Talk:Hunter Biden

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)

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

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:

1. Joe Biden publicly named Hunter Biden's fourth daughter
2. 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)

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)