Talk:Hunter Biden/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Names of children (II)

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.

---

A highly biased editor or group of editors decided that “ standard procedure and recent discussions have concluded that gratuitous naming of minors is not going to happen.” This was fine because they want to hide one of Biden’s grandchildren. We should name them. On Donald Trump’s page, we name all his children including the one that’s a minor. If the zealot editors who concluded this truly care about not naming minors, why don’t they for once get themselves over to Donald Trump’s page and remove names of minors? The names should be posted on this page. 12.16.115.131 (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I think some assumption of good faith is needed here. But I also think an article about the child's name being on the front page of the BBC is important new info. Of course a RFC is very important, but things have changed since then and the conversation should not be shut down without considering that. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66347362 CT55555(talk) 11:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

From your cite: "foster a relationship that is in the best interests of their daughter, preserving her privacy as much as possible going forward". So, it's our job to undermine that by naming the child in an encyclopedia? O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, no. Our job is not that. Our job is to run an encyclopedia, and balancing competing issues, including privacy. Our job is to follow the guidance, policy and consensus. Consensus was reached just days ago, and it is exceptionally uncommon to make a valid argument to revisit something just days later, but when something that was deemed not important enough to include then appears on the front page of BBC News, that is a game changer.

And I'm not saying we should include it. I'm just saying it's a valid conversation to have again, and the previous closing of questions about that is something I disagree with.

And everyone here needs to assume good faith. CT55555(talk) 12:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

appears on the front page of BBC News, It is not mentioned on the front page of the BBC site.[1] If you go in the site to the BBC News section, it is the fifteenth headline with one sentence after Injured horse flown to California hospital.[2] Dive even deeper to the BBC-News-world-US and Canada page, and it is the ninth story with two sentences.[3] You need to go deeper yet to hit the story.

And yes, please assume my response was in good faith. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

More context:

1. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/29/joe-biden-openly-acknowledges-his-seventh-grandchild-for-the-first-time
2. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66347362
3. https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/28/politics/president-acknowledges-seventh-grandchild/index.html
4. https://www.npr.org/2023/07/28/1190875393/biden-grandchild-navy
5. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/28/us/politics/biden-hunter-navy-joan-roberts-grandchild.html
6. https://www.thestatesman.com/who-is/who-is-navy-joan-roberts-granddaughter-of-us-prez-joe-biden-1503206026.html
7. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/28/biden-hunter-granddaughter-navy-roberts/

At this point, it's very widely reported. The belief that censoring a name here is protecting anyone's privacy is a good faith error. CT55555(talk) 14:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Ten years from now, those articles will be long forgotten. But, an encyclopedia is not a newspaper. It is permanent. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like a strong argument. Newspapers, print or otherwise, have been archived for decades now. The subject of this article, Hunter, is a public figure. Hundreds, if not thousands, of public figures have BLPs in this encyclopedia, and many, if not all of them, list the names of their direct descendants, minor or otherwise. Usually, this is because the subject of the article made a very public announcement about their birth (and so it gained sufficient coverage for it to be included here), or the children themselves have been the topic of news articles or they become famous themselves for other reasons (acting, singing, public office, etc.) There are children included on BLPs who have had substantially less coverage than Navy Joan, so I don't really understand the logic here as to why Wikipedia should exclude her name. As @CT55555 pointed out, the privacy argument is moot because this child's name is now widely known and has received a lot of media attention. -- Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, newspapers are archived. I know because I looked up something about my own family a couple of years ago. The search was difficult and I had to pay to read the story. Come to think of it, you have to pay to read more and more of today's online newspaper sites, even local papers. This is simply not the same as a free encyclopedia. And I fail to understand why her name need be repeated here over and over and over and over again. We know the subject of this thread. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

A highly biased editor or group of editors - they want to hide one of Biden’s grandchildren - zealot editors. Please take you personal attacks to another site that thrives on them. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Same for you. I wasn’t personally attacking anyone. That’s why I didn’t name anyone. 12.16.115.131 (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Hide the name of any 'minor' child or grandchild over at the Donald Trump, by all means. GoodDay (talk) 13:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Problem is I’m pretty sure if I did that someone, and perhaps even someone who adamantly supported removal of the name here, would revert my edit immediately. 12.16.115.131 (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Consensus can change, and something is pathologically wrong here when a new "rule" is created just for this article to prohibit naming children who are minors, as well as any discussion about it. The same minor children are named in Melissa Cohen Biden's article as well as in Family of Joe Biden.
The articles for Donald Trump Jr, Ivanka Trump, Eric Trump, Vanessa Trump, and Lara Trump all name their minor children. The article for Chelsea Clinton also names her minor children.
Obviously, this new "rule" to censor the names of Hunter Biden's children in this article is bullshit.
The bullshit goes an extra step further by supressing the names of two of his three adult children. Those same children are named in Family of Joe Biden as well as their mother's article.
Is it possible to stop this madness? A girl in Latvia (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

This is not a new rule that was created just for this article and it is not bullshit and it is not madness. Please read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of names, which is a longstanding policy and one of Wikipedia's most important. Also read Wikipedia:Assume good faith, a behavioral guideline that is being violated in this discussion. Policy violations that may be present in other articles should be discussed on the talk pages of those articles, not here. The existence of policy violations elsewhere is not an excuse to create more policy violations. Cullen328 (talk) 23:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Rants using words like pathologically, censor, suppressing, madness, and repeatedly using the word bullshit is not a convincing argument. I suggest you strike this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Still bullshit -- there is nothing in WP:BLPPRIVACY prohibiting the naming of children that have been named in many publications.

If you're offended by my use of the word "bullshit", then perhaps stop the bullshit. A girl in Latvia (talk) 00:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIVACY says in part Consensus has indicated that the standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified. And maintain civility or you may find yourself unable to edit or discuss pages in one or more of these contentious topics areas. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I missed the last (or only) RFC on this topic. The result of that RFC, was "don't show the child's name". GoodDay (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

There is no value in publishing the child's name. Readers would not have come away from the article with a different view of Hunter Biden if he had chosen a different name for his daughter. Nor could they google her name for additional information because there isn't any. Policy is quite clear that the onus is on the IP to explain why the name should be included. The fact it has been published elsewhere is not an argument. In fact the privacy policy would be superfluous because we wouldn't be able to include the name if we didn't know what it was. TFD (talk) 01:36, 31 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.

Naval “Career” Section

If it wasn’t for biased or people contributing to this article we wouldn’t need to be discussing this. However, it’s incorrect and completely insane that there is a section called “Naval Career” to describe being in the navy for a month before being discharged under dishonorable conditions. Being in a job for a month doesn’t make it a “career.” 12.16.115.131 (talk) 11:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

A career is still a career, however brief. Zaathras (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I guess generally a career is thought of as something that you do for a time that actually defines your life. You do something and gain skills and then continue in the same line of work. Getting into the Navy due to political connections that allowed exceptions that most people couldn’t get, then getting kicked out a month later for drug use that you claim is from sharing cigarettes doesn’t amount to what most of us would think of as a career in the Navy. Certainly he was in the Navy for a month. It would probably be more accurate to say it was a stint in the navy, or time in the Navy than a career there. Or, it may be more accurate to have this in his general career bio rather than a separate section. Just like we wouldn’t have a separate section for maybe a notable person that would have a whole heading for the one month they spent working at McDonald’s while they were in college. Instead we would have a career section that might say that they went to college and worked at McDonald’s during the summer. 12.16.115.131 (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the word "career" is an inappropriate word for the section heading given that he was in the Navy for less than two months. I would phrase the section as "Enlisting in the US Navy". A girl in Latvia (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2023

I AM TAKING EXCEPTION TO THE WORD "FALSE" IN THE FOLLOWING COMMENT IN THE HUNTER BIDEN PAGE:

"Since early 2019, Hunter and his father, Joe Biden, have been the subjects of FALSE allegations of corrupt activities in a Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory."

NO CITATIONS AND/OR OTHER EVIDENCE ARE PROVIDED IN SUPPORT OF "SAID FALSENESS."

THEREFORE THE WORD "false" SHOULD BE REMLOVED FROM THE ARTICLE.

THANK YOU! Getd4wiki (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: It has a citation with over 10 sources listed discussing said falseness. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

And please don't shout. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

"Surfaced", "linked to" and other goofy phrases

I am tagging these because they're goofy. "Surfaced" is a weasel word: evidence is an inanimate object that's incapable of taking actions. Things do not "surface" themselves, they are surfaced by someone or something. Similarly, "linked to" and "has links to" are -- what does that mean? Did Winston Churchill have "links to" Adolf Hitler? Did Richard Nixon have "links to" George Washington? Do I have links to everyone on this talk page, who has links to everyone they know, and so on, and if so, do I also have "links to" George Washington? I hope so, because that would be cool, but on the other hand, it also means I have "links to" Adolf Hitler, so maybe not.

Seriously: if there's some actual relationship between two things, we should just say what the relationship is, and not waffle around with stuff like "links to". If not, we shouldn't say anything.

Normally, I would tag bad language like this as a matter of routine, as I do when I see it elsewhere, but I understand this particular article is something of a scratching post for the politically minded, so I will do the courtesy of a talk page notice. jp×g 09:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would volunteer to read the cited sources and other relevant RS and propose alternative language that better reflects the mainstream coverage related to these wordings. I hope you will have time to do that. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2023

Well, I know that this article doesn't depict who Hunter Biden really is. There is information that is being withheld regarding his career and past. There is information on www.bidenlaptopmedia.com that proves multiple accusations made against him, that are borderline criminal, and anyone researching him should know the facts. Natwiththegat (talk) 11:04, 3 August 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. M.Bitton (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't the article already say a bunch of stuff about him being sussy? What specifically would need to be added? jp×g 11:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Sources on Devon Archer testimony

• WaPo
• CNN
• NBC

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

Dodgy dealings

Should there be some mention of how Joe Biden was in the room while Hunter was on loudspeaker so he must therefore know & be implicated in the Burisma case? 2A00:23C7:C603:6A01:F1AB:CB70:D27B:BD6A (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should include something that hasn't even been alleged ... until now soibangla (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Section headings must be neutral. I'll give you the opportunity to fix your own section heading. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

so he must therefore know & be implicated = WP:OR – Muboshgu (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

RfC about including the name of Hunter Biden's daughter

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

its about her treatment by a prominent political family

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes. I think the situations are very comparable actually.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Add a "Controversy" section

Add it and separate much of the content written about accusations and allegations into this new section section. --31.187.2.85 (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

No, we will not add a WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Why not? Hunter is very controverisal. 2600:1008:A101:5050:34F8:BD58:56D2:EC85 (talk) 04:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Read the link Andre🚐 05:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Hunter Biden's LSAT score

@CherryOolong:, you have violated the "You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message" restriction. It would be wise to revert this edit. The additional problem here is that you are using another Wikipedia article as a citation. This is not allowed as the Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. So in summation, you're adding silly trivia, sourced to the Wikipedia, and edit warring. I've rarely seen an editor be this wrong on this many fronts simultaneously. Zaathras (talk) 03:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Wow, you're very mad, Zaathras! Sure, I'll wait 24 hours and properly cite it. Again, and again, and again, and again. CherryOolong (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I will learn to properly cite it. Thank you for all of your "help." CherryOolong (talk) 03:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm still new to Wikipedia. Still learning. CherryOolong (talk) 03:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Hunter Biden's LSAT Score, suite

I'm pretty sure there's an exclude consensus here soibangla (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello. I have waited 24 hours to re-instate my edit. I believe I am learning more about Wikipedia now but comment below if I did this incorrectly. I am posting this talk page message to follow the rules. Thank you! Oh, also, this time I will not cite Wikipedia. I'll just use Google Books, even though I am citing an actual print book. CherryOolong (talk) 03:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC) There are a few problems that have led to your edits being removed by other editors. Most importantly: Once your edit has been removed, it's up to you to advocate for your preferred version here on the talk page, giving reasons that fit our policies at WP:V and WP:NPOV. There's a lot to read and digest on those pages. It's up to you to gain consensus that your edit improves the article. Without that, the edit will just be removed again and again. Second, please be sure that you understand how the rule at the upper part of the talk page, WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES, works. In this case you did not fulfill what it says. It's not easy to work on articles involving current events or contentious topics. You might want to work on other areas as well to gain editing experience. Good luck. SPECIFICO talk 11:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC) @SPECIFICO Okay. Thank you for the references. I'm not sure why my edit is so contentious. It is just a score on a standardized test... CherryOolong (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC) @SPECIFICO I read the book. I'm quoting the book. I want to work on this article. Not others. Thank you. CherryOolong (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC) This is trivial and it should be kept out of the article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC) Since this has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, it doesn't belong in the article. If Hunter's account is accurate, then he received a score consistent with what was required by the law schools he attended. There is nothing non-trivial about that. TFD (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC) Agreed. I dare ask, who even cares? Regardless, it's WP:UNDUE EvergreenFir (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC) Didn't we go through this before? I can't find it in the talk page archives but I remember an account or IP trying to add his LSAT score before. I agree that it's unimportant and should not be included on this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC) Well, if it happened before, wouldn't it be here? Everything on Wikipedia is public. It's relevant because it relates to the education portion of his life. By the same logic, why edit any Wikipedia article? Haha, seriously. I had no idea that this edit would be the one that would rub everyone the wrong way. Don't be jealous!  ;) CherryOolong (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC) I care. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Dealing with all of you makes me not want to edit anything. Too bad you're stuck with me. Don't worry. I'm not a bad person. I'll be nice. CherryOolong (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC) "Nothing non-trivial"? Didn't you just cancel yourself out? ... Nothing non-trivial would be trivial, correct? CherryOolong (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC) Why would anyone care what score he got on a test or include a claim made by he himself as the source. Close this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC) Oppose inclusion This content is referenced to Hunter Biden's autobiography and therefore violates WP:ABOUTSELF, which says that we should include only when the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. This claim of a test score in the 99th percentile is both. Plus, it is undue trivia. Cullen328 (talk) 00:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC) It's not an autobiography, it's a memoir. The claim is neither self-serving nor exceptional. Did some of you fail the LSAT? Haha. CherryOolong (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC) An autobiography is not the same as a memoir... CherryOolong (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC) For this purposes of this discussion, there is functionally no difference. Zaathras (talk) 02:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC) Oh, there you are. It seems you called your friends to help you. Who said that? You said that? There is a difference. One is an autobiography. One is a memoir. Different types of book. CherryOolong (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC) Ok you win, it's a memoir. But the LSAT score is undue trivia and should not be included. soibangla (talk) 04:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC) It seems you called your friends to help you. What the hell is wrong with you? Special:Contributions/Zaathras, there you go, I posted on no other user's talk page about this, that's a glorious aspect of the Wikipedia, everyone's edits are public. As for the topic here, no, as I already said there is no practical difference that affects what we're talking about here. An autobiography is a fact-driven narrative, generally of the entirety of one's life. A memoir is generally about parts of one's life, and is more focused on experience and opinion. What we're talking about here is Hunter Biden stating his own test score in his own work. That is why the autobiography vs. memoir prattle is meaningless. Zaathras (talk) 04:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC) It seems I have upset you. There is nothing wrong with me. Do you not know how to debate without throwing insults? CherryOolong (talk) 12:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC) No one here is upset, I am calling out your uncalled-for personal attacks. Zaathras (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC) Oppose inclusion for a few reasons. (1) Has essentially no secondary reliable source coverage, which leads to both WP:V and WP:WEIGHT concerns. (2) A standardized test score does not fall under basic biographical information for an article (e.g. birth city, education, and religion). (3) No one has articulated why the score is noteworthy, and they likely will not be able to without secondary coverage. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 04:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC) Ok @Iamreallygoodatcheckers. You have proven a point. It has no secondary source. Fortunately, we talked about it enough here to cause some commotion. Thank you. CherryOolong (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC) Oppose inclusion Utter triviality. Zaathras (talk) 04:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC) @Zaathras You should learn how to use Wikipedia before judging others on how they do. CherryOolong (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC) @Zaathras Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers - Wikipedia CherryOolong (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC) Nothing against @CherryOolong, but WP:BLP might not be the best place to learn the ropes. Even worse, one that is now, for no good reason, politicized. Gah4 (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC) Don't worry, this is probably the only living biography I will edit. I'll move onto non-living non-humans soon. CherryOolong (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC) If you keep being disruptive in this topic area, that "moving on" may not be of your own volition. Zaathras (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC) I thought you said you were going to take a break from Wikipedia yet you're still commenting on my post. This ended. CherryOolong (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Apparently Hunter Biden paid a firm to edit his Wikipedia page...

Apparently Hunter Biden paid a firm to edit his Wikipedia page.... What of Wikipedia:NOPAY and Wikipedia:DISCLOSEPAY?

From journalist Lee Fang, Fang, Lee (2023-08-15). "Emails Show Hunter Biden Hired Specialists to Quietly Airbrush Wikipedia". Lee Fang. Retrieved 2023-08-17.:

"Emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop show that he made continuous efforts to airbrush his image and the Wikipedia articles associated with his Ukrainian benefactors."

[Since the The Federalist is often denigrated as a conservative website, I have ensmallened this text: Boyd, Jordan (2023-08-17). "Edits To Hunter Biden's Wikipedia Page Prove Site's Extreme Bias". The Federalist. Retrieved 2023-08-17.:

"Emails from Hunter Biden suggest that the son of now-President Joe Biden paid thousands of dollars to a public relations firm to scrub his Wikipedia page of several unflattering details about his personal life and business ties."]

See also: https://twitter.com/lhfang/status/1691497195827245056

I thought this was important to know. Fang is a respected liberal/left journalist who has worked for ThinkProgress and The Intercept, so his reporting should be above reproach. TuckerResearch (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. Seems this was all done in 2014. We should look into what was removed, like ties to Allen Stanford, and see what should be reinstated. (Regarding The Federalist, I think they denigrate themselves with a ridiculous headline like that. Many rich and famous people hire PR firms to whitewash their bios, this is a known issue but not one that "Prove Site's Extreme Bias". – Muboshgu (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

This article has undergone massive changes since 2014, to the point that the effects of paid editing are likely to have been ameliorated significantly. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• Clearly worth looking at. But, I'm not impressed with Lee Fang's reporting on this. From his page:

  One of the more prolific and anonymous Wikipedia accounts making edits to Hunter’s page was a user called “Earflaps,” which made a number of edits, including the deletion of criticism of Hunter’s work for Burisma, the Ukrainian energy firm. That account was later identified as a “sock puppet,” a term of art used for the illicit pay-for-play editing by fake accounts, to airbrush negative information off of Wikipedia.

First, he uses the word “anonymous” as if that’s sinister. Nearly all WP account are anon. Secondly, he states that sock puppet is a term for illicit pay-for-play editing by fake accounts, That’s bull. There are many reasons people avoid blocks by creating new accounts. I looked at the link farm. The other accounts seem to be music edits. Also note, this is carried by RT[5], which mentions several of us, including me. That aside, Earflaps did make* 87 edits to this article between May 14 and Jun 13, 2015, a year before he was indeffed.. Any damage to the article would surely have been repaired by now. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• I edit using my real name. SPECIFICO talk 16:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
• Also, the Intercept site is hardly the imprimatur of authoritative reportage. SPECIFICO talk 16:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Here's a link to 2014 edits. There are a few new editors and IPs who seem to know a lot about Wikipedia procedures so are conceivably socks. There's also a couple of prolific editors I recognize.

So what do we do about this? All the socks are gone and the story doesn't have sufficient coverage as yet to include in the article.

TFD (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

We don't need to add that he hired a PR firm to edit his Wiki article to his Wiki article. It's navel gazing and not unusual for a famous person to do. All we need to do is examine what was whitewashed and consider reversing any of those 2014 edits, if they haven't already been reversed or mooted by further developments in the last nine years. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

That's off the deep end, TFD. Why would it ever be significant, even if it turns out to be true that there were COI edits on this page? SPECIFICO talk 18:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I would be appreciative if you avoided deprecating comments, such as "off the deep end," which is a personal attack, similar to your previous reference to Area 51. As I have explained to you many, many times, what is significant is that, "An article...should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." While your personal assessment (or mine) of the relative significance of information may be better than the judgement of reporters for the New York Times and similar publications, policy says that we accept their judgement. If you believe that these publications are unduly critical of Hunter Biden, you should get policy changed, rather than arguing your case across numerous articles about respected Democratic personalities. TFD (talk) 05:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like more Russian disinformation. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Mostly good discussion, folks. Kudos. I'm sure since 2014, most of these edits are gone or have been re-added, or etc. But, I wonder (a) what remains and (b) if such edits are continuing? And, @Objective3000: I wonder if Fang's reportage on these Wiki terms are from ignorance or intentional? And, specifically, @SPECIFICO: I have seen several articles, biographies particularly, with some conflict of interest tag on the talk page. I just wonder if such a tag (and which) may be applicable here. TuckerResearch (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

from ignorance or intentional - My guess was sloppy reporting. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I think I'll start a separate section below to discuss whether or not to readd the Allen Stanford content. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

There are no editors specifically devoted to whitewashing Hunter Biden's article. There are several editors whose main activity is removing negative information about mainstream Democrats and adding negative comments about their opponents. But we don't have any reason to assume that they are paid for their work. Presumably there are people who have deep admiration for Hunter Biden and want to keep out negative information. TFD (talk) 05:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Attn: Article subject (H. Biden)

If you have a concern about information in this article, you can hire a PR firm to fix it. Do tell the firm to disclose its conflict of interest, though. See Article subjects' FAQ. - Dervorguilla (talk) 07:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The supposed edits are from many years ago. I really doubt H Biden or his PR agents are still here or reading this. Andre🚐 07:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

And, an old article

And this from 2019: Stanley-Becker, Isaac (2019-09-25). "Checking the Web on Hunter Biden? A 36-year-old physicist helps decide what you'll see". Washington Post. Retrieved 2023-08-22. TuckerResearch (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Conflict of interest tag?

Should some sort of conflict of interest tag be added to this article? Like:

• {{COI}}
• {{COI editnotice}}

Or some other I can't find offhand? And should the offending editor(s) receive this tag:

• {{connected contributor (paid)}}

Should we notify a conflict of interest noticeboard?

I am not super certain on this. What do you folks think? TuckerResearch (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Because of the PR firm that made some edits in 2014? No. The article is in a completely different state now than it was then. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Is there a statute of limitations on a COI tag? TuckerResearch (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

It looks like that Connpaid tag ordinarily goes on the client's talk page rather than the contributor's. See Template:Connected contributor (paid) and its usage example (an article where the affiliated contributor made some 17 edits in 2013). Dervorguilla (talk) 06:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I see. So how should we go about doing it on this talkpage? TuckerResearch (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Tags are not meant to shame or denigrate the article page or its content. If you find content that fails VERIFY or NPOV, you should remove it or raise it on the talk page. That's the cure. SPECIFICO talk 13:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Nope. The article is largely quite different now than it was in 2014, so any COI problems have likely been ameliorated by time. If you have any specific COI-looking material you've identified, please point it out so we can discuss - like Muboshgu did below for Allen Stanford mention.

From the {{COI}} template: In order to be tagged, the article should have a specific, articulatable, fixable problem. Do not apply this tag simply because you suspect COI editing, or because there is or was a COI editor. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but look at the very next sentence: "COI editors can be added to the talk page using the template {{Connected contributor}}." That is what I am talking about. TuckerResearch (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Much of the documentation regarding what to do with COI editing over at WP:COI is about how to deal with COI editors - there's much less guidance tailored for COI-influenced articles. That leads me to believe the primary goal of COI guidelines is dealing with editors. And since none of the editors who were making COI edits back in 2014 have been active on this article recently, I don't think there's much value at all in leaving up any COI maintenance tags. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

So, there's a "statute of limitations" on a {{Connected contributor}} tag? I don't see that in the documentation. And, on almost every page I have seen such a tag on, the notice is from years ago and not removed after an arbitrarily "sufficient" amount of time has passed. Besides, I think perhaps having such a tag will help present editors be on the lookout for any future such COI behavior. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Article tags like this are generally used on articles with little activity in an attempt to bring in editors to examine a possible problem. This is article has 350 watchers. Any possible damage from many years back would surely have been fixed. The only other purpose of tags is article shaming -- which we don't do. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The "statute of limitations" of the kind you're thinking of is not measured in time, but in edits. If COI editing happened 3 months ago and no evidence of COI editing exists in the article, the tag is not needed. If COI editing happened 9 years ago and there are still "specific, articulatable, fixable" problems in the article, the tag can be used. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Adding a little perspective: When Elaine Chao was Transportation Secretary from 2017 to 2021, she had Department of Transportation employees edit her Wikipedia page and the pages of her parents as part of their official duties, i.e., on the taxpayers' dime. By the time it was reported, the problematic material had long been removed from her page. The good folks at the DoT also "brightened" her official DoT portrait, i.e., they photoshopped lines and pouches away, and that is still her official portrait on her page. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 12:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I always thought they had airbrushed her pooches from the photo. SPECIFICO talk 13:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Allen Stanford

As discussed above, Hunter Biden appears to have employed a PR firm in 2014 to make favorable edits to the page. One specific change was removing a reference to Allen Stanford. The pre-sanitized version of the page said

Biden was chief executive officer, and later chairman, of hedge fund "PARADIGM Global Advisors", which he co-founded with his uncle James Biden and disgraced financier Allen Stanford, who was sentenced to 110 years jail for a multi-billion-dollar Ponzi scheme.

It is referenced in some sources. [6][7] Our article currently mentions Paradigm in the following sentence:

In 2006, Biden and his uncle James Biden purchased international hedge fund Paradigm Global Advisors; Hunter was interim CEO of the fund for five years, until 2011.

Should Stanford be mentioned in this article? Or any of the fraud that seems to be related to Paradigm? I admit that I haven't read these sources yet and so I have no opinion at this time, other than that the sentence as was written in 2014 is a WP:COATRACK of guilt-by-association, as there's no reason to mention Stanford's Ponzi scheme or prison sentence to this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

At the least, the statement Hunter co-founded hedge fund "PARADIGM Global Advisors" with James Biden and Allen Stanford isn't true. Paradigm Global Advisors LLC was bought (not founded) by Hunter and James Biden[1], and had a business relationship with Stanford, including the jointly-operated Paradigm Stanford Capital Management Core Alternative Fund[1] and some sort of marketing deal[2]. But Stanford definitely wasn't a cofounder of Paradigm. Neither were Hunter and James - apparently the founder of the firm was a Mr. James Park[3].

Generally, I don't see a reason why this article shouldn't mention Allen Stanford, if Hunter's dealings with Paradigm are being discussed in enough detail to make it WP:DUE. But I agree - the original text was an obvious coatrack. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm guessing that we will end up having to mention it since undoubtedly Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson or someone is going to have a field day with this story that is largely "navel gazing" (there's a ruder term for what it really is) and so whatever sketchy hedge fund thing that Hunter was involved with with Alan Stanford will become a story that will be covered by the likes of WSJ. It is definitely the case that famous people pay to have info about them scrubbed. However, the sources check out, so we shouldn't whitewash potentially damaging stuff if reliable sources like Reuters, Politico, WSJ, etc are going to be covering this stuff, as banal and uninteresting as we find it. Andre🚐 05:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Whatever else may have happened at Paradigm, the association with Stanford appears to have been brief and inconsequential and abruptly terminated when his fraud was alleged. So if this gets any mainstream coverage, it may only be as maybe a prequel feature in the Laptop series of Republican conspiracy yarns. SPECIFICO talk 14:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

"that is largely "navel gazing" " I fail to see your point here. Navel gazing is a meditation technique that is popular among the monks of Mount Athos and supporters of Hesychasm. Dimadick (talk) 13:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information, so you probably shouldn't rely on it for definitions. Check out this source for a more common usage of the term "navel gazing." PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

if you failed to see the point, that seems to rest on your inability to fully read the very short article you linked to, where the last line is "However, phrases such as "contemplating one's navel" or "navel-gazing" are frequently used, usually in jocular fashion, to refer to self-absorbed pursuits." ValarianB (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

According to the sources, Hunter and James Biden's hedge fund "Paradigm Global Advisors" ran a $50 million fund called "Paradigm Stanford Capital Management Core Alternative Fund". The latter fund was marketed exclusively by "Stanford-related companies" which had also invested $2.7 million in it. I haven't found any sources implicating the two men or Paradigm in Stanford's Ponzi scheme. The two sources (I just removed the congressional record) don't even support our current text which claims that Hunter was interim CEO of the fund[36] for five years, until 2011. The minutes of the June 2006 nomination hearing (OR?) quotes Hunter saying that he "will serve as interim CEO of Paradigm Global Advisors (a fund that invests in hedge funds that LLB holdings is currently looking at acquiring)", and "2011" appears to conflate two mentions in the Politico source: In James and Hunter’s five-year tenure, Paradigm became associated with a number of alleged and confirmed frauds and After Paradigm, James Biden landed a new gig ... at HillStone International ... In June 2011, the firm landed contracts worth I don't see any mention how long Hunter was interim CEO. Also according to Politico, James and Hunter began unwinding the fund in 2010. Not exactly sure what that means; my guess is "dissolve". I trimmed the text in the article. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 13:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

References

To add to article

Shouldn't we add a mention of Hunter Biden's reported business connections with Kenes Rakishev to this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Source? Zaathras (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Apparent political or personal bias in the representation of allegations against Hunter and Joe Biden narritive

NOTFORUM soibangla (talk) 13:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is my first time doing this so I beg some leniency if I am ignorant of WIKI procedure. Please correct me if I am presenting this wrongly. I have struck out the words I find the most egregious violation of WIKI's stated policy of neutrality in narrative representation of events. In hunter Biden's WIKI bio, the following line exists: "Since early 2019, Hunter and his father, Joe Biden, have been the subjects of false allegations of corrupt activities in a [[Biden–Ukraine conspiracy corruption theory]]. The accusations concern Hunter Biden's business dealings unusual monetary gains and appointment as a Barisma member of Board of Directors in Ukraine in 2014 and Joe Biden's anti-corruption efforts there." 75.237.110.175 (talk) 01:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC) The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, claiming that Joe got Shokin fired to protect Hunter, was refuted as false three years ago. No evidence has arisen since to un-refute it, despite people talking about it more recently. It was false three years ago and it's still false now, according to many reliable sources. Beyond that, Comer has not produced any evidence of unlawful wire transfers, actual suspicious activity in suspicious activity reports, no money laundering, no influence peddling, no links of Hunter business activity to Joe, regardless of what Comer incessantly says on Hannity, Bartiromo, Watters and Newsmax. Basically, after all this time, all that's been found is pictures and video of Hunter with sex workers. Hope that helps. soibangla (talk) 01:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Use of inappropriately biased language

I will just point out the current profile uses words like "baseless" and "supposedly" and "false and baseless," "falsely told," regarding controversies that actually have basis in fact, and some, as-of-yet, remain unproven but also not disproven. They cite to NYT and LA times, as well as the now debunked letter from 51 Intelligence Officers stating falsely that there was "Russian disinformation." See https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-biden-and-the-51-spies-of-2020-hunter-laptop-new-york-post-russia-disinformation-73072839 IN this case, the BASE for the claim is established that there was NO Russian Disinformation. This is a PROVEN fact. As is Anthony Blinken's pressure on them to modify the language in a manner to boost Biden's status. This is classic election interference.

As to the "baseless" Ukraine claims, even left-leaning CNN points to the truth of the BIden Family receiving $20 Million dollars. See https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/13/politics/fact-check-mccarthy-biden-impeachment-claims/index.html While that article correctly points out that there is AS OF YET no proof that Joe got any of that money, the STORY is neither baseless nor false. Merely unproven.

These perjorative phrases skew the truth of the matter reported on Wikipedia and skew the imaging in a matter at odds with the truth. There should be a removal of claims KNOWN to be incorrect from Wikipedia such as these. Although it is crowd-edited, someone needs to take responsibility for posting false information and phony information with regard to the fact that there was NO Russian Disinformation, that there IS proof of the Bidens benefitting in the Burisma transactions and other transactions in China in a manner at odds with the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, among other things, as well as the fact that Hunter Biden's Lawsuit regarding his laptop is PROOF of ownership of the laptop, despite any claim of tampering or misinformation while in the chain of custody of the DOJ under his FATHER's administration.

All I ask is that the emphasis be placed on presenting FACTS and TRUTH, rather than characterizations at odds with FACTS and TRUTH.

Here's the guideline ALL WIKIPEDIA posters should be held to: Distinguish between news material, opinion and analysis to avoid the pitfalls of speculation and propaganda. (As well as the other tenets of Journalistic Ethics, as posted by the Society of Professional Journalists and as posted in Al-Jazeera's Code of Ethics). See https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/2010-11/Journalism/index16e4.html?page_id=24 72.88.151.203 (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

NOTFORUM soibangla (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

PackMecEng I hatted this topic because I don't see any of the editor's specific points are mentioned in this article. Do you? Consequently, this is a generalized complaint that makes dubious claims of "PROVEN fact," including with the use of a WSJ editorial. "the now debunked letter from 51 Intelligence Officers stating falsely that there was "Russian disinformation" didn't actually make that claim, and it has not been debunked, despite efforts by conservative media to insist it has been simply because some of the laptop contents has been authenticated. I don't think it is relevant here. soibangla (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I carefully read through your post and do not see how it shows bias anywhere in the article. I also do not see how the Emoluments Clause is relevant as Hunter Biden was never the president. You cannot assume that the word "Bidens" includes the President. You would need to provide sentences in the article and how they are biased. I agree with the hatting of this section as it is yet another 'Wikipedia is biased' claim based on the poster knowing the 'truth'. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah but they have sources and legitimate concerns, we don't hat stuff because we don't like it. Heck out of the two Soibangla's response is just as ranty and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS so I don't really see the difference between the two except the IP at least tried to source their claims. PackMecEng (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The sources given by the IP are not sources to the claims made, unlike the sources in the article, thereby making it illegitimate. And what does the Qatari-state news channel's Code of Ethics have to do with this? And explaining a post is not a rant. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

“False allegations”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Struck through sock of Bagofscrews. Doug Weller talk 07:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: From USA Today yesterday:

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

From CNN yesterday:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  I read the op to try to get a feeling of how biased this article is, and It's clear that there is partisan shilling, because its clear even from the description of the article, that Hunter Biden was violating FARA (Foreign Agent Registration Act), and the Judge overseeing his plea deal decided to not accept it on that premise. I doubt that you can allege a federal judge to be engaging in a "conspiracy theory", for drawing legal conclusions from not disputed facts.

  https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/cnc/date/2023-07-26/segment/08 97.120.136.167 (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  The article does not state that he violated FARA and stating so here is a serious WP:BLP violation. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

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

The special prosecutor may investigate matters in "United States v. Robert Hunter Biden, as well as for any other matters that arose or may arise from that investigation."[8] So that seems to be narrow.

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

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

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

> Congressfolk are repeatedly saying he "took money from foreigners". That's something most every major US corporation does.

Under FARA, you cannot accept money for foreigners to influence government decisions or elections, without registering with the government and declaring who is giving you money, and what you are doing with the money. 97.120.136.167 (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Show me where he was found guilty of violating FARA. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Concur with @TFD. We must be scrupulous. Riposte97 (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

traumatic brain injury?

we need a source for if hunter has a traumatic brain injury 100.36.55.194 (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

You see those little numbers inside brackets? Click 'em. Zaathras (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Navy reserve section

The majority of the section is about how he was discharged. The word "discharge" is therefore WP:DUE in the section heading. Where is Matt? (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

That seems reasonable and perfectly neutral to me. The claim that this is "disparagement" is baseless. Similarly, if Biden is acquitted on all charges, I imagine we could use a heading like "Federal charges and acquittal". Politrukki (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

To add, the article is under "bold-revert-discuss cycle" page restriction (see the talk page header or the article's edit notice for details). It seems that both you and SPECIFICO have violated the restriction:

1. 22:08, 7 October 2023 original insertion
2. 02:40, 8 October 2023 revert by SPECIFICO
3. 17:58, 8 October 2023 reinsertion by Where is Matt?
4. 19:55, 8 October 2023 second revert by SPECIFICO

You should NOT make another revert, except to self-revert in case SPECIFICO decides to self-revert. If neither of you self-reverts, I don't know whether you two will be sanctioned. Maybe, maybe not. Politrukki (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I guess my reinsertion was a mistake. I was thrown off by SPECIFICO's deceptive edit summary of "fix".

Apologies for the mistake. Where is Matt? (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed the same thing. Using an edit summary is not mandatory, but a summary like that is only appropriate for uncontroversial or obvious edits. Politrukki (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I guess SPECIFICO did more than just revert my addition of the words "and discharge", since they also removed the word "service". The [current section] title "Navy reserve" is vague and should be clarified to better summarize the content of the section. Where is Matt? (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I elaborated on the problem in my edit summary. SPECIFICO talk 22:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The edit summary of your 2nd revert has been characterized in this talk as "baseless". I recommend that you self-revert and put this discussion out of its misery. Where is Matt? (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You did not make an edit after this discussion was started. I already referenced the edit summary of your second revert in this discussion (at 21:14). Do you have anything more to say? Politrukki (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Please attempt to rebut my statement by responding to what I said. SPECIFICO talk 23:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

You do understand that your statement was rebutted with the explanation that your assertion for "disparagement" is "baseless", along with an example of a proper section heading if Biden were to be acquitted at trial. Where is Matt? (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

No. Mere disagreement is not a reasoned rebuttal. Please see wp:ONUS and Wp:BLP. SPECIFICO talk 02:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Your both edit summaries have been rebutted. I agreed with Where is Matt?, who explained well why the content is DUE. Please elaborate your argument: why are you alleging "disparagement"? Do you refuse to self-revert? Politrukki (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The point is that assertion is not rebuttal, let alone refutation. There is no consensus for the header you appear to prefer. SPECIFICO talk 16:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems best to leave the title as is, "Navy Reserve" and then describe what happened during that time in the body of the section. Zaathras (talk) 05:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Zaathras, the "Navy Reserve" title is neutral and omits both 'service' and 'discharge'. A trout for each extra revert, each side keeps a word they objected to out of the header, end the conflict? --Noren (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Probably needs updating regarding those IRS things.

Those two guys, Ziegler and the other one i forget, who claim that the investigation was limited in scope. They aren't mentioned here, but I think thier accusations warrant some sorta mention. Specifically because thier absence would make attentive people suspicious and end up rabbit-holing (this happened to me. I don't trust others to be as media literate as me when that rabbit hole begins).

Anyway, here's some relevant links:

various relevant links. I particularly liked the first 2; the ones following i list because of relevance to the topic, instead of reliability. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66252781

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/09/15/hunter-biden-whistleblower-analysis/

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

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

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/bidens-watch-lady-justice-weaponized-merrick-garland-thing

https://www.foxnews.com/media/speaker-mccarthy-pressed-potential-impeachment-proceedings-release-alleged-hunter-biden

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hunter-biden-irs-whistleblowers-joseph-ziegler-gary-shapley/

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/irs-whistleblowers-boss-pushed-removed-hunter-biden-investigation-

https://nypost.com/2023/09/27/hunter-biden-apparently-called-joe-familys-only-asset/

https://www.politico.com/minutes/congress/07-24-2023/weiss-dates-from-doj/

hope this helps! 140.232.8.185 (talk) 01:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

From looking at a couple of your links, I would agree. HillbillyWoman (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Lead context problems

This article WP:LEAD fails to explain why the article subject is notable in the first paragraph. See MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE which discusses the first sentence, but we can even go beyond that and question why the first paragraph has no information about why the subject is notable. This subject is primarily notable for his contrast/relation to the President, his father. Primarily the article subject is known for his drug use and illegal activities. This needs to be in the first paragraph per policy. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

That's not why he is Notable. He's notable because Pres. Trump and the American Republican Party and its enablers promoted various false conspiracy theories and other misinformation and disparagement of him. SPECIFICO talk 20:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

the article subject is known for his drug use and illegal activities. About half of all Americans have used illegal drugs. The illegal activities include paying his taxes late and lying on a gun form. It’s very rare for anyone to be prosecuted for either and federal courts have ruled the gun statute unconstitutional. These do not make a person notable. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Removal

@PhotogenicScientist: I don't understand the rationale for removing this text. [9]. Seems pertinent that he is charged with something that almosty never results in a charge. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Juxtaposing that article with the recent indictment seems like WP:OR. The point of that article, as I mentioned in my edit summary, is not to say "It's very odd that Hunter Biden was charged with this, because this crime doesn't get prosecuted a lot" - the point of that article was to say "this crime doesn't get prosecuted a lot." PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

This is a published analysis by WaPo, a reliable source, which specifically talks to the charge against Hunter Biden and how often it is prosecuted. That is clearly the point of the article and why there's a big picture of him at the top of the article. Since we don't work for WaPo, it is not WP:OR. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

It's an analysis piece from last June, when there was no indictment, and Hunter's lying on the form was only an allegation. With that article, WaPo was not making a comment on Hunter's indictment - just performing an analysis of prosecution rates. Tying it to his 2023 indictment seems like clear SYNTH.

Could you explain in greater detail why it's pertinent to mention this 2022 study right underneath mention of his indictment? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I lean toward PS's take on this. I do think our placement is making an implied claim that is not present in the source. It would help if this bit of analysis were mentioned more commonly in other sources. Anybody know of any? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

[10][11][12][13][14] O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The fact that this is rarely charged has accompanied just about every RS discussion of the matter since the plea deal was discarded. There's no other reason for prominent news discussion of whether a certain crime is almost never charged except when an instance of it arises. We don't see front page stories discussing why there aren't more citations for jaywalking. "Only an allegation is a red herring. The facts have not been in dispute. SPECIFICO talk 19:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both. I'd favor including the content, and I think we should rewrite it to make it clear that its not just the June 2022 data that support the charge being rare. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed - those are all much better sources. I also noticed they couldn't just be dropped on the current text, as it referenced the June 2022 report. I tried rewriting the sentence to incorporate all the sources. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

An improvement. I think it would be better just to say "Prosecutions for these charges are rare." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I considered that. But it seemed too abrupt to say only that without context. Ultimately, the reason the statistics are relevant are because legal experts and news orgs have done analysis on them, and linked them to this indictment. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Reminds me of jaywalking tickets, known in some cities as walking while black. There are more cites than the five I gave if needed. Most real news sources have reported this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Coming attractions: New and final plea deal. Charging is part of the negotiation, doing so will clarify the structure of the ultimate deal for both Fox viewers and the larger public. SPECIFICO talk 22:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICOare you disparaging groups of people on Wikipedia, the Fox viewers? Isn’t that against policy, @SPECIFICO? 65.195.242.118 (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not seeing the disparagement of groups of people in SPECIFICO's statement. Care to clarify? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Rare

@SPECIFICO: Do you have sources stating that tax charges are rare? I have read the gun charges are rare, but not the tax charges. [15] edit that you added implies that tax charges are rare, and my OR is that tax charges are not rare, and criminal tax investigations are quite normal in fact. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

What's your OR? Tax charges resulting in prison have been used as a catchall for criminals they couldn't catch otherwise, as in the imprisonment of Al Capone. (Trump recently bragged that Capone was the best, but he only got one indictment while Trump got four.) (What's ironic is that the Republicans are attempting to erase gun laws and starve the IRS so they can't investigate people for tax evasion.) Fact is that he did pay the taxes, just late. So, what are your examples of indictments after people have paid? O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Absent willful fraud unpaid, such taxpayers are not prosecuted. SPECIFICO talk 02:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Prosecutions are common if people conceal income or even if they are late filing. They also receive penalties for late payment of taxes. But it is rare to prosecute them for not paying their assessed taxes on time. I don't think most people are even aware it is against the law. Lots of people owe money to the IRS and could pay them, by selling their homes and retirement investments, taking their children out of school or drastically cutting their living expenses, but choose to pay later. TFD (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, rather than OR we can see here at IRS summarized here that there were 1800 prosecutions in 2022. Its not rare. Second, I did look at the sources and only one of the sources referred to the tax prosecution as rare, all the rest referred to the gun prosecution as rare. This is in an WP:NPOV violation on a WP:BLP. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

The report is not for paying taxes late. It includes real crimes: Corporate fraud, Public corruption, Cybercrimes, General Tax Fraud, Abusive Tax Schemes, Employment Tax, Identity Theft, Refund Fraud, Money Laundering, OCDETF Organized Crime, Drug Enforcement Task Force. And yes, exaggerating this is an WP:NPOV violation on a WP:BLP. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

JBob, in the future -- if you're going to root around for information -- you'll do better to focus on secondary RS that address the specific question you are trying to investigate. Thanks for using the talk page. SPECIFICO talk 14:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Some secondary RS:

"Robert Nassau, a professor and tax law expert from Syracuse University, said that criminal - rather than civil - tax prosecutions are 'very rare'" BBC

“Criminal tax cases generally are very rare, said Beverly Moran, a tax law expert at Vanderbilt University. The average American has almost as good a chance of winning the lottery as being criminally prosecuted for tax fraud, she said, based on 2021 data from the Internal Revenue Service.” AP

“Legal experts said first-time offenders are rarely prosecuted for both the gun and tax charges Biden faces.”Forbes O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

JBob, also: 1800 (your number, which you erroneously associated with the Biden charges) is indeed a very small "rare" incidence of prosecutions. Consider: Say there are ~100 million personal tax returns filed per year. Now criminal fraud and underpayment would have (guessing) a 5-year Statute of Limitations. So the ratio you tried to estimate would be roughly 1800/500,000,000. That is about 3 incidences per million - or coincidentally, Six Sigma -- which is a widely acknowledged practical benchmark of what's vanishingly small. SPECIFICO talk 16:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I said above, "Prosecutions are common if people conceal income or even if they are late filing. They also receive penalties for late payment of taxes. But it is rare to prosecute them for not paying their assessed taxes on time." The figure of 1,800 is for all prosecutions, not just for not paying their assessed taxes on time.

Suppose your tax is assessed and you owe the IRS $200. They will charge you 0.5% interest per month until it is paid, which you expect to happen when you get a tax refund. Meanwhile, Visa is charging you 2% per month on your unpaid balance. So you decide to pay down your visa bill first.

Apparently that is a crime because you failed to pay the IRS although you were able to. Most people don't know that and I know of no case where someone has been prosecuted. TFD (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@tfd The problem is this isn’t the analogy. He a million dollars and instead of paying Visa for maybe interest on living expenses, he paid for hookers. Really big difference for anyone who wishes to take off the blinders. 50.220.101.243 (talk) 09:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

David Weiss “holdover” from Trump bs

Can we try to remove some of the pants on fire misinformation here? Like saying David Weiss is a Trump holdover without saying he was an Obama appointee is obviously something made to mislead. Why not say Davis Weiss, an Obama appointee who Trump allowed to remain in the job? 65.195.242.118 (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Please don't distort when making an edit request. Obama appointed Weiss as an only an acting and an interim Attorney. He became a full appointee under the Trump administration, so the characterization of a "Trump holdover," particularly as Weiss was the only one retained by Biden, is accurate. Zaathras (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@ZaathrasI’m trying to understand where the distortion was in this person’s statement? Or is it the person who responded to the original person’s statement that might be the distorting something? 50.220.101.243 (talk) 02:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

It appears to me that both are incorrect- Bush was the one who appointed Weiss as only an acting and an interim attorney. [16] Is there a source for an Obama appointment? --Noren (talk) 05:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

So maybe we should just say “David Weis, a long time Department Of Justice employee.” 50.220.101.243 (talk) 12:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Felony indictment in infobox, highly inappropriate

A single-purpose account and another reverter insist on bloating the infobox with a listing of the Hunter Biden's indictments. I find this to be inappropriate as it is giving undue weight to recent events, of a biographical subject who is known for much more than that most recent court filing. Reverter #2 cited George Santos' situation as a relevant example, but one would argue that the core of Santos', only the 3rd post-Civil War Representative to be expelled from that body, entire notability is his penchant fraud, deception, and lies. Thus it is pertinent to his infobox listing. My better analogy is to that of Donald Trump, where I doubt anyone, including myself, would support adding his 9 indictments to his infobox. Zaathras (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I removed it. Template:Infobox criminal says in part This template is generally reserved for convicted serial killers, gangsters, mass murderers, old west outlaws, murderers, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 Most Wanted, serial rapists, mobsters, and other notorious criminals. Let's reconsider using it if there's a conviction. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Given the policies on that template, it probably shouldn’t be on Santos’ BLP for his indictments given he has not been convicted for them as of present day. However, that’s a topic for another Talk Page. Good day! Kcmastrpc (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

yeah it shouldn't be in the Santos infobox either

someone should take it out soibangla (talk) 01:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

We need to stop edit warring on this page. Santos has taken a plea on one of his charges, so he does have a conviction. Whether or not it should be there should be discussed on that talk page. On this page, its use has been contested and so it should not go back in without a consensus to put it back. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

"Historygeek64" is in clear violation of the "must not revert challenged edits" restriction. Sanction this user, and the edit warring ceases. Zaathras (talk) 05:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Kudos to the removal, per the template-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 04:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Photo Use

I saw that we now have the main photo in the homepage being a photo from his press conference after his indictment and defiance of the congressional subpoena. But it just says “Biden at a press conference in 2023.” Shouldn’t say “Biden at a press conference in 2023 following his indictment and refusal to appear before Congress?” I think this would give context to the photo. Not judging anything he did I just it should be in context.

of course, we know right now he denied the subpoena and didn’t show up but if he’s ever charged with a crime for that then it will be that it was alleged that he denied the subpoena and alleged that he didn’t show up. But since nothing has been charged we’re in the stage where we can state it as though it’s a fact. Or maybe like the tax cover story here they’ll say that he didn’t show up on time because maybe he will have showed up in the conference room a year later on his own volition. 71.26.30.181 (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Er, no. WP:BLPCRIME, might be relevant. but also, captions are just supposed to be simple and descriptive. That's my 2c. Andre🚐 00:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the trump-zelensky transcript

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

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

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

Name of 4th daughter

OP checkuser blocked and no one agreed anyhow. O3000, Ret. (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article has the following hidden text: "As of July 2023, there is consensus against naming Hunter Biden and Lunden Alexis Roberts's daughter in this section. Please do not add her name to this section without first establishing a new consensus" Is this an obsolete consensus? At the end of July 2023, Joe Biden named the daughter, and in November 2023, USA Today named the daughter in an article. The article Family of Joe Biden also names the daughter. I am thinking this is probably an obsolete consensus, from the days when the name was kept private. All of Hunter Biden's other children are named. Up the Walls (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC) Well, you managed to link to a lot of sources for the name of this young child. I don't know why and hope we don't have to go through all this yet again. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC) There is no such thing as "obsolete consensus," there is simply "consensus," until there isn't. Consensus can change, and if you feel there is something new you wish to bring to the table, something different that has come up since the last RfC, where it was found that that listing the name of the child in this article is inappropriate per WP:BLPNAME, you are free to do so. Zaathras (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC) Yes, two things have come up since the last consensus: Joe Biden publicly named Hunter Biden's fourth daughter The girl's mother publicly named the daughter in a reference deprecated from Wikipedia, but it was reported on by USA Today Perhaps there is no such thing as "obsolete consensus", but you can have consensus based on obsolete information. The fact that the daughter's name was sealed by a court order is now obsolete. Up the Walls (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC) Her name is excluded per WP:BLPNAME. The fact that her name has been published is irrelevant and in fact had already been published when consensus was reached. TFD (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC) Perhaps the name was already published, but per above, it's now been publicly said by her own relatives. I don't know if the previous publishing of the name was authorized by the family. Up the Walls (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC) Whether or not release of her name was authorized by the family has absolutely nothing to do with the criteria established by WP:BLPNAME. IOW nothing has changed since consensus was reached. TFD (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC) It is true that Family of Joe Biden now includes the name, but you neglected to mention that you personally added it a few weeks ago. --Noren (talk) 05:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC) You'll note that I added it to the list. As the edit summary says, it was already in the tree section of the article before I ever touched that article. Up the Walls (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC) Oppose naming non-notable minor children in this or any other article, and therefore support the consensus. Hunter's three oldest children are adults. His two youngest children should not be named. Frankly, I think that Naomi Biden is the only one who should be named, because she is notable. Cullen328 (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC) Oppose The US is not yet a monarchy. Let the child alone. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC) Strong Oppose The name of the child is WP:NOT and potentially dangerous for the minor child. -- Sleyece (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

False and baseless

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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