLP vios. Might look better in a hat. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC) I agree. Hatting now. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

A section on demonization?

There is no specific section in this article on how the right wing in America has become obsessed with turning this person into some sort of mythical all-pervasive monster. The obsession is touched on in various places in this article but there is no clarity on the matter. For example Attack, attack, attack: Republicans drive to make Biden the bogeyman from the UK's The Guardian makes it quite clear that despite there being law enforcement investigations, no evidence of any criminality has been found. I suggest that this juxtaposition between fact and fiction is highlighted in a section that examines the motivations and drive behind the rabid and vapid claims being made by the American right wing. The oft made referral to "Hunter Biden's laptop" is no different to any other baseless populist canard throughout history. 146.199.128.167 (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Investigation Developments (April 2023)

It looks like there are new developments to this story, I'm unsure if it's suitable for inclusion quite yet, but just adding it here so editors can discuss.

Suggested prose, under Investigation section:

On April 21 sources indicated that lawyers for Hunter Biden are set to meet with US attorney David Weiss and a senior official from the Justice Department to discuss the ongoing investigation into the President's son. The probe has been in the spotlight recently after an IRS special agent alleged mishandling and political interference in the case and sought whistleblower protections to share information with Congress.

Kcmastrpc (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC) Kcmastrpc (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Not really sure how to phrase sources here, since CNN hasn't disclosed a lot of detail here around when CNN learned about it or who disclosed the meeting. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

How significant is it really that Hunter's lawyers are going to meet with DOJ officials, especially if we don't know what comes of it? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Not a lot, but I believe what makes it noteworthy is it's giving additional weight to the stories that have come out this past week around the IRS special agent, and this is a new development that substantiates those aspects. Nevertheless, we could wait to see if anything develops out of this, such as charges or statements. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

It is not clear the two events are linked and we should not leap to that conclusion. There is also the factor that the investigative work ended 1+ year ago but no charges have been brought nor the matter closed. Hunter's attorneys might be wondering what's up with that. soibangla (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Right, saying that it's related to an IRS special agent is WP:SYNTH without sourcing saying so. I assume that the lawyer meeting is a WP:ROTM step in the larger investigation. It's one to take note of, but we need to see if anything significant comes of it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

As you mentioned, the source itself mentions the IRS special agent in connection with the probe. However, I'd be interested if anyone feels the recommended prose is going outside what CNN reported. Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I admit I hadn't clicked on the CNN link, until now. They do reference the IRS, so it's not SYNTH. I still don't think it's a significant enough development. I'm sure we'll see some in the coming months, though. Or years. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

This sounds like grasping at gossip. If I were not watching Fox News all the time, I would not even have seen this story. Nothing to see here. SPECIFICO talk 23:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Not wiki voice, not nuetral?

I just wanted to bring up a few things to the people who actively edit this wiki that I find important. This little section really jumped out at me as not presenting information in a neutral way. It also looks like it is statements of the person who made the edit and seems to depart from statements being attributed to a source. eg making a statement of fact by an RS seem like a universal truth.

in Burisma Holdings section:

Former President Donald Trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani claimed in 2019, without evidence, that Joe Biden had sought the dismissal of Shokin in order to protect his son and Burisma Holdings. Actually, it was the official policy of the United States and the European Union to seek Shokin's removal. There has also been no evidence produced of wrongdoing by Hunter Biden in Ukraine.

Suggestions:

1. removing the "without evidence" as it is superfluous and not relevant to what someone claimed. claims don't require evidence as they are just that, claims. any mention of the absence of evidence is disingenuous to 1st Amendment right of being able to make such claims. If evidence is requested or required to justify or defend the claims then that should be mentioned under the section that talks about the challenge to the claims (for example).

2. removing the "Actually" and rewording it to "According to 'insert one of the sources', it was the official policy..."

3. attributing the 3rd sentence (in italics) directly to a source because it is actually a "statement of fact", but not necessarily reality. (IMO) Statements of fact of this caliber should be explicitly attributed to who made them to limit their chance of being misleading. StayFree76 ^talk 07:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

After looking at the sources, I agree. IMO it’s just poor style and unlikely to be anything more. I suggest something along the lines of:

In 2019, former President Donald Trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani claimed that Joe Biden had sought the dismissal of Shokin in order to protect his son and Burisma Holdings. During the Obama administration, White House officials stated there was no evidence to support similiar claims and the official policy of the United States and the European Union was to seek Shokin's removal.

What’s unclear to me are the timeline’s, the sources used in the article aren’t very specific, and there may be more recent statements we could consider from the current administration. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

That is not the description of events that is verified in mainstream reporting and tertiary discussion of the issue. It is not acceptable article content. The current text accurately conveys the statements of RS. SPECIFICO talk 14:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

No no, we must not frame this in the language of what Obama said, to give anyone room to think "well, that's just what Obama said, and I hate that guy," but rather in the language of what numerous reliable sources have consistently said: it is flatly false. soibangla (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

After quickly scanning the referenced sources, the only one I could find that attributes the refutation of evidence to anybody/anything is the AP news source, and they appear to directly link the claim to the Obama admin. I’m not SYNTH’ing this, just going by the source. Can the same not be true WRT Trump, “Well that’s just what Trump said, I hate that guy”? If we’re going to include this material, should we not represent the sources or are we just going to hand-wave around the details we don’t like? Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I’m also of the opinion that this entire prose is somewhat WP:UNDUE to the entire BLP. If there are criminal proceedings or _actual_ allegations that result in charges, then perhaps reintroduce it. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Would you like me to OVERCITE reliable sources to bury any remaining doubt about this? soibangla (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I like @Kcmastrpc's revision. I do think right now as is, it could be rewritten better. MaximusEditor (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with what soibangla and SPECIFICO have written above. Andre🚐 15:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@Kcmastrpc: Please give a careful look at WP:NPOV. The fact that you determine that there's only a single source that attributed that fact -- and only in the context of the narrative within that single source -- is the proof that your view is incorrect. Our NPOV policy should make this clear. If it doesn't, please engage on the talk page for that policy and perhaps the language needs enhancement. SPECIFICO talk 16:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO I’ve read it, you’ve read it, we’ve all read it. I’d appreciate if you’d stop suggesting I go take a look at it, go read it, sleep with it next to my bed, etc. We all have different interpretations of it, and we’re here discussing the issues, not the editor. So again, I’ll ask you to not do it again.

Now, with regards to other other sources, I couldn’t find in the cited sources where the claim is attributed to official sources outside the administration at the time Joe Biden was VP. I’m open to other editors pointing out other discussions or other sources around this issue that clearly refute the claims made by Trump and his nervous lawyer, but what I’m going on is what has been cited (as any reader would). If we’re going to make grand claims, such as the “world at large” declaring Hunter as innocent of these claims, should we not cite RS that clearly represent that fact?

Even better, why is this even here? What difference does it make? Trump claims a lot of thing, many of which have never been proven true. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Unable to edit this article

I was going to add a wikilink to this article, but was prevented from doing so because it appears to be locked from editing. Please fix this ridiculous situation! 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Please explain what link you want to see added and editors will consider adding it for you. SPECIFICO talk 23:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

It is not at all a ridiculous situation. This article has been the subject of vandalism for nearly eight years. Make your request for a wikilink right here. Cullen328 (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

There's too many trolls and vandals out there, this article is unlikely to see editing restrictions eased up anytime soon. When you tried to edit, it should have pointed you to use the {{Edit semi-protected}} request. Do that, and then someone will evaluate the request. Zaathras (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2023

Lunden Roberts, Hunter Biden’s daughter and granddaughter of Joe Biden. 2603:7000:9300:F2D9:E4AB:FF7B:D4AC:9732 (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 02:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

It's there soibangla (talk) 02:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

AfD: Finnegan Biden

Of interest to editors here. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finnegan Biden. Zaathras (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Name of child

The name of the daughter with Lunden Roberts should be included here for consistency, if nothing else. The other four children are listed by name. I have included a source listing said name which another editor has removed. Though he/she claims said source is a “bottom feeding” source, Fox News is not listed as a deprecated source and the fact of the child’s name as reported is certainly not in dispute. It needs to be restored. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

People also has used the name. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

And the New York Post, which is also not on a list of deprecated sources on Wikipedia. If one minor child’s name is left out, than the name of the son should arguably be left out too for consistency. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

And the Telegraph of London, hardly a “bottom feeding source. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Leave out of the name of the 4-year-old child. Not widely reported in good sources. NY Post, Fox Politics, Daily Mail, People, etc. are not high-quality sources: most of these are tabloids. The Telegraph is better, but still not enough to persuade me that including the name is appropriate. If there were better sources that name the girl directly, maybe I’d reconsider, but given the generally lower quality sources, I don’t think we need to name this young kid. Neutrality^talk 05:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like your personal opinion is entering into this. None of these news sources, aside from the Daily Mail, are on the list of deprecated sources. The name is a fact that is neither untrue or disputed aside from dislike of including it. I have some issues with that list of deprecated sources anyway, which I think can be subjective. My main problem with this is consistency. There are two minors here. Both of them have Hunter Biden as a father and have had facts about his personal relationships with their mothers published that might be a source of embarrassment. Neither child is notable aside from connection to him. Neither child is at fault in any way for anything their parents have done. If the minor son is listed by name, the minor daughter should be as well. If the minor daughter is not listed, then remove the name of the son from the article as well and cite the desire to protect minor children. Otherwise, there is the appearance of bias. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 05:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

That a source is not formally deprecated does not make it reliable. In any case, the NY Post is generally unreliable, and citations to it are removed on wiki.

The consistency argument seems silly to me. Just because we name some children, we must name them all? No. Our content decisions are based on sourcing, due weight, and other policies, not some misbegotten consistency concern. Neutrality^talk 12:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. Right now you have a man with five children and four are listed. Three of the five are adults, one of whom was apparently deemed notable enough to have a separate article. Two of the adults aren’t necessarily notable. Two of the five are minor children but one is listed and one is not. If anything, not listing the one gives undue weight because the obvious question is “Why not?” It’s an inexplicable argument. All of the names of the children are verifiable and have been mentioned in news publications that are not deprecated. So, if you insist on leaving out the name of the minor daughter, the name of the other minor child should be removed as well. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I would be for removing the name of the other minor daughter, for consistency, rather then adding the other child in. I don't really see the point of putting information of minors on the internet, they did not and can not consent to waiving their own privacy. Also @Neutrality makes a good point, we arent suppose to edit based off of consistency, it is an encyclopedia based on reliable sourcing and WP:DUEWP:WEIGHT. Also BLP protections WP:MINORS. MaximusEditor (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2023

Sentence to change: "Biden's attorney denied the report, saying Biden had no financial relationship with the woman and no stake in the partnership that received the money, nor did he co-found the partnership.[105][106]"

Please change "with the woman" to "with Baturina"

My request is to change "no financial relationship with the woman" to "no financial relationship with Baturina" for the reason that the language "with the woman" is sexist. If it was a reference to a man, the gender would not be called out and the man's last name would be used instead. We should do the same thing in this case and not resort to sexist conventions. Mawilde (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense. Zaathras (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Just went to make the change and it was already  Done Eruditess (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

11 million dollars

In the laptop section, the article says subject spent 11 million dollars in investment money quickly. In the drug abuse section, it says subject was paid 11 million dollars. That’s not consistent. IonFreeman (talk) 11:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

June 22, 2023 news articles

This is all over the news. I think these reliable sources could be used to help improve the article. It's a lot to take in. What do others here think?

Washington Post: "IRS whistleblower says Justice Dept. slowed, stifled Hunter Biden case"

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:pY3iE527UAkJ:https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/06/22/hunter-biden-whistleblower-transcript-garland/&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

New York Times: "I.R.S. Agent Told Congress of Hunter Biden Invoking His Father in Business Deal"

https://web.archive.org/web/20230623000202/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/22/us/politics/hunter-biden-joe-business-deal.html/

CBS News: "Two IRS whistleblowers alleged sweeping misconduct in the Hunter Biden tax investigation, new transcripts show"

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/whistleblowers-hunter-biden-tax-investigation-new-transcripts/

CNN: "Whistleblowers say IRS recommended far more charges, including felonies, against Hunter Biden"

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/22/politics/irs-whistleblower-hunter-biden/index.html

NBC: "IRS agent tells House committee there was meddling with Hunter Biden case"

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/irs-agent-tells-house-committee-was-meddling-hunter-biden-case-rcna90689

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Not really relevant, no. This is a biography on Hunter Biden, not a general article on "Hunter Biden conspiracy theories". We should not be going too far into the weeds of the now-concluded tax investigations, the length of the section as it stands now is appropriate. Zaathras (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

As far as I know, none of this is really new other than the transcripts being released. Mention of it back in April in archives, although in mention while talking about different matter. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, both of you, for your comments. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 09:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree[6] soibangla (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. And a biography on Hunter Biden should include newsworthy and noteworthy allegations against him being reported on by reliable sources, Zaathras. Themanoflaw049 (talk) 00:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLPGOSSIP. These allegations are in sources, but that is not sufficient basis for inclusion. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

restore requested

I do not find the stated rationale for this reversion persuasive and I recommend the edit be restored.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hunter_Biden&diff=prev&oldid=1162570922

soibangla (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

That section is way too long. Maybe you could suggest something that could be removed before adding more material? GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

"Just the facts, please."

The exchange regarding this article reminds me why "old" journalistic standards need to be reinstituted. Once upon a time, young journalists were trained to write just the facts. A publishable, news-worthy piece could contain no hint of the writer/reporter's personal stance on a topic or event. Biased writing was typically considered unprofessional and would result in the article being canned (or assigned to another writer) unless it was specifically identified as an editorial piece. As an educator I used to tell my students that while they could generally rely on the news, they had to beware of the subtle wording of commercials because those were Designed to sell you something. Unfortunately, right now it seems nearly everyone, even once respected news journalists, are in the business of "selling" their opinions. I know this is "just" Wikipedia, but I've long enjoyed searching out information here and, yes, I have even referred students to the site after warning them to use their critical thinking skills when browsing. When searching for information, we would all do well to look for articles written by authors who present the relevant facts and who realize their readers are intelligent enough to either form their own opinions or reserve judgement for another time. 50.41.24.177 (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

As a onetime reporter, I agree. The reporter's opinion has no place in a story. Objectivity is paramount. If an assertion has been made, it should be attributed to a particular source. As for suggestions to improve the article, I have made them above. Attribution is necessary here. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Talk pages are not intended for philosophical discussions, but rather to discuss specific ways to improve articles. If you have a specific recommendation on how this article can be improved (change this, remove that) we'd certainly welcome it. soibangla (talk) 01:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

If Wikipedia editors follow policy, articles about current events should summarize what appears in mainstream news sources. News media has always been biased, it's just nostalgia to say they weren't. Walter Cronkite for example is praised for saying in 1968 that the Vietnam War was unwinnable. But for the last decade he had been reporting all the garbage the Pentagon told him, including the lie about the Tonkin incident.

Anyway, Wikipedia articles are less qualified at finding the truth than journalists. This is the best we can do. TFD (talk) 02:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Some of the problem is the sources that Wikipedia editors deem acceptable and those they have decided should be denigrated, as well as the "narrative" that most national mainstream news agencies adopt and what they deem worthy of covering. National reporters do tend to be liberal. National editorial boards are as well. Citing news coverage by more centrist or conservative publications, such as The Wall Street Journal or The London Telegraph, as well as The Times and The Guardian, might improve the overall balance. But I do think attributing the statements so readers know where they came from would vastly improve this article. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Let's take this from the obverse direction. Can you provide news sources (not WSJ opinion pieces) that you deem do not tend to be liberal that contradict what our many reliable secondary sources say here, and have said for years without correction or retraction? soibangla (talk) 03:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

As far as I know, they didn't report otherwise and I don't have the time or the inclination to start digging for additional articles in a paper I stopped subscribing to a while back. I do think the statement should be attributed and phrased as I wrote above, for the reasons I gave above, so that it doesn't read as though Wikipedia is the one saying it. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, you seem to say there is an overreliance on sources that tend to be liberal and posit there might be news coverage by more centrist or conservative publications and I asked you to provide some but you don't seem interested in doing that. "false and baseless" is not written in wikivoice, it's just been overwhelmingly supported by reliable sources for literally years now. I have to wonder if more recent allegations of bribes and money laundering and tapes and coverup might be causing some to call into question what has been established fact for years. soibangla (talk) 03:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

What you are suggesting (attribution and re-phrasing) is not our policy. "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability." "False and baseless" is uncontested. See WP:NPOV. GA-RT-22 (talk) 05:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

"Walter Cronkite for example is praised for saying in 1968 that the Vietnam War was unwinnable. But for the last decade he had been reporting all the garbage the Pentagon told him" I thought Walter Cronkite was famous for his political activism in support o the fInterfaith Alliance, the Common Cause, the Constitution Project, the Citizens for Global Solutions, and the Drug Policy Alliance. He was also a vocal critic of the Christian right. Dimadick (talk) 10:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

"why "old" journalistic standards need to be reinstituted" They are "old" because they are outdated and worthless. The facts are meaningless without interpretations and opinions. This is also the deference between historical trivia in chronicles and the suggested interpretation of events in history books. Dimadick (talk) 10:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

"Outdated and worthless?" No. The only place interpretations and opinions belong is on the editorial page. A journalist needs to be fair and objective and able to cover any subject without giving any hint what his or her personal opinion might be. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Why was naming Hunter's daughter reverted?

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.

---

Her name was several times in an article about (Redacted) in the New York Times! The name is absolutely public! Why then was it reverted? To help Joe and Hunter to deny her existence? —Menischt (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I will add another source which is not an op-ed. —Menischt (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Please don't name a non-notable minor per WP:BLPPRIVACY. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Her name is all over the internet! Hunters very young son Beau is also named, why not Navy Joan. By the way I did not give any postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for a living person. By the way, that she was born in August 2018 was in the article before. But I see, I seems several experienced Wikipedia user — most probably alerted through back lists — are teaming together to scare a user away with reverting and bombarding with arguments that do not apply in order to silence him. I'm curious if this will become a text book example for such a behavior. —Menischt (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Give me reasons here that apply, please! —Menischt (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME, the link I meant to share: 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. The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. The WP:ONUS is on you to show why we should include the name, which I see adding no value and potentially causing more harm to the individual. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I wonder why highest ranking members of Wikipedia, even administrators like you, rush to the spot because of such a non-essential change. Highly important issues seem at stake, like – who knows – maybe the presidency of the United States, or why else all that? Why is Hunter's son Beau notable but his daughter Navy Joan is not? To redact her name out here is ridiculous since one can find her name and even pictures of her by just searching for the name of her mother in one minute. Wikipedia is dominated by left-leaning people, that's no secret, and left leaning people tent to do everything to protect "their" president and his son.

So please, explain to me why Hunter's son Beau is notable but his daughter Navy Joan is not? – Menischt (talk) 18:42, 10 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.

Hunter Biden arrested for "possession of controlled substance" in 1988

Hello, I would like to propose an addition to Hunter Biden's page. In 1988, Hunter Biden was arrested and charged with "possession of controlled substance." The arrest occurred in Stone Harbor, New Jersey. He was 18 at the time.

Hunter Biden's arrest is also mentioned in disclosures he made as part of his nomination to the Amtrak Reform Board. “In June 1988, I was cited for possession of a controlled substance in Stone Harbor, New Jersey. There was a pretrial intervention, and the record was expunged,” Hunter Biden acknowledged during a 2006 hearing before the Senate Committee on Science, Commerce, and Transportation on his nomination.

The information can be attributed to this 2019 news story from the Washington Examiner: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/revealed-hunter-biden-possession-of-a-controlled-substance-charge-kept-under-wraps-while-father-spearheaded-drug-war-from-senate

As a new account I cannot add the information myself, but I do believe it warrants an addition. There are other references on his page to his past drug use, as well as his discharge from thee U.S. Navy for failing a drug test. Lambland1996 (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Have you got a better source? We can't use the Washington Examiner, per WP:RSP. GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@GA-RT-22: Why can't you use the Washington Examiner? "No consensus on the reliability" does not mean the source cannot be used. Please explain. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I have a general problem in a WP:BLP of bringing up a 35 year old charge when someone was a teenager that was expunged. Expungement means any record has been completely removed; not even available to police. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The Washington Examiner source is not enough to establish weight at this time. @Lambland1996: if there are more sources covering this you should provide them; in accordance with WP:ONUS. If there were to be considerable RS coverage of this arrest, I don't think there would be WP:BLPCRIME issue even though he was young and the arrest was expunged because it's not a secret that Biden has had a lifelong drug problem -- it's well documented in reliable sources and he's discussed it himself. So it's not as though this would be damaging to his reputation more than what we already know, and that is what BLPCRIME is designed to prevent. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 02:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree, I think if better sources are available we can add it into the article. However, I do think because of the nature of expunged records, it is not very likely to have any fresh new additional reliable articles covering this topic. MaximusEditor (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

It's already alluded to in the article: "Biden received an age-related waiver and a waiver due to a past drug-related incident." Incidents of this nature should only be mentioned to the extent they are considered significant in reliable sources.

I appreciate the view that any arrest is significant to understanding a subject. But It's not up to editors to determine what is significant, but the body of reliable sources covering the subject. Readers are free to follow the links provided and explore any area of Hunter Biden's life that they find of interest. But a brief article cannot contain all this information and editorial judgement is required to determine what should be included. TFD (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Unverified comments in Wikipedia stories.

I just read the article regarding Hunter Biden and am personally incensed by the statement "Since early 2019, Hunter and his father Joe Biden have been the subjects of false and baseless claims of corrupt activities in a Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory pushed by then-U.S. President Donald Trump and his allies."

This is a totally biased and demonstrably false statement. Yes, Hunter and Joe Biden have been charged with corrupt activities, but there has been no official decision whether or not there is factual basis for those charges. In fact, there is significant evidence supporting the veracity of the charges, and only Joe Biden's denials to disprove those accusations.

I suggest you remove the obviously biased, fallacious claim that the accusations are false and baseless, and the subject is far from decided at this point. Wikipedia should work harder to verify the accuracy and obvious bias of statements posted on their space, especially if you continue to beg for money from people of ALL political leanings to continue your presence on social media.

BE FAIR, NOT BIASED IF YOU WANT TO SURVIVE. Lennypooh (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree and have changed "false and baseless" to "contested." Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I have changed it back since these are false and baseless claims. Biden critics can say whatever they want, that doesn't mean we provide WP:FALSEBALANCE to them. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Asserting that they are "false and baseless claims" is decidedly NOT neutral, unbiased language. It would be equally egregious to claim that they are true. "Contested" is neutral. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

No, we report what the sources report. Do you see how many sources after that line call them "false"? "Neutral" means "neutrally reflecting the sources", not trying to hedge in between two positions, especially when they are not equal. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

There is a vital distinction that you and others need to understand, as there are many are trying to blur the distinctions. The sentence you cite specifically references the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, which has been specifically shown to be false, years ago. More recently, there have been other allegations such as bribery and money laundering, which are now pending. See Comer investigation of Biden family to see where those allegations presently stand. soibangla (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Totally agree with this comment. What happened to the rule “neutral point of view?” Some accusations and conspiracies have been debunked. 2600:1700:EE10:57F0:8572:149D:EC12:1B95 (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Disclosures today in the US House of Representatives Oversight Committee make it clear that claims of Hunter Biden being paid to have his father pressure the Ukraine to fire prosecutor Shokin are anything but "debunked". "On Nov. 2, 2015, Burisma executive Vadym Pozharskyi emailed Hunter Biden ... emphasizing in his email that the "ultimate purpose" of the agreement with Blue Star Strategies was to shut down "any cases/pursuits against Nikolay in Ukraine," referring to Zlochevsky, who also went by Nikolay. Hunter Biden responded to Pozharskyi, saying he wanted to "have one last conversation" with Blue Star, but later said he was "comfortable" with Blue Star. "You should go ahead and sign," he wrote on Nov. 5, 2015. "Looking forward to getting started on this". https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republicans-erupt-2015-email-exposing-ultimate-purpose-hunters-involvement-burisma Tvaughan1 (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The only thing your post shows is why we do not use Fox News as a reliable source in the Wikipedia. That spin is laughably fraudulent. Zaathras (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Ahh... the old WP:RS trick. Of course. Claiming that obviously true information (which clearly shows that this article, as written, is biased) is fraudulent is WP:GAME. The facts disclosed by the congressional committee today are part of a public record. The claim that "Hunter and his father Joe Biden have been the subjects of false and baseless claims of corrupt activities" is clearly not a WP:NPOV statement, given what we know now. The article should refer to the corruption accusations as accusations, and not claim to know the ultimate outcome of an evolving situation / ongoing congressional investigation. Tvaughan1 (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

One, a guiding principle of how Wikipedia articles are sourced is not a "trick", sir. Two, the allegations of corruption are indeed conspiracy theories, as supported but reliable sources. Finally, considering that Rep. Comer's start witness has been charged as a Chinese spy, I'm not sure the word fact" and the words" "congressional committee" should appear together in the same sentence. Zaathras (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

This article states that "claims of corrupt activities" are "false and baseless". Effectively, this statement says that Hunter Biden is innocent. It is logically backward and obviously biased to say that Hunter Biden is innocent of any claims of corrupt activities. There is a strong basis for such claims, including Hunter and his associate both being paid $1 million/year for multiple years, and the fact that Joe Biden delivered exactly the result that Vadym Pozharskyi explicitly asked for. There are multiple ongoing investigations. I'm not suggesting an edit that suggests that Hunter is guilty of such claims. But the words "false and baseless" are a quite clearly bridge too far when it comes to reaching conclusions about such claims.Tvaughan1 (talk) 00:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

There are no ongoing investigations, just a feeble ambulance-chase by a partisan Congressman. I believe we're done. Zaathras (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

It is clear from your ad hominem response that you don't have a WP:NPOV. The US Attorney in Delaware, the IRS, the FBI and the House Oversight Committee are all investigating this matter, and none of these agencies have concluded their investigation.Tvaughan1 (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The only one of those we are sure is investigating this is the Comer committee soibangla (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Gone in 60 seconds: At FBI director hearing, Republican conspiracies about Biden go 'POOF!'. Zaathras (talk) 00:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Folks are innocent until proved guilty. And millions have been spent trying to find some reason to convict Hunter Biden for some felony attached to his father. And please, never say things like There is a strong basis for such claims. That is far out of our purview. This is an encyclopedia. If you wish to repeat conspiracy theories; please find an appropriate forum. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

This article states that "claims of corrupt activities" are "false and baseless". So apparently it is somehow within our purview to prove the unprovable and state it as fact, but not within our purview to determine whether or not "false and baseless" is a contested assertion.Tvaughan1 (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

We don't say that, reliable sources do soibangla (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

All this is predicated on a Fox News exclusive from hours ago in which they assert to have found and authenticated new emails from the laptop that no one had previously spotted after three years of intensive inspection. Maybe it's true, but we need to slow down and wait for reliable sources. Until then, the status quo prevails. soibangla (talk) 00:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Damn, I never realized that using reliable sources is a "trick". Would someone fold this conspiracy nonsense from a source that has admitted lying? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:GAME "Editors typically game the system to make a point, to further an edit war, or to enforce a specific non-neutral point of view". Claiming that obvious, verifiable facts (including the record of a US Congressional Committee) don't exist because you the sources reporting these plainly true facts don't make the cut in WP:RS is a game that violates the mission and purpose of Wikipedia. WP:NPOV "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." That is clearly what the phrase "false and baseless" is doing in this article. That is an opinion masquerading as a fact. Tvaughan1 (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

We use reliable secondary sources. It would be ridiculous to use the record of a US Congressional Committee, which you state are obvious, verifiable facts. The witnesses are hand selected by the party in power and are under oath while the interrogators are not under oath and allowed to lie all they wish (and do so to the extreme). It's really quite funny watching the two parties go after each other - until you get sick of the circus. I just watched a recording of the salient discussion in the McCarthy hearings. They're worse now. If you have a problem with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you are on the wrong page and insulting editors will never bring consensus, the purpose of talk pages. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Stop it

You are both in violation of the Wikipedia:Contentious topics procedures. Stop it immediately. (edit to add: Bookworm857158367 and Muboshgu, not the rest of you who are here to discuss) GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I didn't revert more than twice and suggested it be discussed on the talk page. I still don't think the current wording is neutral. "Contested" might be or "What (Insert sources) stated (or a court/investigation determined) are false and baseless claims" would be neutral. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

did you see "false" and "falsely" in the lead of Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, to which the sentence in question here refers? soibangla (talk) 00:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

So just attribute it. The sentence should say who or what investigating agency determined they are false and baseless allegations. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Attribution is unnecessary here, but go ahead if you disagree. [7] soibangla (talk) 00:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I do think it is necessary to say exactly where this statement is coming from.Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

it's right there in footnote #4 soibangla (talk) 01:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I see news articles from The New York Times, USA Today, The Guardian and The New Yorker, among others, all asserting that the claims are false and baseless. Maybe I'm missing a government source. It might be more accurate to say no charges have ever been filed and no one has been convicted as a result of these allegations. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Then again, it might be more accurate to say it was a fabricated hoax designed to smear the Bidens to win an election. soibangla (talk) 01:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

That is certainly the way the story has been represented in these particular sources, yes. The factual statement would be that he has never been charged or convicted and investigatory reporting by The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Guardian, USA Today and others have stated the allegations are false and baseless. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Multiple reliable secondary sources have characterized the allegation as false. That's how we do things here. We don't keep a conspiracy theory alive by hinting at a possibility it could be true just because no court has shown otherwise. soibangla (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, just attribute it. "Investigatory reporting by multiple news agencies (footnote) found the claims were false and baseless. No charges were brought and no one was convicted of any crimes related to these allegations" etc. etc. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Many reliable secondary sources say the allegation is false. I see no reason to make an extraordinary exception by qualifying that here, though I can understand why some might like to. soibangla (talk) 02:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

See above. It's a point of contention, so a neutral and objective editor will say who has said the claims are false and baseless and why. Name the multiple secondary sources quoted by the various investigatory reports or, if that is too lengthy, say "Investigatory reporting by multiple news agencies, quoting legal experts, have determined the charges were false and baseless. (footnote citing all sources) No charges were ever brought." Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I oppose your proposal soibangla (talk) 02:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Why is that? Attribution makes clear where the statements came from — investigatory reporters quoting various secondary sources — and gives the factual statement that no charges were ever brought. I think the primary objection above is probably that to the lay reader it makes it sound like Wikipedia or whoever edited the article is the one making the statement. Not everyone is going to read every source story in that footnote. Your opinion and mine do not belong there. So, in this instance, because it is a point of contention, make it crystal clear where it comes from. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

It isn't necessary. Zaathras (talk) 03:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

This is not Wikipedia policy. The current text is supported by reliable sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

You don't get to revert more than once. Please familiarize yourself with the policies. GA-RT-22 (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Repeated talk page publication of the child's name

Please stop doing this. This talk page is part of the public archive, and a policy-based objection has been articulated. Repeated mentions of the child's name are gratuitous. SPECIFICO talk 18:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Her name is currently in the main space over here (twice actually), sourced to Fox News and NYTimes. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Instead of advertising it, perhaps you will remove. SPECIFICO talk 22:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The three minor grandchildren are listed there: Robert Hunter Biden II, Beau Biden, and Navy Joan. Let's wait for the RfC to close before removing the three names. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

That is backwards. SPECIFICO talk 22:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Robert Hunter Biden II--a minor--is also mentioned at List of children of vice presidents of the United States, Beau Biden, Hallie Olivere Biden, and List of children of presidents of the United States. That's a lot of deleting. Why not wait for the RfC to end. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Because of the way this is being used, as is clear from partisan media coverage. First, do no harm. Err on the side of caution and protecting her privacy. SPECIFICO talk 22:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Continually entering the name of the child on the talk page is a clear BLP violation and should be removes them. If it continues, we can proceed with AE. TFD (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree. What purpose does this serve other than harming an innocent? O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

On what planet does the mere naming of a child harm them, when their name has already been featured at length in the New York Times and other news media ? The horse has bolted. Jack4576 (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Please stop stating that this has been featured at length in the NYTimes. This is flatly false. I know it has been repeated in extreme right-wing circles. We can do nothing about their irresponsibility. We can control what's in this encyclopedia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The only news item I could find in NYT, this one, does not name the child. WWGB (talk) 11:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Ahh, a sad article about how politics is messing with a family. Seems the mother's lawyer is one of Trump's lawyers and Ziegler was also involved, who apparently was one of the group that discussed with Trump a plan to seize control of voting machines in key states. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

She was mentioned in this op-ed by name

Why do you underline news User:WWGB; the type of article she's in has no relevance to my point, which is that over there in the real world, the horse has bolted. Jack4576 (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Coverage in media alone is not sufficient to list the name of a low-profile individual. Per WP:BLPNAMES: 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 constant cites to news media (or worse, opinion pieces from non-experts) certainly does nothing to establish that a name should be included when BLPNAMES specifically says that such sources should not be used for that purpose. And, of course, if you believe that it makes no difference because everyone knows the name already, why are you insistent on including it? That argument would seem to be self-defeating. Either way, BLP is clear - we're not supposed to let a temporary rush of press coverage overwhelm the protections of WP:LOWPROFILE when it comes to names. If you don't understand why the policy works that way, consider that non-WP:SUSTAINED news coverage quickly fades from the public view; while you might feel her name is deeply important and significant to your understanding of the news today, eventually the news cycle will move on. Wikipedia articles are intended to be more enduring - that is why we have WP:NOTNEWS - which means we have some cautions against including stuff based on limited or transient coverage, especially in context where there's no clear argument for inclusion (ie. it isn't something the sources treat as vital to understanding the topic.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Its not false, she was named in this op-ed.

Being the subject of a prominent op-ed might fairly be described as one having 'featured at length in the NYT'. Jack4576 (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

This was about a letter written to Dowd by her sister in an opinion piece on the next to last page of section A. It is not a news story or endorsed by the NYTimes. I don't know where you get "prominent" or "at length" from. NYTimes news feature often go on for pages. Today's Times has a full page on the death of Milan Kundera, a 94-year-old Czech author. Exaggeration has no place here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

So what? If its been in the NYT, its been read by a huge number of people.

This is especially so when the NYT op-ed itself has been the subject of news coverage.

The prominence comes from it being a NYT op-ed. I don't think there are any op-eds more prominent than this? The at-length ... this is around ~900 words

I think its pretty telling that you're arguing semantics.

Additionally, I'll note that the NYT's obituary section is also read by a large number of people. I'd also say Milan Kundera has been prominently featured.

Would you like to get back to the point; on what planet does naming the granddaughter here cause her any 'harm', given the existing media coverage? (which I note includes a lot more outlets than just the NYT) Jack4576 (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

On this planet, obviously. Take to heart the comments on the AfD close of your article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Its not at all obvious how the use of a name on a webpage substantially increases the level of exposure of a name that has already been exposed at perhaps the greatest degree possible already; by mainstream media.

Not obvious. Would you like to spell out to me how it substantially increases the level of exposure of the name? I'm all ears. Jack4576 (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Please stop exaggerating. It is not useful for collaboration. And, obviously I can't explain this to you. End of conversation for me. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think it’s exaggerating to describe being printed in the NYT the most prominent news media exposure.

I take up your offer to agree to disagree. Jack4576 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure, we can be 'responsible' and 'control' what's on the Wiki

But when control is being done for its own sake, when we have reasons to believe that such control is meaningless (due to existing news coverage) I think its fair to describe that attempt at control as quite ridiculous, and more than a little silly

I'd prefer that we recognise that this person is now a public figure, and that naming them on-wiki will in no way realistically or meaningfully perpetuate further harm to them. The public is already quite aware of her name, and her story. Excluding it from Wikipedia is embarrassingly censorious and merely serves to harm our reputation as a lay information source. Jack4576 (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

No idea about Australian law @Jack4576, but she clearly doesn't meet the American definition of the term "public figure." TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I’m sure you’re right Tulsa. Apologies I’ve been speaking a bit too colloquially

I forgot about the quite particular role that term plays in your first amendment jurisprudence. Good reminder, thank you, i’ll stop using that term until i’m further informed

I’m not sure we have anything analogous. Free speech rights over here are quite a grim thing Jack4576 (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Why not wait for the RfC to end - per WP:CONLOCAL, an RFC held on this page wouldn't govern what we do on other pages anyway. And per WP:BLP (and WP:BLPNAMES in particular) we're supposed to err on the side of caution when there are legitimate BLP concerns, as is the case here; that means we should remove them and anyone who objects ought to produce either a consensus on each of those pages for inclusion, or a broader consensus at a broader venue than this one. You can see the standard necessary to restore them at WP:BLPRESTORE. --Aquillion (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Spelling and grammatical errors

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

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

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

Original for reference:

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

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

Neutrality issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are the whistle-blower hearings you are talking about same hearings where Marjorie Taylor Greene Wednesday held up naked pictures of the President's son, a private citizen, taken from his laptop.[8][9] If and when Hunter Biden is charged with a serious crime; it will be added to this article. Until then, this is how Congress is spending it's time and use of the laptop. These hearings are an embarrassment to the US and we should not be using them for uncorroborated allegations in an encyclopedia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are differences between those who seek public office parading their manicured bios in front of the public and private citizens who are thrust into the public eye, often by the enemies of a relative. In this case, having a Congresswoman inexplicably holding up nudes of Hunter Biden taken from his hacked, private laptop in front of the US Congress. But, all are subject to WP:BLP. This is why your coatrack articles failed unanimously.[10] O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2023

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

To

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Information

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

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

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

Add Description

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

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

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

Earlier this year there was an RfC that had strong consensus to remove the words "convicted felon" from the first sentence of David Duke.[11] Same with Jussie Smollett[12] and Dinesh D'Souza.[13] – Muboshgu (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liberals never cease to amaze me. "Neutral" fact would be that he is an alleged criminal that already intended to plead guilty until his bullshit plea deal got called out by an honest judge. 149.101.1.114 (talk) 02:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have an interesting profile, Objective3000: You claim to be retired on Wikipedia but you still engage and you do so only on talk pages to fight for the left wing causes, see here: [15]. —Menischt (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was being nice in wording but long story short: the collective bias of the major editors surrounding these highly political subjects is getting quite out of hand and anytime the point on that gets made by in any capacity, the argument gets immediately shut down by a subversive interpretation of the rules or use of a rule to bypass another policy to dare question any possible dissenting concensus on information being presented. This is a public domain of information so it is understandable there will be different veiws on editing worldwide but what is happening here is purely in bad faith to the spirit of discussion. Shutting down any and all dissenting voices with the admin powers that be is not showing any good faith to the average person who gets into understanding how the process of wikipedia flows behind the scenes. For I know you could easily mark me down as a "sockpuppet" or "vandel" as ya'll like to call it for whatever reason, and ban me so you never have to worry about bothering to respond to these concerns. Not to say that there aren't some people who abuse editing for bad ideas and trolling and do deserve to face some consequence. But for those raising concerns that get silenced or have their conversations deleted, all that does is make this place an echochamber of ideas and not of good faith in presenting information and discussing how such information is shown. Also, for an editor self described as 'retired' from Wikipedia, you seem to be quite fairly active surrounding all of these sensitive topics, and yes I am bringing up that point to relate to main point here though this is likely all you will focus on if you bother to respond and not decide to ban me on the spot or pull in a fellow admin friend to do it for you. I don't mean to be petty or personally bring anything up with you but you and few other major editors seem to really strongly police any of these sensitive discussions far more than normal editors. 174.240.16.241 (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

If you are interested in making Wikipedia a better resource, this page is not the place to discuss site-wide issues. Try Jimbo's talk page or the Village Pump. SPECIFICO talk 23:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Names of 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.

---

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

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

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

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

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

So, you are unilaterally declaring that the RfC doesn't count? No one at any level here has that authority. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Finnegan and Maisy

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

[redacted name of daughter with Roberts]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[redacted name of daughter with Roberts]

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

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

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

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

• Comment - Recommend (at least) a six-month moratorium on this topic. After that, then maybe a 'new' RFC would be acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Beau Jr.

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

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

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

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

• Close and block the filer, please This was just settled via RfC, one lone recalcitrant user doesn't get to disrupt this article and open the proverbial can all over again. Zaathras (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - I think the name of this sub-section, is incorrect. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 29 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.

AfD of note

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathleen Buhle. Zaathras (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)