Talk:Hunter Biden/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Federal investigation

Obviously, there is a flurry of recent news reports concerning Hunter Biden and a US Attorney investigation. However, until we understand why this is not just an IRS issue, it would be difficult to say anything informed. Charles Juvon (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

It is an acknowledged fact that there is a federal investigation, led by the US Attorney's office in Delaware. That fact is notable and relevant. It should be noted in the article. Of course we don't know exactly what the investigation is about, or how it will conclude. But the fact that a person is under federal investigation for tax fraud is of course notable and relevant, and should be mentioned in the article. Tvaughan1 (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, all. There was recent news of a federal investigation into Mr. Hunter Biden's tax dealings. He denies the claims and is "...confident that a professional and objective review of these matters will demonstrate that [he] handled [his] affairs legally and appropriately..." I did not know if this should be mentioned in the article, so could someone please advise. Here are some references that you could evaluate: CNBC, CNN, Politico, FOX News, and the AP. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 21:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hunter Biden is facing a federal tax investigation, led by the US Attorney's Office in Delaware. Of course, this is notable. Where should it be added? A new section?

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/12/09/hunter-biden-facing-federal-investigation-over-tax-affairs/

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/09/hunter-biden-under-federal-investigation-over-taxes.html Tvaughan1 (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Add it. Screw the mods.Guitarguy2323 (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I would wait and see what further information comes out over the next few weeks. If this is a prolonged investigation it may end up its own section, but we need to know better what it relates to. If we just use Bidens statement then it is obviously self serving.

Meanwhile it almost certainly doesn't involve Burisma where a user tried to insert a rather bland statement.

CNN says it is CEFC related for which there is some prior coverage that might be relevant that they refer to. Koncorde (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe such an addition falls into WP:NOTNEWS (or for that matter, WP:BREAKING) because those guidelines apply to the creation of new articles. If it's more relevant to the CEFC, I'd say add it there. I think a sentence or two can do given it's still breaking news, though it appears WP:DUE to be added given the RS coverage. Username6892 22:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS refers to all articles. With BLP articles in particular we need to ensure that coverage is relevant and not suggest something that isn't clearly reflected by the RS (and by the same token not rely on only the perspective of Hunter and his lawyers). If we are going to associate with CEFC then we need to clearly attribute this to CNN (and other media who carry such content) however as this broke only a few hours ago, we are liable to only end up presenting either a limited perspective, or an evolving story in which new information will be released and it may be that multiple sources present alternative stories. Rushing to write something incomplete, even a bland statement of fact, is liable to look like we are purposefully omitting content, or end up having a slew of edits pushing changing POV and speculations. Koncorde (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Guitarguy2323, would you like a WP:NOTHERE block? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Are the mods going to call this a debunked conspiracy theory and brush it under the rug also? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.77.23.8 (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you point at reliable sources saying debunking the investigation, or saying that it is debunked, groundless, baseless, or similar wording. Thank you. Koncorde (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@63.77.23.8: If it ends up being a baseless conspiracy theory, then it will be regarded accordingly. If it is not, then it won't. I don't seem to understand you concern. We only are supposed to put information backed up from what are considered reliable sources. If such a violation seems to arise, you can point it out then. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 22:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

EDG 543, that IP comment appears (to me) to be snark regarding the Hunter Biden / Burisma conspiracy theory, which we have so "brushed under the rug" that it has its own Wikipedia article. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Username6892 added a well-written, sourced sentence to the article. [1] User:Koncorde removed it. I think it should be added back, but to the CEFC section this time. There is an investigation by the Federal U.S. attorney, confirmed by Biden’s own attorney, and reportedly focusing on his business dealings in foreign countries, particularly China.[2] This should be in the article IMO. BTW I changed the title of this section, because there is no current reporting that the investigation involves "tax evasion", or "tax fraud" as someone said in this discussion. "Tax affairs" is what Biden's attorney confirmed. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

To clarify as the edit by MelanieN above seems to suggest an absence of reason on my revert. I have no issue with there being something, my revert is to give us chance to identify what should be added and where with the right weight, context and depth as there are more and more articles coming out, each one speculating or providing more information. 24 minutes ago The Guardian put up their article. 19 minutes ago the WaPo put up there's. As an evolving story and a BLP which has been dogpiled before, patience beyond a few hours is all that is required to see what there is coming through. Koncorde (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

The CNN piece talks about CEFC explicitly, so I do imagine that Username6892's statement can go in that section. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I can see the merit in being patient and not rushing in. XOR'easter (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, yes, this is confirmed by that WSJ article, which says, regarding CEFC:

"A Republican Senate investigation earlier this year looked into Hunter Biden’s finances, examining a series of payments he received from entities linked to Chinese oil company CEFC China Energy Co, among others. The GOP findings, based on documents obtained from the Treasury Department, showed that Hunter Biden’s law firm, Owasco PC, received nearly $5 million from CEFC. Hunter Biden, a 50-year-old lawyer, was also a partner in the 2017 formation of a Delaware registered company called SinoHawk Holdings LLC. Hunter Biden and a group of Western businessmen set up the company as a joint venture with CEFC, which was eager to invest in the U.S. SinoHawk was never funded as planned and did no deals, people involved and business records show. CEFC operated in this venture through its own Delaware entity."

Note that it doesn't indicate Hunter did anything wrong. He took $5 mil from CEFC. He set up a company that was a joint venture with CEFC, which never got funded and didn't do any deals.--FeralOink (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I can't see the full WSJ, so are they directly saying the Senate investigation is related to this case, or are they just giving that for context? In which case we should keep the attribution to CNN who have made the explicit link to certain activities (though they haven't said how). Koncorde (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hunter Biden described it as "tax affairs", not his attorney. These are the first two paragraphs of WP:RS article in the WSJ, Hunter Biden says his taxes are under investigation:

"Hunter Biden, the son of President-elect Joe Biden, said in a statement Wednesday that the U.S. attorney’s office in Delaware is “investigating my tax affairs.”"

It also says this:

"The criminal investigation that included tax issues began in 2018, according to a person familiar with the matter. It is limited to Hunter Biden and his business dealings and doesn’t implicate other members of his family or the president-elect, another person said"

There is no mention of the IRS in the article. The Department of Justice say it can't give a statement for an ongoing investigation. Do note the wording, that it is a criminal investigation that includes tax issues, not that it is confined solely to tax issues. Hunter said taxes, but secondary/ tertiary WP:NPOV sources say taxes and other business dealings. Wording that captures some or all of this information should be added, and sourced to WSJ article--FeralOink (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. There is nuance there with regards to what this encompasses. Koncorde (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Its a major news story about a major political figure. Hunter admitted it. It needs to be adde end of story. Also Eric Swalwells page has ZERO mention of him being compromised by a Chinese spy which has been verified by reliable sources. I also note that Jared Kushners page is loaded with these kinds of stories. Why may that be? hmmm.Guitarguy2323 (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. Hunter admitted something. Is that the full context? Do you believe the word of his lawyers? Koncorde (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Lets see here. He admitted that he was under Federal Criminal Investigation by the government his father is gonna run in a month he has had numerous in runs with the law and is under several investigations. But they are all conspiracy theories am i right? Guitarguy2323 (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

If this was a simple IRS matter, Biden would be taxed and penalized (via mail) for a round D-IF ~$113,000 (https://www.washingtondiamond.com/pages/diamond-price-calculator).Charles Juvon (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. But its not this a big story but the Biden team is doing everything they can to cover it upGuitarguy2323 (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Guitarguy2323, do you not see us discussing adding this to the bio? Eric Swalwell isn't relevant here, but yes the Chinese spy story is included in his bio. And it was Hunter Biden who broke this story today, so that's an odd way of "covering up" the investigation. If all you're going to do here is spout nonsense, please go somewhere else. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Muboshgu, please note that I blocked Guitarguy for two weeks for disruptive editing, and topic-banned them for three months from AP2. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, cheers! – Muboshgu (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

This is no longer true: Since the early months of 2019, Hunter Biden and his father have been the subjects of debunked conspiracy theories pushed by U.S. president Donald Trump and his allies concerning Hunter Biden's business dealings and Joe Biden's anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine on behalf of the United States during the time he was vice president.[1] Delete. Charles Juvon (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

To be fair: this is just going to spawn many more conspiracy theories, and the debunked conspiracy theories don't relate to if he paid tax on a diamond, or some unquantified speculation about CEFC. So before we stretch to that we need to be clearer what we are referring to (i.e. the majority of conspiracies allege Joes involvement, but the published sources say that they and his family are not involved. Koncorde (talk) 00:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, and because the Justice Department went black months before the election, we should say nothing. Delete Charles Juvon (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

That lead statement is about the Ukraine. All of the allegations about the Bidens and the Ukraine are debunked conspiracy theories. The Trump campaign spent most of their time and effort on Burisma. CEFC is another matter. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Muboshgu. I just think we should ensure this is clearer as there will be new ones. Koncorde (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

We have no idea what Justice is investigating, so I think we should be very cautious about anything any of these politicians say. Remember the Gulf of Tolkin?Charles Juvon (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't remember much about the Gulf of Tonkin, and I do believe there should be some mention of the CEFC related news story as Muboshgu said, and about the Department of Justice investigation, as I said. HOWEVER, there is no harm in waiting. Even with full access to The Wall Street Journal news story, I can't figure out the answer to Koncorde question, "are they (the WSJ) directly saying the Senate investigation is related to this case (Hunter's taxes etc), or are they just giving that for context?". That's why I concur with what Koncorde also said, that the story just broke, and a few more hours patience is all that is required to see what else comes through from NPOV sources. Please consider reverting the article to this version last edited by Koncorde for now.--FeralOink (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not critical but some sources indicate the "investigation" goes back to 2018 before Bill Barr. But then there's the laptop, and then the whole senate thing etc and picking apart where one ends and the next thread begins or overlaps is a pain in the backside. There were discussions pre-election of something being in the works, with a lot of aspersions cast when Barr took the leash off the DOJ about announcing investigations within 30 days of the election, and the speed some of the news articles came out suggests that some elements had been leaked to the press but nobody was going to touch it without an official announcement by someone.

I do think so long as we attribute to CNN the current addition is okay but it's also empty of context. Koncorde (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

It should be mentioned because it has received wide, ongoing coverage in mainstream media. That is important because if it had only been coverage in Fox News and alternative media, H. Biden would not have responded and we could not report the information in a neutral tone. We should of course mention that he denies the allegations. If the charges turn out to be false, it is still significant to the biography. TFD (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The Diamond

Original research, not a forum soibangla (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just in case we need it for the article, I have started to look into how you can lawfully fly into the US with a valuable diamond. We have references (above) which state that Hunter Biden approximated the value of a 2.8 ct diamond at "approximately $10,000". Hypothetically, if the diamond was worth more than $10,000, one needs to fill out FinCEN Form 105 (Rev. 7-2003). The revision is something I think Bush enacted because of Blood Diamonds. You use this form: https://fincen105.cbp.dhs.gov/#/ . If you don't do this, the remedies appear to be fines and seizure. Charles Juvon (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC) This looks like WP:OR, WP:NOTFORUM stuff, similar to the notation by @SPECIFICO: in the section "Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 December 2020" above. If it is relevant it will be discussed in WP:RS coverage. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC) Sorry. I was actually looking for help with keywords because Google searches are currently cluttered with Biden news. I wanted to search for RS as to whether the diamond has been sold in order to establish its actual value. You all must know I am a retired scientist, so I go through things methodically. Is a sale at a famous auction house RS? I was thinking this is now a famous diamond, so its price will be much higher than what one would base on weight, shape, clarity, and color. If it becomes a famous diamond, maybe that could be my first article. I welcome your input, but take it easy on me. I am a Senior Citizen. Charles Juvon (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC) What is meant is that we don't speculate what may or may not be the case in point, the severity, the punishment etc based on our own research. Sometimes a little off-topic chatter is de rigueur, but we kinda stop at the point of speculation. At present it isn't even clear the diamond is relevant at all. Koncorde (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC) Possible sentence for the article: A lawyer for Biden’s former wife, Kathleen Buhle, demanded proof that the diamond be placed in a safety deposit box – accessible only by both parties together – or they would enjoin his further dissipation of assets, including the diamond. https://nypost.com/2020/10/21/hunter-biden-was-allegedly-in-possession-of-valuable-diamond-emails/ Charles Juvon (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC) NYP is not a reliable source, and still unclear this is related to the case in point. Koncorde (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC) @Charles Juvon: please review WP:RS and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources; There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics IHateAccounts (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC) Maybe ask about this on Facebook, find some RS and come back. soibangla (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Pulitzer Prize winner Glenn Greenwald just debunked Wikipedia's allegations of "debunked conspiracy theories"

Greenwald's personal self-published blog is not a WP:RS
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/with-news-of-hunter-bidens-criminal-5e6 Includes many links and quotes from them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.184.77 (talk) 13:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Could someone explain this diff?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHunter_Biden&type=revision&diff=993812824&oldid=993790812 Charles Juvon (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Archiving is a standard wikipedia process for old and completed discussions. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I myself would refrain from manually-archiving a discussion in which I had also participated, but, honestly, this was probably the correct situation for Specifico to do it. You had begun to stray into arguing-the-controversy territory rather than discussing editing the article. As your editing suggestion was med with unanimous disdain by those who participated in the discussion, there's really no point in re-opening it. ValarianB (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 December 2020

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.

---

In the second lead sentence, please consider replacing "Donald Trump and his allies" with "Donald Trump and his henchmen".

The reason is that "ally" can imply country, as "Hitler and his allies" would imply Italy and Japan.

Our own Wikipedia article says this word has been used with with George W. Bush, Hugo Chávez, and Bill Clinton. Charles Juvon (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

We would need RS. I would question its use on the Henchmen article to give specific examples as a bit of a BLP problem as failing to attribute it. Koncorde (talk) 13:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Lol, what? No. "Henchmen" makes it sound like we're talking about The Joker and his penguin-clad minions plotting to rob Gotham Bank. Do not post frivolous edit requests, please. ValarianB (talk) 13:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

"Allies" could mean Russia or it could mean A.G. Barr. That is a serious (not frivolous) difference. Also, we can't get much help from reference 1, because there is no use of the words "conspiracy", conspirator(s), etc. Charles Juvon (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2020 (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.

"Right Wing" sources

Article currently reads: "Other right-wing sources such as Breitbart, The Daily Caller and Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel also reported on Bobulinski's assertions."

Is this appropriate? Or necessary? I don't see any of the "left wing" sources referred to as such. Can't the reader decide for themselves what kind of weight to put to the editorial biases of the sources mentioned?174.0.48.147 (talk) 18:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Breitbart and The Daily Caller are avowed "right-wing" publications. The Wall Street Journal editorially leans right, and Kimberly Strassel is in fact a conservative, but at the end of the day call a spade a spade. Trillfendi (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

We would use the term "left wing" if we were referring to Alternative media (U.S. political left). We don't generally use a description for mainstream media, we just call it the media. Note that none of the right-wing media mentioned meet reliable sources for Wikipedia articles. TFD (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

If they are not reliable why are they being quoted?174.0.48.147 (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

They are reliable for their own stance / position on a aubject. I.e. if Breitbart writes an article saying "The earth is flat", then we won't take their word for it and change every article related to rhe globe. But we might go to the flat earth article and say "in a 2020 article Breitbart claimed the world was flat". Koncorde (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 December 2020

Since the early months of 2019, Hunter Biden and other members of his family are under investigation concerning his business dealings with the CCP, Ukraine, and the wife of a Russian mayor. 68.4.91.178 (talk) 06:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/12/15/fact-check-hunter-biden-under-federal-investigation-over-taxes/3907142001/ Charles Juvon (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Political figure?

The discussion above indicates that a federal investigation of a political figure deserves to be in the article. It seems that political figure redirects to politician, and as far as I know, he isn't one. It does seem complicated, as family members of politicians sometimes get involved, or get in the news just because they are related. I do believe, though, that the distinction between actual politicians and their relatives is important. Gah4 (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

A federal investigation of a notable person probably deserves to be in their article? Was political figure mentioned somewhere, I may have missed it. Koncorde (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

It was mentioned in the discussion above, but it also had activepol=yes for its WikiProject headers. Gah4 (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

More specifically, he is in: Category:Active_politicians. Gah4 (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see it now Mr.Guitar. Koncorde (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

He shouldn't be included in the Active Politicians category. It is for "an active politician who is running or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election". Also, the infobox is for an "officeholder" because of his three years serving on the board of Amtrak. That is misleading, as Amtrak is a corporation. More important: he is actually an investment adviser and start-up lawyer, well, he has been for most of his career. The Person infobox is a better fit. In this way, we can distinguish between actual politicians and their relatives, as Gah4 said. I think that's important too.--FeralOink (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

He’s not actually a political figure just by virtue of being roped into what appears to be a personal political vendetta. His career is law, if that changes we’ll change it accordingly. Trillfendi (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Concur with Trillfendi. Hunter Biden has not become "a political figure" merely by being the WP:VICTIM of various conspiracy theories and other attacks by Trump and other conservatives. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

The position is similar to other relatives of politicians who become the subject of media coverage because they were related to high profile politicians and had colorful lives: Donald Nixon, Billy Carter, Roger Clinton, Jr. Tony Rodham. TFD (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that relatives of the vice president aren't quite as public as the president. Should there be something between yes and no, or related to an active politician? Gah4 (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

But now he is about to become the first son, his profile has been raised. TFD (talk) 08:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I changed the parameter value for activepol from yes to no. There are two appearances of it in the infobox, but only one had been changed per this conversation.--FeralOink (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussing child support lawsuit undue?

@SPECIFICO: Looking at this edit;

What about that is undue? We certainly discuss child support suits on a plethora of other BLP's..... Legal disputes are pretty common parts of many BLPs. A single sentence dedicated to it probably isn't undue. Coverage in multiple mainstream outlets. NickCT (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

If there had been a much-publicised trial, that might be noteworthy. We don't discuss Ronald Reagan or Rudy Giuliani or Elliot Spitzer child support arrangements, do we? SPECIFICO talk 15:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: - The suit's been mentioned in a dozen mainstream news outlets. That doesn't qualify as "much publicized"? What does? Did Reagan/Giuliani/Spitzer ever get sued for child support? NickCT (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I concur with SPECIFICO. The minutiae of child support arguments in civil court are not WP:DUE, especially for someone who qualifies as WP:LOWPROFILE and only a "public figure" by virtue of who their father is. "A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention..." IHateAccounts (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: - Sort of surprised you'd think of being a dead beat dad as "minutiae". What, in your mind, is the relevance of Hunter being "low profile"? NickCT (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@NickCT: a few things you need to consider:

1. Calling someone a "deadbeat dad" without evidence on a talk page violates WP:BLP.
2. If you did not read WP:LOWPROFILE and WP:BLP policies, please read both now.

As mentioned by SPECIFICO, it is not WP:DUE to insert this material as a routine court proceeding involving custody or the exact numbers for child support payments, that involved no trial, especially for someone whose status as a "public figure" falls into the WP:LOWPROFILE category. "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources." Minutiae about child support payments are not relevant to Hunter Biden's notability. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: - That rationale is pretty evidently baloney. I mean, Hunter having three kids named Naomi, Finnegan, and Maisy isn't relevant to his notability. Can I remove that under your rationale? If not, why not?

And if getting sued for child support isn't evidence of being a dead beat dad, I'm not sure what is. NickCT (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Hunter Biden having three children with his previous wife is basic biographical information. Court minutiae is not basic biographical information. You'll notice that, like the child support arrangements currently in discussion, the specifics of custody arrangements following his divorce are not included. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: - I wouldn't argue we discuss the specifics of the child support suit. That probably would be undue. We do however mention the fact that there was a divorce, which seems like a dispute on par with a child support dispute.

Regardless, arguing with you ANTIFA types gets a little circular. Do you mind if we just RfC this? NickCT (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

"ANTIFA types" being a joke, in case that's not self-evident. NickCT (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I suggest you strike your personal attack. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

<sigh> Apparently not self-evident.... Ok. Unlikely we're going to make headway here. I'll just RfC it. NickCT (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

"We do however mention the fact that there was a divorce, which seems like a dispute on par with a child support dispute." You will notice that the article stays to the bare minimum details there, and does not even assert that the divorce was "a dispute". IHateAccounts (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I think if people are getting divorced, it's sorta implied there's a dispute. Or, the degree of implication that there is a dispute is comparable to a suit over child support. NickCT (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I dont know where you get your assumptions, but that one is false. SPECIFICO talk 19:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: - So the majority of divorces are amicable? You going to support that or just state it without back up? Perhaps you haven't noticed this yet, but we like to verify things here on WP. NickCT (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@NickCT: given that No-fault divorce is generally the legal default setting in all 50 states, that's a particularly BAD assumption. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: - Do you have stats? Or you're just guessing? NickCT (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

It did not go to trial. We don't mention routine claims routinely settled. SPECIFICO talk 15:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: - Can you provide a source saying that getting sued for child support is "routine"? Can you provide a policy page saying "we don't mention routine claims routinely settled"? Sounds like a personal opinion to me....

And you seemed to dodge my questions about your Raegen/Guiliani/Spitzer thing BTW. NickCT (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

How is child support matters handled at Donald Trump Jr. or Eric Trump, concerning illegitimate children? How ever it's handle there, do the same here. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@GoodDay: - That would seem to be a neutral approach. Unfortunately, I don't think either of those guys got sued for child support (though they've certainly been sued for other things!). NickCT (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I see. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Of course, there's no source for "no child support suit" provided. Pure WP:OR. Let me assure you that hundreds of prominent WP biography subjects have been sued for child support, contested divorces, etc. without mention of same in their articles. SPECIFICO talk 17:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

re "OR" - Are you asking that we prove a negative (i.e. prove that they haven't been sued for child support)? If either of the president's sons had been sued for child support, it would almost certainly be reported on. That's because getting sued for child support is not routine, so people usually take note. NickCT (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

He was asking you to support your own assertion, a claim that you and nobody else has raised, with evidence. SPECIFICO talk 21:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I can certainly point to examples of cases that got coverage involving less notable people than the president's kids. NickCT (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

No RfC can validate a BLP violation. Nobody has yet agreed with this content, so let's move on. SPECIFICO talk 16:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not a BLP violation. We'll RfC it. NickCT (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Per all others, pointless navel gazing. If Biden had, for instance, made a career out if being a holier than thou preacher of monogamy and moral values this might have a point. But he isn't and hasn't. He's a guy famous because he had a job which kinda gave him barely enough noteability to get an article in the first place, and then has been smeared repeatedly by people trying to attack his father.

The event is, pretty much an irrelevance beyond the basic statement of facts. Koncorde (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

His fame if really mostly from his dad. Regardless, whether he was famous or not, whether his dad was president or not, whether he a moralizer or not, there are more simple questions here about what's WP:DUE in a biography. NickCT (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Granted. The event is an irrelevance beyond the basic statement of facts. He has a kid. Koncorde (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@NickCT: I strongly agree. Hunter Biden is in no way WP:LOWPROFILE, as he has eagerly and willingly been interviewed in mass media on his personal life, as entirely separate from that of his father. He has done major interviews with some of the largest and most prestigious national networks and publications: The New York Times, ABC News, The New Yorker, et al. Attempts to whitewash his bio here are obvious examples of WP:CRYBLP. Elle Kpyros (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

There is more BLP than just Hunter here. Both the woman and the child both have BLP interests in any article linked to them or referencing content about them. Koncorde (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Unexplained removal of section about China Energy Company

There was a very large removal of content regarding his involvement with CEFC, as well as the associated Bobulinksi statements. All was well-sourced, with references to coverage in New York Times. I am replacing that removed section now. The editor who removed it needs to discuss on the talk page before taking such action unilaterally. The CEFC material was added several weeks ago, after discussion and consensus.--FeralOink (talk) 12:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Several weeks or several years, garbage material is garbage material. The Wikipedia should not be host to Parler-like conspiracy theories involving Bobulinski. ValarianB (talk) 13:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

You should not have reverted my restoration without discussion on the talk page. I don't care about the Bobulinski portion. We can discuss that (but it still shouldn't be removed). I am restoring the part about Ye and Ho and CEFC now, as there is nothing conspiratorial about it.--FeralOink (talk) 13:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

That's not how it works. How it does work, however, is that you seemed to have missed the big "You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article." on the page. I suggest you remove what you just restored before you wind up at the sanctions board. ValarianB (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is how it works. I did a partial reversion. I also carefully read the rules on 1RR. Please feel free to take me to the sanctions board if you feel it is appropriate.--FeralOink (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

This is the portion that SPECIFICO and ValarianB removed that I did NOT restore, as I do not want to get involved in revert wars. We need to discuss removal of this not just casually dismiss it as "right wing".--FeralOink (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Please refer to the UNDUE BLP stuff with a link, not republication of it. SPECIFICO talk 14:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC - Mention the child support suit

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There's a consensus against the inclusion of this material at this time. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 03:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Should the child support suit against Hunter be mentioned (as seen here here)? NickCT (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

---

• Yes - As nom; Given the coverage in a wide number of mainstream sources, seems WP:DUE to give it a single line here. I understand that some WP:BLP advocates like to scrub any mention of negative information from BLPs, but this factoid would seem to meet a fairly high standard for verifiability. NickCT (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

UNDUE detail is always Verified, as are many BLP violations. Heck, Ivana Trump accused Donald of raping her and its not singled out in his WP bio article. There is no mention of child support arrangements there. SPECIFICO talk 18:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Not as seen run of the mill paternity suit is a run of the mill paternity suit. Once proven he accepted child and has (to all record) paid up. Ths significance is that he now has another child, not how it came to be. Koncorde (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Bit confused. The suit being mentioned is over child support. I think it's accepted the kid is his. NickCT (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

"Roberts, 28, filed the paternity suit against Biden in May, seeking a determination of paternity as well as child support. After initially denying the existence of a previous sexual relationship, Biden, 49, eventually agreed to take the paternity test." Subsequently they dealt with the child support. The significance is he has a kid. Not how he came to find out or pay for it. Koncorde (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what you're quoting there. The title of the reference that supported the disputed material was "Biden agrees to pay child support". Are you saying the article is about paternity, and not child support? NickCT (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I am quoting the sources we use in the article. Have you not read the article or its sources? If you are assuming that the "child support" is the be all and end all of the case then why are we having an RFC? Hunter denied having a relationship with her. When the paternity test proved he was the father he agreed to pay child support. He is now the father of a kid he didn't know he had. The significance is he has a kid, not how they got to the point of establishing it unless, for example, he spent weeks on twitter sliming her, releasing press stories about her etc in which case we could legitimately discuss how his behaviour elevated its notability and relevance. But he didn't. Koncorde (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm having the RfC b/c there's a debate about saying that he paid child support. NickCT (talk) 02:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

So you think "man pays child support for his child" is significant? Koncorde (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I think "man is sued to pay child support for his child" is significant. NickCT (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• Not as seen I think Koncorde is right here. Moreover, Roberts sued Hunter in 2019 for child support is not the way to summarize a news report that he agreed to pay child support (and at least some amount towards the mother's legal expenses). When it comes to a topic like paying child support, or paying alimony after a divorce, we have to ask, "Isn't that what anyone would expect to happen? Does writing about it add any meaningful information? What details are, in fact, available? Do those details distinguish this story from the ten thousand others that also end with, the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed sum?" We say that the child exists; it's hard to see a solid case for writing more than that. XOR'easter (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• No because I don’t see how a routine child support case, the same thing millions of men deal with, is an encyclopedic issue unless he went to jail for not paying it. Otherwise, not news. Trillfendi (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• No. It's not WP:DUE, especially since Hunter Biden is a WP:LOWPROFILE individual, which makes WP:BLP even stricter. "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources." Minutiae about child support payments are not relevant to Hunter Biden's notability. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• No, unless/until there is court action, like in Stephen Moore (writer)#Personal life. Or maybe if Biden had done something like this:

  In a 2014 op-ed in the Washington Times, Moore cited the role of a "culture of virtue" in America's economic success, writing, "What is irrefutable is that marriage with a devoted husband and wife in the home is a far better social program than food stamps, Medicaid, public housing or even all of them combined."

  soibangla (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• No (coming from BLP/N notice where I commented already). We do not routinely cover small civil infractions like speeding tickets, DUIs, or the like, and I would think temporarily failure to pay child support would be the same type of thing. The article is clear that Hunter divorced so its implied he would be paying child support, so no need to state this. If the case over failing to pay grew to something to include jail time or more serious, that might be worthwhile, but so far this is a trivial factor and should be excluded. WP articles should not seek to include every "negative" reported by RSes on a person. --Masem (t) 20:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• No. Not WP:DUE per all of the arguments above. Maybe it will reach the point where it merits inclusion, but I don't see it yet. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Include It's one of the major stories about him that is covered in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

  The lawsuit itself? That sounds a bit like "the less notable the article subject, the more trivia we should include". SPECIFICO talk 23:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Include because it determines the disposition of the diamond. Charles Juvon (talk) 01:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

  RS reference for THE DIAMOND!! please? SPECIFICO talk 02:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

  RS = https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/us-politics/100000-diamond-given-to-hunter-biden-by-chinese-tycoon-reportedly-part-of-tax-probe/news-story/2122f63b2be4c55eac63621a50c3f93f Charles Juvon (talk) 02:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

  Not RS. SPECIFICO talk 03:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• No That he had a child "born out of wedlock", as they say, is not appropriate for such a small overview of his life. He apparently has no interest in being part of the child's life but has agreed to pay support for it. By the way this comment, "I understand that some WP:BLP advocates like to scrub any mention of negative information from BLPs" is not appropriate. To be pre-judged as a biased editor is not the way we are supposed to try to get along on these pages. This would be like me saying that some editors here want to add any sort of dirt they can find. I don't feel that is the case at all. Apparently some editors find this information important bio information...I don't. This does not mean we are biased. Gandydancer (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• The content proposed isn't really focused on his having a child out of wedlock. It's focused on his not paying child support. NickCT (talk) 02:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Please provide a source as I understand that he agreed to child support once paternity had been established. Gandydancer (talk) 04:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gandydancer: - Huh... you know. I think you may be right. I read the CNBC's line "Roberts sued Hunter last month in May", and took it to mean that he was sued over child support. But think I may have misread. Maybe he was just sued over paternity, then, as you say, he agreed to pay child support. NickCT (talk) 13:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

On the hand (and this is just idle speculation on my part), I don't think you "just" sue people for paternity, right? Isn't likely that in most paternity cases the ultimate goal is basically to get child support? NickCT (talk) 13:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Nick, stop all the guesswork and BLP speculation. The RfC is SNOW against you. I suggest you withdraw it and stick to VERIFIED content. SPECIFICO talk 16:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

A little guesswork and speculation on my part: A barroom stripper comes to you and says that you fathered her child. Apparently if you had found yourself in that situation you would have believed her. If I found myself in that position I'd certainly would have not...I'd have smelled a rat. Gandydancer (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Not as written. The lawsuit has received plenty of coverage in reliable sources, so it should be covered. However, describing it as being about child support misrepresents those sources. The overwhelming number of sources have described it as a paternity suit. Perhaps the child support can be mentioned as an aside, but the main points should be that the parents disputed Biden's paternity and that paternity was eventually established. R2 (bleep) 06:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• Seems reasonable. Do you want to propose language? Maybe; "In 2020 Hunter was sued over the paternity and for child support of Roberts' child"? NickCT (talk) 13:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• No - WP:UNDUE. Unless you can show me that this is widely covered by RS, it just seems undue to me. I'd expect to see mention of the child in any encyclopedia entry on him, but not that suit. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2020
• No. This is absolutely trivial. The paternity issue was not litigaged and child support is routine and widespread in the USA. I hope it's obvious that, while the woman may know for sure that HB was the father, HB has insufficient information to know that. Clearly a test is required in this situation and the issue was swiftly resolved. Inclusion of this UNDUE bit in the article would violate BLP and lead some -- though we hope not all -- readers to make adverese inferences about HB. SPECIFICO talk 19:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - This story involves a grandchild of the next President of the United States. Whether we or he likes it or not, Hunter Biden is a public figure. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
• No fails BLP and not news. Does not define or impact notability of the subject. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
• No. It doesn't seem to come from a neutral place, and that bothers me on an encyclopedia. It leaves the reader to conclude that he's a 'deadbeat dad' (to quote the OP), without fleshing out the circumstances behind his being sued for child support. The OP himself concedes that HB withheld support until paternity was established. And by fleshing out the circumstances I feel it would stray very much into undue. Also, using the argument that if this were Eric Trump there would be no hesitation, might carry a ring of truth, but that only makes it doubly wrong in my eyes. I'd rather have an article leading by example. Two wrongs and all that. RandomGnome (talk) 05:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • RandomGnome, it took him well over a year between the time the suit was filed and he agreed to take a DNA test. He has denied having sex with her. TFD (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. Hunter Biden himself has given multiple interviews about his personal life, and this issue has been widely reported on. Elle Kpyros (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• No, If something comes of it down the road, perhaps, but at the moment it is premature and routine. Not every mention of a famous person in the news is of encyclopedic value. ValarianB (talk) 13:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• No Nothing to see here, at least not yet. Bacondrum (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• Yes Given this February 2020 ArtNet article which describes the interview he did with the New York Times arts section, "Hunter Biden’s s child (that) he fathered with a stripper while dating the widow of his deceased brother, Beau Biden." Fathering a child with a stripper out of wedlock, resulting in the need to pay child support is an atypical scenario, in contrast to the discussion earlier in this section. This additional context for child support suggests inclusion may be WP:DUE for a BLP. Also, the lawsuit was not just about paternity, but also about his unwillingness to pay childsupport.--FeralOink (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

I see in the previous discussion that other references might be available. Could someone identify some here, especially if any might address some of the concerns about this being overblown? --Hipal (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Hipal: - CNN, CNBC, People, Fox, New Yorker.... want more? NickCT (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Throwing Fox in there makes it seem like BLP's requirement for high-quality sources is being ignored. --Hipal (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I could remove Fox and add something else? Regardless, it's been covered by a lot of sources. Even the wacky ones. NickCT (talk) 21:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd say NOTNEWS applies. --Hipal (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

So has Joe Biden's fractured foot. Is that in his bio? SPECIFICO talk 21:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: - Oh come on. You know JB is much more notable. As people get more important the bar for "due" goes up. Plus, how many Americans experience a minor fracture in their life time? 50%? How many Americans pay court ordered child support? 2%? NickCT (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll just say, "wrong". That is wrong. SPECIFICO talk 22:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

2% of Americans is 6.5 million people. Koncorde (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Nick keeps making wrong guesses. How many child support orders are there in the USA? Well most divorces have court ordered child support. Somewhere around 20% of couples with kids divorce. So there are tens of millions of court mandated child support obligations. SPECIFICO talk 23:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Nope. 6.8 million legal child support agreements in the US. You're either bad at math, or bad at facts. NickCT (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Hipal: it's not the sources that are at issue, the issue is that this isn't WP:DUE, especially for a WP:LOWPROFILE individual's WP:BLP. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree from the references being offered. --Hipal (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

What I find sort of incredible is that a dozen mainstream RS's (i.e. people smarter than us) thought this factoid worthy of mention. If they thought it was due, why don't we? NickCT (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Seems like you're ignoring content policy. Arbitration Enforcement applies here. --Hipal (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Going forward, expect to see a lot more coverage of Hunter Biden, especially in tabloid journalism and late night television. We're wasting our time with damage control. OTOH don't expect that any of this will hurt the Biden administration. It's not as if the public has high expectations. TFD (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Tabloid journalism isn't grounds for inclusion. Speculation on late night TV isn't grounds for inclusion. Damage limitation isn't grounds for exclusion, but adhering to WP:BLP is. When someone can demonstrate why a paternity suit is either directly related to his notability, or particularly notable for the person, then we can discuss it. Or, say, it is tied long term to some other case that gains notability (tax, earnings). But, to be clear, that does not go in personal life in any case. It would go with any relevant account of what was notable (i.e. any potential investigation and charge). Koncorde (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. But substantial coverage in tabloids and late night television is ultimately picked up by mainstream media. Here's an rs article about Toronto's late crack-smoking mayor: "Rob Ford: Letterman devotes Top 10 List to Mayor; Jon Stewart, Colbert, Leno leap in again". (Toronto Star, 15 November 2013) The crack story was originally broken on a tabloid-style blog. One of the Toronto Star journalists who covered the story in depth, Daniel Dale, went on to become the Donald Trump factchecker at CNN. Do we really want to spend the next 4 to 8 years arguing about due weight every time another story is published about Hunter Biden's personal life? TFD (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

We mention his love child separately. The matter of child support, like back-to-school shopping and birthday parties, is kind of routine in such events. SPECIFICO talk 00:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, are you both arguing for using blogs and late night TV, or are you arguing coverage of something already exposed by RS about a person in a position in significant authority responsible for things like managing budgets for law enforcement is equivalent to whether or not Hunter Biden pays child support? Hunter Bidens personal life is significant when it is relevant. WP:CRYSTALBALL what may come in the future is... well, a crystal ball. Koncorde (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

As I thought I made clear, when people become regular features in tabloids on late night TV monologues, it gets picked up in reliable sources. Stories that combine sex, money, drugs and power tend to get a lot of ink, even in reliable sources. I am not suggesting we violate WP:CRYSTALBALL. I just wonder if you plan on arguing about this every time another story about Hunter Biden hits the news.

SPECIFICO, getting sued for child support, especially when the father denies paternity, is not routine, except on Jerry Springer.

TFD (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

It didn't go to trial. Just some bloodtests. Ronald Reagan. TRUST BUT VERIFY. SPECIFICO talk 01:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

And I am wondering why you think every instance in the future will need arguing? Why would we assume parity between Rob Ford and Hunter Bidens cases? Crack smoking mayor... man agreeing to pay paternity. You are making a false equivalence, and then asking us to extrapolate as yet unknown stories with hypothetical yes / no objections to whether content is relevant to a WP:BLP. Koncorde (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Smoking crack (which Hunter Biden has also done by the way) and not paying child support are both irresponsible behaviors that attract media attention when carried out by notable people. That's why for example Prince Andrew receives more media attention than his younger brother Prince Edward. Should the media cover these stories? Perhaps not. But what is relevant is that they do, hence establishing weight for inclusion in their articles. If you don't accept that, then I can see these discussions continuing over the next 4 to 8 years. TFD (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

And do we mention his drug issues? Yes. Does he pay child support? Yes. Do we need to mention that he pays child support? Not sure why. It'd be more notable if he didn't, or repeatedly failed, or was brought back before a judge for doing so, or was held in contempt, or subject to further action etc. I believe we are arguing past each other: we mention he has a kid by another woman. This is what is DUE until other events make them so. Koncorde (talk) 09:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Let's start at the beginning: @The Four Deuces:, would you classify Hunter Biden as WP:LOWPROFILE, yes or no? IHateAccounts (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

No. While he has come to attention solely because of his connection with the president-elect, he is the subject of ongoing coverage in reliable sources about a number of issues. TFD (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Really? "A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention", is it your contention Hunter Biden seeks out media attention? IHateAccounts (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorta confused why you keep citing WP:LOWPROFILE. It's a subsection of WP:BLP1E, right? Is it your contention HB is a person notable for one event? NickCT (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Bear in mind, this attention isn’t even particularly about himself. It’s a scapegoat. It’s a proxy. No different than people vulturing through reasons to pin down Karlie Kloss for (*checks notes*) being married to the current President’s son-in-law’s brother. Trillfendi (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

He has sought out media attention by notifying the New York Times of his art exhibition.[3] He gave an interview to Popular Mechanics in 2016.[4] He was interviewed by an ABC employee in October.[5] According to an article about the Unification Church (Biden was a business partner of a son of the Rev. Moon), Biden was once interviewed by the New Republic.[6] He most recently released a statement about his IRS problems. There is probably more coverage, since he was an executive in government, lobbying, business and charity. I am sure if I looked, I would find more interviews and press releases. But five is enough to show that he has sought out media attention.

In any case, I would question the wording of the explanatory supplement, which "can reflect varying levels of consensus and vetting." Most criminals for example do not seek out media attention. Lots of businessmen, aristocrats, civil servants and generals do not actively seek out media attention but become media stories because of the consequences of their actions.

Incidentally, I agree that Hunter Biden is being used as a proxy by some sources. But he has received extensive coverage and we just have to suck it up and report what reliable sources say about him. TFD (talk) 03:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with TFD. Hunter Biden definitely sought out media attention, see this February 2020 ArtNet article, "Inviting the newspaper into his pool house-turned-art studio in the Hollywood Hills of Los Angeles, Biden explains how...". That is a description of the New York Times profile of Hunter that was published earlier this year. As for child-support, the same article doesn't mention child-support or a contentious paternity suit, but it is widely known through WP:RS that this is true: "Hunter Biden’s s child (that) he fathered with a stripper while dating the widow of his deceased brother, Beau Biden." Fathering a child with a stripper out of wedlock, resulting in the need to pay child support is an atypical scenario, in contrast to the discussion earlier in this section. This additional context for child support suggests inclusion may be WP:DUE for a BLP.--FeralOink (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

But at the same time, just because his parents are political figues doesn’t mean he is. I have yet to see the man specifically seek out an overtly political endeavor in the media (e.g. writing an op-ed etc). That’s not to say he’s a media shy figure, as we can see. Evidently he knows his position in the Biden spotlight. The New York Times's arts section is second to none. Trillfendi (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Being the son of the next US President, it's only natural that Hunter Biden is going to get more attention, whether he seeks it or not. Heck, he was a central character in the Impeachment of Donald Trump. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

No he was not. He was central to Trump's scheme, which was not reality-based. SPECIFICO talk 21:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

NYT: "President Trump’s request for foreign help to investigate Mr. Biden’s role with a Ukrainian gas company, Burisma, set the president’s impeachment in motion." Quoted from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/28/arts/design/hunter-biden-art.html Charles Juvon (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. HB is a key figure in the DT impeachment case. Normchou ^💬 04:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Mistaken about removal date, sorry --FeralOink (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why was this child support related content removed without RfC closure? See this edit here. The RfC is still open. The child support content should not have been removed.--FeralOink (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC) This was removed: Roberts sued Hunter in 2019 for child support.<ref>{{cite news |last=Breuninger|first=Kevin|date=27 Jan 2020|title=Hunter Biden agrees to pay child support to Arkansas woman, avoids contempt hearing|url=https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/27/joe-biden-son-hunter-biden-agrees-to-temporary-child-support-for-child.html|work=[[CNBC]]|location= |access-date=17 December 2020}}</ref> Please put it back until the RfC is closed.--FeralOink (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC) Content that has been challenged should not be restored to a BLP unless and until a consensus forms in favor of restoring it. XOR'easter (talk) 14:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC) It was removed on December 17, while the RfC was in progress, and without updating the article talk page. Is that appropriate? If so, then we can add and remove all sorts of content while the RfC is ongoing. In fact, we can blank most of the page, as most of the page's content has been challenged at one point or another. Do note that there are repeated warnings, all over the talk page and when one is editing, about being careful to explain content removal and addition on a highly contentious BLP such as this one.--FeralOink (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC) OOPS sorry!!! I misread the date and time on the removal. This whole section should be hatted. I'm sorry.

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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2021

Add a section regarding Tax Investigation

Hunter Biden announced Dec. 9, 2020 that federal prosecutors were investigating his tax affairs. Biden, and his father President Joe Biden, have maintained that he is innocent. The investigation has been going on since 2018, however a DOJ policy surrounding elections prohibits overt investigative acts.

Source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/12/15/fact-check-hunter-biden-under-federal-investigation-over-taxes/3907142001/ Rfh 2020 (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC) — Rfh 2020 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This is already described under "Investor and lobbyist". XOR'easter (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

sub-articles for Investor and lobbyist section

This sub-section article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably.
Can we consider splitting content into sub-articles? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 07:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 January 2021

I suggest that we change "Since the early months of 2019, Hunter Biden and his father have been the subjects of unevidenced claims of corrupt activities in a Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory pushed by then-U.S. President Donald Trump and his allies, concerning Hunter Biden's business dealings in Ukraine and Joe Biden's anti-corruption efforts there on behalf of the United States during the time he was vice president." to "Since the early months of 2019, Hunter Biden and his father have been subject to claims of corrupt activities in a Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory.", or something similar to this wording. I request this in order to keep political opinions and beliefs out of Wikipedia for an unbiased experience. A-2-star-restaurant- (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Hunter Biden/Burisma/THE LAPTOP are right-wing talking points with no basis in actual fact or evidence thus far. ValarianB (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I like the suggested new text, minus a few words. Such as unevidenced, pushed (echoed would be a better word, or remove that portion entirely starting at conspiracy until the comma. Period after activities. Such a rush to judgment on whether or not there is evidence to these claims remains to be seen. However, it would appear that the Senate Report on the Biden family does reveal some conflicts and extremely dodgy behavior. https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/HSGAC_Finance_Report_FINAL.pdf Not to mention Mr. Joe Biden has admitted, on this video link I will post, to pressuring Ukraine to remove the investigator looking into Burisma that they would not get the 1billion loan guarantee. This appears to be old hat to Mr. Biden on the video, he seems quite smug about the whole thing, IMHO. https://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-joe-biden-forced-ukraine-to-fire-prosecutor-for-aid-money/C1C51BB8-3988-4070-869F-CAD3CA0E81D8.html

((I am not sure how to force the indent in this editor))

AbdicateJoe (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Joe Biden was doing his job, following the wishes of the US Government and the entire international community when he got Ukraine to clean up its act. This has been discussed to death and warrants no change in the current article. XOR'easter (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

RFC:: Senate report titled: Hunter Biden, Burisma, and Corruption - Hunters page needs to be edited in light of new facts

This is my second attempt at posting. My first post immediately removed. Why is there no mention of the HSGAC Finance Report? https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/HSGAC_Finance_Report_FINAL.pdf

Talk page vandalism Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, or deleting entire sections thereof, is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion, except in cases of warnings, which they are generally discouraged from removing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbdicateJoe (talk • contribs) 22:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Probably because it seems to any casual observer that you're WP:NOTHERE. I mean, c'mon... Your username is "AbdicateJoe". Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Your choice of username will make it harder to collaborate constructively here. Consider changing it; see Wikipedia:Changing username for more. As to the point, why should we include that report? It was not a report made by the committee, it was made by the Republicans on the committee. In September of an election year. It is full of conjecture, political attacks, and little else. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

To "AbdicateJoe" - Post-election, I proposed introducing a citation + reference to the report. If you care to see the reaction I got, look in Archive 5 at the bottom for "Provide Content That Article Currently Disparages." A different editor deleted my post to the Talk Page (That editor, if you're looking for a name that invites constructive collaboration, is "IHateAccounts.") A third editor reinstated my edit but other editors opposed referencing the report, and I capitulated. Clearly, this still grates, or I wouldn't be back checking this Talk page tonight. My advice: choose the hill you're willing to die on, and for me, it's not Hunter Biden. Canhelp (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Not WP:LOWPROFILE—high time to stop tendentious censorship

Given his numerous interviews, use of PR, employment of lawyers, and all the rest, claims that Hunter Biden was WP:LOWPROFILE were always tendentious and sullied by the stench of political bias. Now that he's publishing his memoir—which he's been writing for years and which has earned advance praise from Stephen King and other top writers—it's obvious that, at least when it's served his purposes, Hunter Biden has been an eager public figure for a long time. Time to stop pussyfooting around, and a good start would be including his failure to pay child support and other issues that have been censored. Elle Kpyros (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Ekpyros, that RfC that you linked to closed as consensus to not include six weeks ago. Time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ekpyros:, only a single user, "IHateAccounts", used WP:LOWPROFILE as an argument against inclusion, and that user has now been blocked as a sock. Why are you cherry-picking one bad argument from one bad user? The rest of the opposition cites issues of undue weight, triviality, and the non-encyclopedic nature of the material in question. ValarianB (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: I am in agreement with Elle Kpyros, regarding the matter of WP:LOWPROFILE and Hunter Biden. His autobiography, "The Beautiful Thing" will be due out in May 2021 and has been trumpeted by the press since February 4, 2021. It is pushing anti-WP:NPOV to suggest that a banned account's objections should be sufficient to PREVENT us from remediating the flagrant political bias evidenced in this BLP article.--FeralOink (talk) 09:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ekpyros: - Support - immediate addition of the child support stuff. NickCT (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Secret Service intervention, lying on gun form about drug addiction, etc.

Should probably be mentioned: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/25/sources-secret-service-inserted-itself-into-case-of-hunter-bidens-gun-477879 Terrorist96 (talk) 05:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Since it said the incident didn’t lead to any charges or arrests there’s really nothing to put here. Trillfendi (talk) 06:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

No evidence he was lying about current drug use. -- Valjean (talk) 06:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree with @Terrorist96: this is a widely covered story, and the claim that the allegations, responses, and investigations aren't WP:DUE because it hasn't led to "charges or arrests" is an odd one—Wikipedia articles frequently refer to allegations of illegality that haven't led to formal charges. Ditto for the claim that there's "no evidence he was lying about current drug use". First, that's not true—given Biden's admission that he is and has was a drug addict prior and subsequent to 2018, there's at least a credible possibility that he committed a federal crime. Moreover, that issue is far from the sole focus of the coverage by RS. The White House has seen fit to push back on claims of Secret Service interference—even as Hunter Biden's own text messages appear to confirm the involvement of their agents. And there is now a government investigation of the episode and subsequent fallout. There is a real mystery here, with the beginning of investigation(s), accusations of wrongdoing and coverup by a federal agency, denials by the White House, etc. The standards proposed above to suggest it's not WP:DUE don't appear to be rooted in any Wikipedia guidelines—although of course we do need to be careful of WP:BLM issues as Biden is, thus far, entirely legally innocent. Elle Kpyros (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems entirely irrelevant to Hunter. His gun was taken by someone else. It was found by a bin dipper and later handed to police. Somewhere inbetween a variety of allegations are made about SS doing something or other. This might mean there was some wrongdoing somewhere, but given it happened in 2018 under Trumps watch why is this about the Bidens? As the report states "The Secret Service says it has no record of its agents investigating the incident, and Joe Biden, who was not under protection at the time, said through a spokesperson he has no knowledge of any Secret Service involvement." so there is no claim of the SS even being under the direction of either Joe or Hunter, and denied by the SS.

Meanwhile the idea that on the day he purchased the gun we can crystal ball whether or not he was addicted to a narcotic is absolute speculation and a major BLP problem. We could not even begin to infer any conclusion from Politico's statement, and inferring in a BLP a federal crime might have have been committed is a no-no without an investigation and / or more significant coverage than speculation. Koncorde (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

This is uttterly illogical and WP:CRYBLP. What's the relevance of who took Biden's gun, where it was found, or how the police came to possess it? What do you mean by "under Trumps [sic] watch why is this about the Bidens"? This has zero to do with Trump, and referencing him in this context is bizarre, to say the least. The subject is Hunter Biden's behavior, so obviously it's "about" him (but not "the Bidens" as a clan)—and who the US President was at the time is as irrelevant as the moon phase. RS have pointed out that the Secret Service's statement fails to explain why their agents were present and using their official police powers (or at least attempting to do so). It's your personal opinion that the Secret Service's statement represents incontrovertible evidence that they had no involvement—and I'm aware of no RS that shares your absolute faith in its veracity. The issue isn't whether "we can crystal ball" anything—Wikipedia relies on published reports from reliable, secondary sources, so "we" aren't doing anything of the sort. Wikipedia stating that RS have asked about Biden's behavior and the possibility he has admitted to committing a federal crime isn't in any way a BLP violation—and it's absolutely not Wikipedia "inferring" a crime was committed. RS have asked about disparities between Biden's public descriptions of his addiction (including a recent memoir) and his sworn statement that he was not using or addicted to substances at the time of a handgun purchase—see another recent piece here from a prominent law professor. RS aren't simply engaged in "speculation"—they're actively investigating, including FOIA requests. Surely you're not suggesting that the only investigations worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia are those by a government? And RS aren't looking into a "crystal ball" and randomly suggesting a crime "might have been committed"—they're pointing out that HB has himself suggested, "inferred", or admitted so. By factually stating that RS are investigating the possibility that Biden may have inadvertently documented his commission of a crime, Wikipedia is in no way "inferring" anything or violating WP:BLP. Elle Kpyros (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Every action that happens to or is taken by a BLP subject is invariably covered by the media. We use our discretion and common sense to discern which is a relevant biographical fact and what is routine or run-of-the-mill. ValarianB (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The fact that it's neither "routine" nor "run-of-the-mill" for Secret Service agents to insert themselves into a local police matter on behalf of someone they assert they're not officially protecting is precisely why this incident has received and continues to receive media attention. So if that's the standard—then obviously this material merits inclusion. As for "common sense"—I haven't the faintest idea what Wikipedia standard you're trying to articulate there. The information is verifiable, NPOV, and not OR—WP's three core policies for content. It's not defamatory, nor does it in any way violate WP:BLP. Your view—that the Secret Service agents' involvement and questions about Biden's assertions on the firearm purchase form are "run-of-the-mill"—can best be described as a fringe theory; as I stated above, I am aware of not one single RS that has endorsed or supported your opinion, and you've provided none. On the other hand, numerous RS have found the event and questions surrounding Hunter Biden notable—meaning that the consensus, even unanimous view is that they are relevant to the subject of our article. Elle Kpyros (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll repeat it simply for you: Hunters gun was stolen, and later returned, following a domestic dispute. That's the sum of the content related to Hunter. It's not particularly significant or biography worthy.

Everything else is to do with what the SS is alleged to have done. The article states clearly that the SS was not deployed to either Biden. The article suggests some SS agents in a certain branch freelance. The article does not say at any point who they were in the service of, or were directed by. There article suggests no more involvement of either Biden than it does Trump in the decision making. Everything else is pure speculation about the motives of the SS, what the may or may not have done, and in what capacity. Koncorde (talk) 06:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2021

There was news that came out stating that Hunter said the n-word towards his white lawyer. The articles also revealed that porn was found on his laptop. 69.47.30.110 (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Without providing reliable sources to include, this is just mindless gossip. Trillfendi (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2021

I think this article is too political and seems focused on discrediting Donald Trump. While the references to Donald Trump in the article are cited and therefore true, I come to Wikipedia to find out about the person I am looking up, not to read things Donald Trump has claimed. It would be good to have more information about Hunter Biden himself and less about Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani. 107.198.84.90 (talk) 05:33, 10 June 2021 (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. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

There's plenty in there about the life of a man who is not particularly noteworthy apart from the extensive effort to smear him by Russian and Trump operatives which shows no sign of abating. soibangla (talk) 13:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the issue is related to how this article is written. The section "Investor and lobbyist" can be reworded to "Controversies" or "Hunter-Trump feud." Given the fact that the majority of the text in this section relates to the controversies surrounding the Hunter-Trump feud. ElderZamzam (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

We don't like having a WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION in articles. It compromises WP:NPOV. And I don't think this would meet the definition of a "feud". Feuds go both ways. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

"There's plenty in there about the life of a man who is not particularly noteworthy apart from the extensive effort to smear him by Russian and Trump operatives which shows no sign of abating." At first I thought that too, until I remembered that the natural gas that literally heats the homes of thousands, if not millions, of people through the notoriously harsh Russian winter was in his hands. If that's not noteworthy, then how are space billionaires that blow natural gas on rockets that so far don't even break earth orbit noteworthy? TapiokaRed47 (talk) 06:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Excuse us? ...the natural gas that literally heats the homes of thousands, if not millions, of people through the notoriously harsh Russian winter was in his hands. That is not at all accurate. Hunter Biden was a member of the board tasked with corporate governance best practices, not a Bond villain. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2021

2600:1700:A9D1:9AB0:2475:78AA:6F2E:186D (talk) 05:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I love that the sources used are all from CNN. The most biased network on television. Fake journalism with an agenda.

WP:RSP#CNN: "There is consensus that news broadcast or published by CNN is generally reliable." If you would like to begin a discussion to reevaluate consensus, this is not the place. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia's own standards require that major viewpoints are discussed in a balanced manner, but the editors of these locked politically sensitive pages suppress conservative viewpoints. (The United States is roughly evenly split between liberals and conservatives.)67.243.144.101 (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

If you have any conservative reliable sources with viewpoints that are not being properly represented in this article, feel free to provide them for discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Per policy we base articles on reliable sources. Almost all major news media in the U.S. are "liberal." Most of the conservative news media (Fox News, Washington Times, New York Post) are considered less than reliable. While I disagree with the assessments, it would make little difference if we accepted them, because they represent a very small segment of the media overall. And note that facts should be the same whatever the political orientation of the publication. TFD (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

"And note that facts should be the same whatever the political orientation of the publication." While in an ideal world that might be the case, confirmation bias prevents ideologues, whether, liberal, conservative, or whatever from complete, consistent dedication to "the facts," since people's brains are wired to reject information they don't want to believe. Further, when you have publications from outfits with an agenda, their pieces start sounding more and more like an echo chamber. Having a bigger echo chamber is a poor substitute for WP:Verifiability. TapiokaRed47 (talk) 12:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Some people's brains are wired to reject information they don't want to believe. Just sayin'. soibangla (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's not just some, but everyone, and wanting to believe that some people are somehow in a magically exempt category where they aren't subject to human fallibility is, sadly, wishful thinking. TapiokaRed47 (talk) 07:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

hunter biden laptop pictures

why doesn't this page include any discussion of the Hunter Biden "laptop from hell"

https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.144.101 (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:RSP#New York Post GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems Wikipedia is not interested in documenting reality but the filtered version of it to cater to powerful influences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8109:1a3f:c906:a8b7:6772:5527:3eae (talk) 15:29, May 30, 2021 (UTC)

That's funny, but not interested in documenting reality but the filtered version of it to cater to powerful influences sounds exactly like what the NY Post did in publishing that unverifiable nonsense in the first place. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm a Mexican living in Mexico and even I know that the assertion mentioned in this article that 'the US intelligence community decided the laptop from hell was Russian disinformation' is simply not true; for starters, these were retired intelligence officers and did not have access to the laptop or its contents so how they managed to reach that conclusion from something without analyzing it is weird to say the least; furthermore, this article backs this claim up by using two sources from CNN and USA Today, left-leaning liberally-biased outlets if there ever were any; even more, Hunter Biden curiously has never directly and explicitly denied that any of the contents of the laptop or the laptop itself are false or "Russian disinformation". 177.227.43.209 (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Former intel officials didn't say the laptop was Russian disinfo, they said it was consistent with known Russian kompromat ops they'd seen before, so skepticism was warranted, and they were right. It was kinda odd that Rudy's pal, Russian agent Derkach, said he had another Hunter laptop and pro-Russian operatives had been trafficking in Biden/Ukraine disinfo since 2014, after VP Biden urged Ukraine to kick Russia out of the Ukrainian natural gas industry. And key to the strategy of smearing someone is to bait them into responding and denying, which gives the story oxygen and keeps it alive in the press so more people hear it and believe it, and smart people figured this out long ago and don't take the bait. soibangla (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Photograph

I think that the current photo of Hunter should be replaced. It is not only of poor quality, but dates to 2013. I think it should be replaced with a 2016 photo of better quality and lighting. Anybody else agree? (talk) 11:29 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dancingtudorqueen: I doubt that anyone disagrees that we would prefer a higher-quality, more recent photo. The problem is that we can only use photos that are freely-licensed, and the current image is (to my knowledge) the best available. Wikipedia:Image use policy has more detail. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

There was a discussion about the available options a while back, and a different timestamp taken from the same video source was chosen, but that was later reverted without discussion. --Noren (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Removed unrelated content from lead

The edit: [7]

The two sources only mentioned HB once, and I saw little actual relation to HB, i.e., the subject of this article. Removed from the lead. Normchou ^💬 04:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Hunter Biden - Daily Mail Laptop

There are multiple non depreciated sources discussing this issue.

What is the best way to cover this in the article?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hunter_Biden&oldid=1038461544

The edit was reverted and deleted on the basis of BLP violation, so I will not post the sources. RonaldDuncan (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

RonaldDuncan, which non-deprecated sources? WP:NEWSWEEK post-2013 isn't great. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

RonaldDuncan, the only reliable source related to this is this Forbes article. ElderZamzam (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

That's not RS. Drop it. SPECIFICO talk 03:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Articles written by Forbes.com contributors are unreliable. Please see WP:FORBESCON. Interesting that the sourcing for this claim so far is only unreliable sources. I think it likely that reliable sources find the story suspicious and non-credible, and therefore are not running articles about it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Muboshgu It is a good point, most of the coverage is Tabloid given the subject matter. The Boston Herald mentions it as a trending scandal. Wall Street Journal has already done a piece about the low level of coverage in the mainstream of the Daily Mail and NY Post's 9 months of articles and how the Washington Post has embarrassed itself in its grudging acceptance. Newsweek and Forbes contributors are not great sources. Real Clear Politics and Fox are not unbiased. There is not a NYT or similar paper of record covering this, so it is a judgment call for discussion here.RonaldDuncan (talk) 10:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

You will have to wait until mainstream media or H. Biden's biographer decides its important. Otherwise, it's just another selfie video of a corporate Democrat unwinding with a friend after a long day of public service. TFD (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

RonaldDuncan and SPECIFICO, this is an independently WP:NOTABLE topic, and has been for a while, so I’ve created a new article titled Hunter Biden laptop controversy. Please do not WP:BAR it without an WP:AFD as that would be tantamount to WP:POVDELETION, which is a form of WP:CENSORSHIP. There were a couple of POVDELETION incidents recently which drew comments from ProcrastinatingReader [8], BDD [9], and DGG [​​https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:China_COVID-19_cover-up&diff=prev&oldid=1029435866]. I really don’t have much of a POV on this topic but I really don’t like POVDELETIONS so please feel free to ping me if my attention is required. CutePeach (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Need Wikipedia article about the Laptop

Why is there no wikipedia article about the laptop scandal? It should be in the article how Hunter in his laptop referred to Obama by the N-word. 47.205.199.6 (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

See: Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. Hunter didn't call Obama that. soibangla (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree the N-word thing is garbage, but the laptop story isn't conspiracy. It's very well documented that the laptop left with the computer repair guy did belong to Hunter Biden. 2601:18F:4101:4830:F886:2905:1DC1:5771 (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Allegations against Hunter not the same as allegations against Joe -- but its all lumped together.

2nd paragraph says: "Since the early months of 2019, Biden and his father have been the subjects of unevidenced claims of corrupt activities in a Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory pushed by then-U.S. President Donald Trump and his allies, concerning Hunter Biden's business dealings in Ukraine and Joe Biden's anti-corruption efforts there on behalf of the United States during the time he was vice president.[1]"

While there might be insufficient evidence to conclude Joe Biden was corrupt, the same is not true for Hunter Biden and this is Hunter Biden's wiki after all. The paragraphs should be changed to:

Hunter Biden's business dealings with Burisma, a corrupt Ukrainian gas company, placed his father in a potential conflict of interest with respect to Joe Biden's anti-corruption efforts there on behalf of the United States during the time he was vice president. This resulted in unevidenced claims of corrupt activities by Joe Biden. It is still unclear why Hunter Biden obtained employment with Burisma, although it is alleged he was selling access and influence to his father.[10] [11]

Zeenoh (talk) 22:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually, it is known why Burisma hired Hunter: to help them clean up their act so they could pursue business partnerships with Western companies that were skeptical of Burisma. soibangla (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

There is no evidence to support calling Hunter Biden "corrupt". And language like although it is alleged never flies in a WP:BLP. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Bobulinski redirect

Until now, "Tony Bobulinski" redirected to the Hunter Biden page, which does not even mention Bobulinski. I have therefore changed the redirect to Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory#Hunter Biden story pitch, which does specifically discuss Bobulinski and his relationship to the controversy about Hunter Biden. - LaetusStudiis (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Politico article on Hunter Biden and alleged corruption

There is a recent article in Politico (a mainstream reliable source) that details numerous instances of alleged corruption committed by Hunter Biden (and possibly James Biden and Joe Biden). Also watched the author of the article recently in an interview on CBS News and he seemed very fair, neutral, and unbiased. So this isn't a right-wing journalist working with Steve Bannon, or some other conservative anti-Biden news outlet.

Here are a few examples from the article of alleged corruption:

Hunter Biden’s work for MBNA, a Delaware-based bank whose employees were at one time among his father’s top campaign donors. After leaving the bank and becoming a federal lobbyist, Hunter Biden received outside consulting fees from the bank. While MBNA was paying Hunter Biden, Joe Biden championed a bill sought by the bank that made it more difficult for people to shed credit card debt through personal bankruptcy.

Hunter Biden’s role on Burisma’s board in 2014, despite a lack of prior experience in the energy sector, which came while then-vice president Joe Biden oversaw U.S. policy in Ukraine. Burisma was awarded valuable licenses for natural gas production while its founder, Mykola Zlochevsky, served as Ukraine’s minister of ecology and natural resources under the Russia-aligned administration of Viktor Yanukovych. Both Zlochevsky and Burisma were under suspicion of corruption while Hunter Biden sat on the board.

In late 2020, a federal appeals court reinstated the conviction of Devon Archer — the former Hunter Biden business partner who facilitated his Burisma work — on fraud charges related to a bond issuance scheme. In 2017, Hunter and James Biden began seriously pursuing a business partnership with Ye Jianming, founder of the Chinese energy company CEFC. Ye enlisted Hunter Biden to provide legal representation to one of his lieutenants, Patrick Ho, who was facing legal problems in the U.S. Ho was subsequently convicted in federal court of bribing government officials in Africa.

Can any of this information be included in the article? Yodabyte (talk) 11:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

[12]

Source: POLITICO (10/12/21)

Per weight, you would have to show that the information has been reported in other sources. Personally, I would never use investigative journalism as a source. TFD (talk) 12:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

TFD you said "I would never use investigative journalism as a source". Why is that? Yodabyte (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Mostly because of the weight issue explained in Balancing aspects. Investigative journalism goes into considerable detail and we don't know what if any of it will receive widespread coverage. If it does receive widespread coverage, the sources that cover it will contain condensed versions, which will allow us to determine what aspects are significant.

There's also the issue of accuracy. If other sources report the findings, then generally there is additional scrutiny. If claims are not widely reported, subjects and other people are less likely to attempt to correct inaccuracies.

Another issue is that often investigative journalism reports statements without guaranteeing their accuracy. For example, reporters for the Globe and Mail interviewed numerous witnesses who claimed that a Toronto municipal councilor, Doug Ford, had been a drug dealer. It seemed prudent to determine whether other publications found these claims newsworthy before repeating them.

We discussed this for an article about Ford's brother, Timeline of Rob Ford video scandal. Some of the original reporting came from Gawker, which was not a reliable source. Some editors complained that the other source of investigative reporting, The Star, was biased. (Ironically one of the reporters is now a fact-checker with CNN.) By using only information that other media had considered newsworthy, we avoided the article being influenced by the perceived bias of one source.

TFD (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Hunter Biden isn't Trump, but what he's up to is bad and deserves your attention — even if you hate Fox News

A potentially good source:

• Hunter Biden isn't Trump, but what he's up to is bad and deserves your attention — even if you hate Fox News

• Internet Archive version to get around the paywall.

Valjean (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

References

cobalt mine

By my read, this story is an "explainer" that provides details on the mechanics of this cobalt deal, but I don't see it adds anything material to what this article has included since last year. What say you?

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/20/world/hunter-biden-china-cobalt.html

soibangla (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Libyan assets unfreezing

Hunter Biden, the son of US President Joe Biden, sought over $2 million in fees to help unfreeze billions of dollars in Libyan assets [13] [14] [15] - I believe such accusations should not be ignored but instead they should be presented in the article. Barecode (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Very weakly sourced, the original source is paywalled. soibangla (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

It would be strange to assume that the other sources are misrepresenting the original source since they already link it - and considering who they are. The validity of the information doesn't change simply because it's behind a paywall. If the information behind the paywall would be different, then surely some editors who have a subscription will come and correct that. And there is no way you can expect the rest of the media to talk about this topic since they are doing their best to present Biden, the Democrat Party and the BLM in a good light and their opponents in a bad light. CNN lies without any shame about Joe Rogan taking horse medicine, then Dr. Gupta (who works for CNN) admits they were lying when he is in front of Rogan [16], then he goes back to CNN and says that CNN was actually not lying and helps Don Lemon to put Rogan again in a bad light. [17]. It is not Fox News or me but it's Le Monde diplomatique who notice there is a liberal hysteria about Trump in the media [18]. Glenn Greenwald lists in The Intercept "The 10 Worst, Most Embarrassing U.S. Media Failures on the Trump-Russia Story". By the way, is that why Greenwald is considered to be a bad journalist because he noticed the failures of his fellow journalists? One of the entries say: "CNN Explicitly Lied About Lanny Davis Being Its Source". Other sources talk about a liberal hysteria about Trump [19] [20] [21] [22] - and I guess many other sources can by found. CNN was pushing conspiracy theories about Trump-Russia very insistently and very frequently for a long time. The media (except those who you are calling weak sources) called Rittenhouse guilty of murder and a white supremacist and they were proven wrong. The same media talks about the terrorist attack in Waukesha in terms like "A SUV plowed a vehicle through a Christmas parade". After blasting the previous president every day, they say only good things about the current president, and when Biden's approval ratings sink, instead of pointing at what the president is doing wrong, CNN defends Biden and discovers that the ratings are going down because of the memes. [23]. CNN complains about YouTube personalities like Joe Rogan getting more viewers than CNN like they are entitled to viewers. [24] The media called the rioting in Kenosha "mostly peaceful" when even a police station was burned. [25] There are a lot of other examples that can prove that the liberal media outlets are pretty much weak sources.

But who decides that Fox, NYP, WSJ or The Hill are weak sources and that Glenn Greenwald is a bad journalist and a Russian Tool? Is there some commission for deciding who are the reliable sources and who are not? - Barecode (talk) 17:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:RSP: WP:NYPOST, WP:BI, WP:FOXNEWS (politics) soibangla (talk) 18:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Now that’s way more efficient than OP’s response. I’m impressed. (talk) 04:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request: parents

The Beau Biden page lists Jill Biden as his stepmother in the article sidebar. Similarly the Jill Biden page lists Hunter Biden and Beau Biden as her stepsons.

Please add "Jill Biden (stepmother)" under "Parents" in the Hunter Biden article sidebar.

 Not done: Biden family, covers the whole family - FlightTime (open channel) 18:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

This just makes you look stupid. Consistency is important. Why have the "step" relationship shown in 2 out of the 3 articles, but not this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.164.4 (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I suppose instead of adding Jill as a step-parent in the infobox for this page, the argument should be taken to the other two pages mentioned, and request that Jill Biden be removed from the infoboxes there, for the sake of consistency. WP:INFOBOXCONSISTENCYWritethisway (talk) 03:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Ukraine controversy

Joe Biden did not stop any prosecution, did not brag about doing so, and there is no evidence his son was ever under investigation. Except that he did brag about removing the prosecutor, and did get the prosecutor changed through his withholding of U.S. funding to Ukraine. Hunter Biden himself was not under investigation, but the company that his firm was representing was under investigation. There is video available which shows Joe Biden bragging about the situation. 208.44.170.100 (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

This is addressed by the cited source. It'd help to actually read it. (Fact check: Trump made false claim to Ukrainian president to justify his Biden request) ValarianB (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Trump Investigation

President Trump didn't attempt to damage any political campaign. Joe Biden, a former U.S. official, was being investigated for improper conduct and abuse of his position. At the time of the investigation, Joe Biden hadn't announced his candidacy as a potential candidate. Therefore, he was not a "political rival" as claimed in the article. 208.44.170.100 (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

President Biden, at the time, was widely regarded as the presumptive fruntrunner should he enter the race. ValarianB (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

This post would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Joe Biden wasn't a political rival? He was known to be the Democratic frontrunner long before he declared his candidacy. There was no investigation, but all Trump wanted was to be able to say there was one. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Up-date service

• https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/27/hunter-biden-joe-biden-president-business-dealings - Stealth Hunter: Biden’s tangled business dealings are becoming hard to ignore, Sun 27 Feb 2022 --93.211.219.169 (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Occupation as Artist / Painter

SPECIFICO has twice removed text from the lead describing Biden as an artist or a painter, and removed text from the body they call a BLP disparagement (even though it is from NYT).

Should we include language in the lead about Biden's work as an artist and build up the section in the body given the number of reliable sources supporting such text? Here are some sources: NYT as mentioned CNN The Guardian Vox NPR NYT again Politico Vanity Fair CBS Granted a lot of the RS talk about his art career in connection with possible conflicts of interest with his father's administration, but in general the topic is underrepresented in the article. Do editors agree the section could be expanded and the lead updated? Mr Ernie (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

No need for a long list of links to inform us that he is currently painting pictures. That does not mean that it's the most significant activity for the top of his biography when the article details numerous longtime professional and business pursuits over a period of many years. The text was an absurd BLP disparagment and violated all our guidelines as to lead content and emphasis, especially for a BLP. The article content can be improved in many ways, but not by off-topic nonsense about his apparently ill-fated career as an artist. His current activity as a painter is already in the lead in DUE weight to its significance. SPECIFICO talk 23:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Since his notability does not derive from being an artist and it hasn't been his primary occupation, the description does not belong in the lead. TFD (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

My comment that he was a lobbyist (I used other terminology that caused an editor to censor my comment) was also removed. I am having trouble understanding how he is primarily known as an attorney when apparently no mention on the article except him graduating from yale law. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

It's fairly standard to mention someone's profession in the lead, even when it's not the reason for their notability. Stephen Ward was an English osteopath." Sam Sheppard "was an American neurosurgeon." TFD (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Stint with Boies et al is in the article. Maybe you can expand or relocate to a better positioni? SPECIFICO talk 14:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Please change

“ In September 2019, while President Trump was accusing Hunter Biden of malfeasance in Ukraine, he also falsely claimed that Biden "walk[ed] out of China with $1.5 billion in a fund" and earned "millions" of dollars from the BHR deal.[29][30]”

—> “ In September 2019, while President Trump was accusing Hunter Biden of malfeasance in Ukraine, he also claimed that Biden "walk[ed] out of China with $1.5 billion in a fund" and earned "millions" of dollars from the BHR deal.[29][30]”

According to the footnote: “ Though when it comes to Biden's son Hunter, Trump's allegations are not thoroughly unfounded.”

Also change: “ Former President Donald Trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani claimed in 2019, without evidence, that Joe Biden had sought the dismissal of Shokin in order to protect his son and Burisma Holdings.”

To: “Former President Donald Trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani claimed in 2019, that Joe Biden had sought the dismissal of Shokin in order to protect his son and Burisma Holdings.”

This isn’t a political blog, try to keep it objective. Judges will decide if things are false or not. 80.69.7.176 (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

CNN reported "There is no evidence that former Vice President Joe Biden received money from China. Though when it comes to Biden’s son Hunter, Trump’s allegations are not thoroughly unfounded." They're not thoroughly unfounded simply because, unlike Joe, Hunter did investments in China, but just not in the way Trump characterized it. WaPo gave Trump's characterization Four Pinocchios.

Once again, Joe did indeed seek Shokin's dismissal, just not "in order to protect his son and Burisma Holdings." soibangla (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory#RfC: WHAT content about the laptop and emails is clearly necessary for this article?

Please participate at this RfC as it is clearly relevant for this article. A lot of content should be moved here. -- Valjean (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

WaPo analysis of hard drive

The Post did not find evidence that Joe Biden personally benefited from or knew details about the transactions with CEFC, which took place after he had left the vice presidency and before he announced his intentions to run for the White House in 2020. But the new documents — which include a signed copy of a $1 million legal retainer, emails related to the wire transfers, and $3.8 million in consulting fees that are confirmed in new bank records and agreements signed by Hunter Biden — illustrate the ways in which his family profited from relationships built over Joe Biden’s decades in public service.[26]

soibangla (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The relevant stuff for this article is that Hunter Biden was paid and retained by the CEFC and made a couple million from it before things turned sour. And perhaps that it was information from his laptop that confirmed it. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is not about a perhaps. SPECIFICO talk 16:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps meaning perhaps we should add that. Not perhaps that it came from the laptop. The source makes it clear it does. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

That is not credible. SPECIFICO talk 19:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry you have a hard time believing the Washington Post, but it's not our place here to question RS.Mr Ernie (talk) 20:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

My favorite bit comes from another WaPo article -

Soon after that period of inactivity — and months after the laptop itself had been taken into FBI custody — three new folders were created on the drive. Dated Sept. 1 and 2, 2020, they bore the names “Desktop Documents,” “Biden Burisma” and “Hunter. Burisma Documents.”

Williams also found records on the drive that indicated someone may have accessed the drive from a West Coast location in October 2020, little more than a week after the first New York Post stories on Biden’s laptop appeared.

Over the next few days, somebody created three additional folders on the drive, titled, “Mail,” “Salacious Pics Package” and “Big Guy File” — an apparent reference to Joe Biden.

- Here’s how The Post analyzed Hunter Biden’s laptop ValarianB (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I know that if I were putting salacious pics on my laptop, I'd create a folder named "salacious pics." I mean, who wouldn't? soibangla (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Should we add Biden's work for the CEFC that earned him $4.8 million and cite the above WaPo story? It's a lot more than he's made as an artist (so far), so it seems it should be added alongside his other lobbying work. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Laptop overkill in lead

This addition to the lead by User:X-Editor seems like undue overkill, now dominating the lead. Short mention is warranted, but very short. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. What they did was to copy, verbatim, the entire paragraph about the laptop from the article. I will trim it to a sentence or two. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree it's overkill and should be shortened, but I wanted to add at least something about it to the lede because that is still better than nothing. X-Editor (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I trimmed the lede, hope it looks better now. X-Editor (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You were right to mention it in the lead. Every section should be mentioned there. Just keep due weight in mind. Keep up the good work. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I didn't realize you were trimming it. I just performed a much more drastic cut that I think is more appropriate for the lead. The main material is all reported in the article's section. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

This information needs to be included

JB admitting to quid pro quo, $ billion to fire prosecutor investigating Burisma Holdings (With context) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY

FROM: [Shokin|Viktor Shokin] In 2012, the Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Pshonka began investigating Ukrainian oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky, owner of the natural gas company Burisma Holdings, over allegations of money laundering, tax evasion, and corruption during 2010–2012.

In 2015, Shokin became the prosecutor general, inheriting the investigation.

While visiting Kyiv in December 2015, then-U.S. Vice President Joe Biden warned Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko that, if he did not fire Shokin, the Obama administration was prepared to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees. Biden later said: "I looked at them and said, 'I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money.' [...] He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time."

Whether or not Shokin's successor was "solid" was never confirmed.

In 2016, The New York Times published an article that suggested that "the credibility of the vice president’s anti-corruption message may have been undermined" by Hunter Biden’s dealings with the company.

In May 2019, Vitaly Kasko, who had been Shokin's deputy overseeing international cooperation before resigning in February 2016, provided documents to Bloomberg News claiming that under Shokin, the investigation into Burisma had been dormant.[47][48] Shokin himself claimed in May 2019 that he had been investigating Burisma Holdings.[33][49] This claim was supported by testimony Shokin provided on September 4, 2019 for an Austrian court.[50] Testifying in support of his prior claims of investigating Burisma Holdings, Shokin, in a sworn affidavit dated September 4, 2019[50] for a court in Austria, stated that "The truth is that I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings, a natural gas firm active in Ukraine and Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, was a member of the Board of Directors."[51] Shokin continued, stating that, "On several occasions President Poroshenko asked me to have a look at the criminal case against Burisma and consider the possibility of winding down the investigative actions in respect of this company, but I refused to close this investigation."

Parliamentary investigations and removal from office

In July 2015, shortly after his appointment, reformist minority member Yehor Soboliev advanced a motion to dismiss Shokin for corruption, gaining 127 of the required 150 signatures including several members of the ruling parties.[56] Representatives of the EU and the United States pressed Poroshenko for his removal,[2] as did the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.[3]

In March 2016 the Ukrainian Parliament voted overwhelmingly to remove Shokin, a decision which was welcomed by the EU.[57]

Then there's this: Hunter Biden laptop material entered into Congressional Record

Vaugelyspecific (talk) 11:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Hunter Biden laptop material entered into Congressional Record Pure stunt. soibangla (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Hunter Biden’s Laptop

There is no mention in this article regarding the discovery of the Hunter Biden laptop, it’s content, and the fact that the mainstream media, along with Facebook and Twitter completely shutting down any discussion of this component. Wikipedia should investigate and provide all aspects of this story. The focus on Trump and the disparaging content without the rest of the Biden story is biased and incomplete. 162.211.38.143 (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is probably appropriate to expand the Federal Investigation section to include the NYPost's story a few days before the 2020 election, the evidence free narrative that developed that the laptop and material it contained was Russian disinformation, the suppression of the story by social media outlets, the overwhelming spread of the baseless conspiracy theory by pundits, and the NYT's recent final acceptance that the laptop was legit. These are certainly notable enough events to be included in the Bio. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it's wrong it's not mentioned here. The Hunter Biden/laptop content doesn't belong in the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory article as it is not part of the conspiracy theory. It only belongs here in his biography. If any of that specific material ever impinges on the topic of the conspiracy theory, THEN that content can be used there. Currently, it just confuses people. The last paragraph in the lead, the "New York Post reporting" section, and all the content after it must be moved to this article. soibangla, will you help with this? -- Valjean (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Isn't it part of the conspiracy theory though? The conspiracy theory was that (1) Hunter did Bad Things in Ukraine and (2) Joe was involved. This article from before the election about the laptop seems to connect the laptop with that two-step theory. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Even if some of it might belong in the conspiracy theory article, all of that content still belongs here. We ignore it completely, and that's wrong. -- Valjean (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the laptop should be included here, whether or not its mentioned on the Biden-Ukraine article. That discussion probably belongs on that talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes. What about the location? See below and answer there. -- Valjean (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: and the NYT's recent final acceptance that the laptop was legit - no, they say that some emails on it have been confirmed. That isn't new (it has long been noted that many of them were identical to ones from a leak circulated in the Ukraine, and multiple sources said a year ago that some emails were confirmed but that others could have been tampered with; see eg. [27], a source which I know you are aware of and which specifically says all of this five months ago.) This is a WP:BLP issue (because the key email, which remains unconfirmed and which no source has stated is confirmed, has played a role in an obviously BLP-sensitive conspiracy theory targeting Hunter Biden) and you've repeatedly posted that source in a way that is unequivocally misusing it; you need to stop. --Aquillion (talk) 04:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The laptop scandal has its own article now. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I think we can safely copy the content to this article. The only point of contention might be how much to remove from the conspiracy theory article. So let's proceed with copying. Where should it be located? As the content starts in October 2020, I think it belongs before the "Federal investigation" section I just created, as that material starts in December 2020. -- Valjean (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC) I just discovered I accidentally created a second heading with the same title, so I have moved that content to where it belongs. Since the Federal investigation isn't exactly the same as the laptop issues, although they may impinge on each other, I suggest we just copy the material to right after the "Federal investigation" section. -- Valjean (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Seems fine to me, but I have some IRL stuff at the moment and can't look too deeply at this rn. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Please stay on-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The description of that article as the NYT's 'acceptance that the laptop was legit.' is not an accurate summary. The article reports that particular emails found on the laptop were followed up with further verification- "The email and others in the cache were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation." The chain of custody on that laptop is still very dodgy, and the existence of some legit information on it does not mean that everything currently on it was put there by Biden. The NYT article specifically makes the point that they independently verified those particular emails described in that article. NYT does not make a broader claim that all the material on that laptop should be considered reliable or 'legit'. --Noren (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC) Correct. Due to chain of custody unknowns, we still do not know whether fake materials were mixed-in with real materials, only the latter of which the NYT reported on. NYT did not report on the pivotal Pozharskyi email. Fake mixed with real is SOP for certain intelligence agencies. soibangla (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC) We need to move the content here before discussions about it. Otherwise a legitimate discussion. -- Valjean (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hard to believe this is missing. Maybe an RFC on this as well, should be easy to pass as it is clearly WP:DUE. I will hold off on running two simultaneous RFCs for the time being. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I support inclusion of the info regarding the discovery of the laptop. Certainly is WP:DUE. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. -- Valjean (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Please participate in the RfC linked below. -- Valjean (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Lead is kind of gross

Currently reads Biden and his father Joe Biden have been the subjects of unsupported claims of corrupt activities in a Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory pushed by then-U.S. President Donald Trump and his allies,

Can we just stick to the facts and leave American politics out of it? How about "Biden's business dealings in Ukraine have made him the target of high-profile scrutiny and a number of corruption accusations have been made that to date are unproven." And then in the article more detail can be given. Whether or not Biden did any of the things he is being accused of, the fact is, that is part of his current notability.174.0.48.147 (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2022

The claims that hunter and his dad/president biden were involved in Ukrainian corruption are now supported. Wikipedia states they are unsupported, which is false. 2603:8000:3A44:4320:F11A:4338:5643:7B4C (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2022 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2022

Rosemont Seneca 67.86.58.97 (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2022 (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. Rosemont Seneca is already mentioned in the article a few times. What change do you want? RudolfRed (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

RFC on occupation

Statement

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.

---

In relation to the lede that currenlty states "is an American attorney who is the second son..." The article subject is primarily known as:

• A. Attorney
• B. Painter
• C. Lobbyist

Ok to choose multiple choices. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• D. Target of various conspiracy theories. SPECIFICO talk 01:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• E. Investor Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Polling

• D Notable due to Russian, Republican, Fox News promotion of conspiracy theories. Also A, an attorney of no particular distinction. SPECIFICO talk 02:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  The way you have framed A is doing Biden a major disservice. He was a talented enough Yale educated attorney to be on the board of a foreign energy company and be paid a lot of money for his expertise. "Of no particular distinction" wouldn't merit such a lucrative position. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  There are countless numbers of people in the massive global management consulting industry who did what he did, making the same or more money. soibangla (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

And Lord knows how many non-practicing graduates of top lawschools use their training and sophisticated understanding of corporate formalities and regulatory process in ways that we don't call a "lawyer" in the first sentence. Kellyanne Conway, for example. SPECIFICO talk 17:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

So you think we should link to Hunter Biden laptop controversy? -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• A and B Biden's main notability (aside from being the son of a long serving Senator, Vice President, and President) is his legal expertise guiding an energy company by serving on the board and his remarkable success as a painter, despite a lack of formal training. The bulk of recent RS (as I highlighted in a previous section) point to Biden's career as a painter, and the lead should reflect this. As a sort of modern Renaissance Man who has gained global success and notability for several fields, Biden's accomplishments deserve to be highlighted. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Love it! Who knew that Hunter even had any fans? -- Valjean (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Well, he's bigger than Elvis on Foxnews prime time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 17:6, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  So do you think we should link to Hunter Biden laptop controversy or not? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• A, C The painting thing does not appear to be a primary aspect of the subject's life or notability as of yet, maybe in the future. For now it primarily seems to be a funny jab or talking point in far-right media. ValarianB (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  The following RS address the painting. Which ones are far-right? They appear to be solid RS to me: NYT, CNN, The Guardian, Vox, NPR, NYT again, Politico, Vanity Fair, and CBS Mr Ernie (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  You failed to comprehend the point. The sites you list note the existence of the subject's artistic endeavors, yes, standard news. Far-right media is where it is A Big Thing(tm). ValarianB (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• WP:NOTNEWS strawman -- all clustered around initial reveal, no ongoing significance. SPECIFICO talk 16:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  What is a NOTNEWS strawman? Mr Ernie (talk) 17:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

What about Hunter Biden laptop controversy? Is that a primary aspect of their notability? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• D. Other than being Joe Biden's second son, who has a troubled past because of drug issues, he is primarily known because of attacks on him as part of attempts to smear his father. -- Valjean (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  What about the Hunter Biden laptop controversy, which is so notable it has its own artice. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• A, C, and E, the largest paragraph in this article is labeled "investor and lobbyist". Clearly, his work in these fields has led to significant coverage and are intrinsically related to many of his most important notable aspects. Same is true for lawyer. His painting career is not significant enough to hardly be anything, SPECIFICO pointed to WP:NOTNEWS, which sounds about right for his career as an artist. As for D, that's clearly an inappropriate label for this situation, it's also not consistent with our manual of style (see MOS:ROLEBIO). If we're going to start adding silly stuff like that you might as well go ahead put "drug abuser" to the option above. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• A. The truth of the matter is that, yes, none of these are his primary claim to fame, but that's fine - the entire second half of the sentence covers his father. If we need one word to briefly summarize his own career, "attorney" is fine, since it seems to have been the notional starting point for most of his other roles. I'm not sure I agree with the argument that the large amount of text in the article on "investor and lobbyist" makes those more appropriate, since almost all of that is political hay that is really about his father (the second half of the sentence); including lobbyist wouldn't be terrible, since it's true he founded a legal-and-lobbying firm, but the fact is that if you exclude the conspiracy-theory stuff it really only gets a passing mention in the article. "Painter" is silly - it has only passing mentions in the article, in contexts that don't really present it as significant; honestly even the mention in the third paragraph of the lead is probably undue. And we devote the entire second paragraph of the lead to the conspiracy theories targeting him, so I'm not sure it's necessary to jam them into the first sentence. --Aquillion (talk) 04:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Do you think there should be some mention of the Hunter Biden laptop controversy though? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• A and D - His notability as a lawyer is not clear-cut, but it is the field he activates in so I don't see any reason not to mention it. Also it's difficult to argue against the point that his notability is in very large part due to the conspiracy theories leveled at him and his more famous father, so D should definitely be included. On a more general note, surely he can't be an exception. There must be a lot of wikipedia articles about people who are only famous because of who their parents are, how do those articles handle notability? PraiseVivec (talk) 11:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  By "conspiracy theories" are you on about the Hunter Biden laptop controversy? -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• A and C subject is primarily notable due to his relationship to his father and the laptop affair, that provided controversial evidence of lobbying. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  The laptop affair now has its own page at Hunter Biden laptop controversy. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• A, C, and E - Biden has been a target of conspiracy theories pushed by GOP but laptop emails now confirmed by NYT show potential criminal wrongdoing so it's not all CT. Also the right-wing CT stuff is a separate issue that is meant to muddy the waters and provide some sort of protection to the Bidens. Yodabyte (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  The laptop scandal has its own page at Hunter Biden laptop scandal, which we could link to. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• A, C, E. These are his primary occupations, and the occupations upon which the controversies arose (not all of which is conspiracy btw, like the tax investigation). The laptop stuff should be mentioned in the lead, prominently, but I don't like the vague "target of various conspiracy theories" sentence fragment crammed amongst his occupations. It would be better if this was instead described in full, as sentence(s), at some point after the "Hunter is [occupation] and son of Joe" opening sentence. Endwise (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  The tax investigation is not notable enough for its own page though is it? The laptop scandal and the "conspiracy theory" have their own articles, which could be linked. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

There seem to be only 3-4 mentions of Biden doing any work as an attorney in the article, but whole sections relating to his involvement with overseas activities, apparently lobbying. The legal work mentioned at Boies seems to be lobbying-based. Confused why this subject isn't a lobbist. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Policy says "The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described in reliable sources ". If the current article body reflects reliable sources, then "lobbyist" is the more appropriate term. There is some indication in the bio that he may have been forced to abandon his lobbying activity. E.g. "Biden said during his father's vice-presidential campaign that it was time for his lobbying activities to end". Any thoughts on whether this happened and whether this would affect how we describe him? Burrobert (talk) 01:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

His main factor of Notability is that he's the target of Russian/Republican disinformation. That should be the second sentence. Without Trump and Giuliani, Hunter is very ho-hum. SPECIFICO talk 01:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Except that the article doesn't mention that. TFD (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Right. Just shows how silly it is to be working on this painter-lobbyist when the article is so unfinished. Actually, there is quite a bit about that in the text. SPECIFICO talk 08:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that the article is unfinished so therefore we will incorrectly summarize based on off-page content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Please read the article. There is plenty about Burisma, China, the Laptop, Giuliani, Trump, etc. SPECIFICO talk 09:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Eh? It does! The entire second paragraph of the lead is about it, which in turn summarizes the massive "Burisma Holdings" section. --Aquillion (talk) 05:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I would not call having a laptop scandal as Russian/Republican disinformation. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Mr Ernie, just curious as to your thought on this based on your "Renaissance Man" comment above: would you suggest adding "painter" to the first sentence for George W. Bush? He has at least one NYT best-seller for a book of his paintings. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Although Mr. Ernie's description might be a bit on the hagiographic side (great writing!), Hunter's art career might be worth following. He's pretty good. That means that the article, with time, may contain more content about that subject. Let's see what happens. Unfortunately for him, the conspiratorial attacks overshadow his art, law, and other aspects of his life, and that's how we have to describe him. -- Valjean (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  The NYT piece makes a point to describe how good Biden's art is, despite a lack of formal training, therefore implying it is a natural talent or gift. And given how much money his pieces are going for, it obviously means the art is significant. I am not familiar with Bush's work, as I'm not heard of his NYT book. But I read the list of sources I provided above regarding Biden and feel comfortable with the RS assessment that art is now a notable biographical aspect of Biden's life. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• His role with Burisma was as an attorney with Boies Schiller Flexner (as the article says, Biden was hired to help Burisma with corporate governance best practices.) As the rest of the section says, there were later accusations (and conspiracy-theories) about influence-peddling, but no evidence has ever been presented and nothing has stood up to scrutiny. We devote massive amounts of text to those accusations and conspiracy-theories because of the large amount of press they received and the role they played in a US presidential election makes them his main source of notability (hence why the entire second paragraph of the lead is devoted to them), but that doesn't change the fact that nothing came of them - it would be inappropriate to characterize his work there as lobbying without sources specifically describing it as such. (Note, this is distinct from the definitely-actual lobbying work he did at Oldaker, Biden & Belair.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I've requested for a formal close at WP:Close requests. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Authenticity questioned is an understatement

For 2 years every single "fact checker" in the western world as well as the intelligence community and of course wikipedia itself categorized it as "Russian Disinformation". This is a unique phenomenon that should not be now buried. JoseLuisMoralesMarcos (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

+1 Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

That there are a handful of legitimate documents mixed with the fakes does not undercut the "propaganda" assertions in the slightest. ValarianB (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Reminder: Validity relies on sourcing and reference, not editor opinion. Please see WP:Forum. Lexlex (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Another reminder - there is currently no evidence of anything fake on the laptop. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Yet another reminder - there is currently no evidence of any wrongdoing on anyone's part in any of these emails. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Though presumably the WaPo analysts would've authenticated everything on the hard drive if they could, but they couldn't. Most of it remains unverified. soibangla (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The device containing the information has been authenticated by multiple sources. Using argument from ignorance to exclude information within the device doesn't logically work because, again, the device is authentic. It logically follows that the device's contents are also authentic. Furthermore, if even one piece of evidence within the device was proven to be false, it would taint the entire contents. However, this has not happened—nothing has been disproven. In fact multiple pieces of evidence have been separately verified (e.g. recipients of emails contained within the device have the same character-accurate copies) therefore we can safely assume all contents to be authentic until proven otherwise. This continuing attempt by some editors to employ argument from ignorance fails WP:NOTGETTINGIT because, again, the device is authentic. Find even one false piece of evidence and it all falls apart, but until that time, the argument doesn't work. Lexlex (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Lexlex The device containing the information has been authenticated by multiple sources Who? It logically follows that the device's contents are also authentic No it doesn't. soibangla (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@Soibangla The device was authenticated by The New York Times in this article and has been subsequently verified by other sources (see search results here). The argument we should assume that contents of a device owned by Biden were not Biden's would have to be made. Can you reference anyone who has made it? Lexlex (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

"a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden." You said "multiple sources," can you provide them? How many of the results for "biden+laptop+authentic" from a Russian search engine are about emails being authentic rather than the laptop itself being authentic? I won't go through to see, but maybe you can. Lev Parnas confirmed that by early 2019 Rudy was talking about Russia having the emails.[29] Emails are stored in databases than can be moved from device to device. soibangla (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

You requested references which I provided. As the Laptop's authenticity is WP:consensus, you may do additional research on your own time using the search engine of your choice. Again, the discussion is the laptop contents' authenticity. Please provide reference to a source for that argument rather than attempting to make one here as an editor. Again, if anything is found to be false, everything is in question. While some above have alluded to truth mixed with falsehoods above, what is the source? Who is saying that anything is false? Where are the references? So far all I can find is confirmation after confirmation. Please prove it wrong. Lexlex (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

You provided one reference qualified by "appears." Search results for "biden+laptop+authentic" would include innumerable cases of "emails from the Biden laptop were authenticated." Please show how the search results attest to the authenticity of the laptop itself. Again, the discussion is the laptop contents' authenticity In fact, the basis of your original argument was the authenticity of the laptop, from which you then made a logical leap about its contents. soibangla (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

From your questions it seems you are questioning the authenticity of the laptop itself. But my understanding is this is already well-established consensus, therefore your requests for sourcing here seem needlessly duplicative. Furthermore, your selected Times quote: "...appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden..." establishes that a laptop owned by Biden does exist, the unknown being whether or not the cited emails came from said laptop, not whether or not the laptop was authentic. Therefore, it would seem you—or, at least the Times—already accept that the laptop is genuine, but have a grievance with the provenance of the cited emails. As this can be, and probably has already been, established by inspecting and comparing the email metadata from both sources, it would seem that comparison data is what you're looking for. Am I correct? Lexlex (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I figured you might say From your questions it seems you are questioning the authenticity of the laptop itself. Just because I challenge your assertion of fact doesn't mean I am arguing the opposite. And you chastise others for poor logical reasoning. I'm done here. soibangla (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Your response isn't clear. Are you accepting that the laptop is Biden's or not? Lexlex (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not a "grievance" -- there is no reason to infer the authenticity of each and every email from the verification of a subset. And RS have detailed that inserting fakes amid genuine data is a known tactic of Russian and other propagandists. A tactic that several WP editors fell for in the past and which has been explained to them and rejected by consensus. We really need to stop revisiting this. It's an elementary logical fallacy that middle schoolers are taught to identify and reject. SPECIFICO talk 17:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

That fakes can be inserted in some subset of authentic records, or that it has been done other instances—Russian or not—is not logically relevant. It's like saying "People lie all the time, you're a person, so therefore you're lying." It doesn't hold. Again, please provide sourcing that anything on the Biden laptop has been proven false. Otherwise, continual assertions that "it's probably fake" in the face of growing confirmation is just as nonsensical. Lexlex (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

The claim that unauthenticated files that happen to also be on a laptop with authenticated files must be authentic — Russian or not — is not logical. It's like saying, "You're a person, you are lying", authenticating that you are a person, and then concluding that the second part must be true because it was included in a set with an authenticated fact. Please provide a source for your claim that "The device was authenticated by The New York Times", because the cite you provided didn't do that. Otherwise, continual assertions that it "was authenticated" without evidence are nonsensical. --Noren (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

The fake insertion tactic has been widely noted by RS. That's one reason to include it. The other reason is that even a small number of WP editors' arguments fail the most elementary level of logic about this. SPECIFICO talk 15:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

No, it's just WP:Cherry picking. Preemptively excluding information from an authenticated source because of speculation on your part violates WP:Rumor. Please stop this disruptive behavior and read WP:NOTGETTINGIT as this is becoming a waste of editor time. While strong emotions on political issues are understandable, perhaps consider that your leanings on the subject matter cloud your normally sound judgement. Lexlex (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I think you must have misunderstood. It is the sources that comment on this disinformation technique and the probable inclusion of false information along with authentic documents. Also please be more patient. SPECIFICO talk 19:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I’m putting my hand up to support anything that Lexlex says here. My attention was drawn to this page by the mention in many media articles of the shameful deletion of the Rosemont Seneca Partners article. Continual whitewashing of anything related to Hunter Biden denigrates the name of Wikipedia every time it takes place. There is no question that the information revealed on the laptop will be investigated in the greatest detail by Congress following the mid-term elections. So it’s about time that editors who’ve been part of the whitewashing activities accepted that the information on the laptop is actually very real. On the other hand, if they want to lower Wikipedia’s reputation still further, they can just carry on claiming that the information on the laptop is unreliable. But while they’re doing that, they should remember that many media operatives read this stuff, anything Hunter Biden being hot news, and report accordingly. Boscaswell talk 10:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Think about this: after the New York Post and The Washington Post had full unfettered access to the laptop drive to examine at their leisure, only two of about 129,000 emails with barely even a whiff of smelliness came to light. 1) a Burisma advisor thanking Hunter for an "opportunity" to meet Joe at a dinner where many attended and which witnesses said the meeting didn't actually happen, and even if it did, there's no evidence of what they may have spoken about, and Joe's aides who would be in a position to know had never heard of the guy, and 2) a guy mentioning Joe as a possible passive investor in a China deal that Joe emphatically declined to be involved with. That's it, that's all they found. Beyond that, there's porn and lotsa frothy panting. I have no doubt the information revealed on the laptop will be investigated in the greatest detail by Congress following the mid-term elections because, you know...porn and lotsa frothy panting. soibangla (talk) 12:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

"An earlier email from May 2014 also shows Pozharskyi, reportedly Burisma’s No. 3 exec, asking Hunter for “advice on how you could use your influence” on the company’s behalf." That's from the original NY Post story. Don't tell me "the only thing they found" BS. This is worthy of publication. Also, "The blockbuster correspondence — which flies in the face of Joe Biden’s claim that he’s “never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings” — is contained in a massive trove of data recovered from a laptop computer." This is why Wikipedia is such a fucking JOKE. I just come to read the train wreck bios you publish and laugh every time you stick your hand out for donations. Please, continue with your nonsense! 97.117.155.92 (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Pozharskyi emailed Hunter and Archer for "advice on how you could use your influence," but I don't see Hunter responded to that. Instead, Archer and a Boies Schiller partner, Heather King, discussed whether Burisma had an American subsidiary, apparently to handle a matter of State Department criticism of Burisma's owner, as well as hiring a lobbying firm, which apparently turned out to be Blue Star Strategies, to contact American officials on Burisma's behalf. This approach would ensure everything was done through proper channels, and this is already explained in the article. This article also shows how Hunter wrote he absolutely would not seek to influence American officials. Once again this is about what one guy asked about, but not about what Hunter said or did in response. If you decline an attempt to bribe you, are you guilty of bribery?[30] soibangla (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The Republicans have already given us the reveal on the great detail of those investigations. Spoiler Alert !!! -- they will end in the impeachment of Joe Biden. SPECIFICO talk 17:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) SPECIFICO talk 13:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Rosemont Seneca removed from Wikipedia

How come this was removed ? Seems like sides are being taken rather than a repository or facts and truths

https://nypost.com/2022/04/23/wikipedia-deletes-entry-for-hunter-biden-firm-rosemont-seneca-partners/ Wpow (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion that resulted in the delete, as linked in that article, is here. --Noren (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Wpow, there is no need for concern. Even though it isn't notable enough for its own article, it will still get mentioned at Wikipedia to the degree it is covered by reliable sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

It’s sort of relevant because removing it seems to be done to protect a political figure / joe Biden.

If there was a information / data Reason for removing it it is not clear what that is Wpow (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

We do not do that here. Read the deletion discussion.

BTW, the New York Post is not a RS. It's junk tabloid "journalism" with a strong fringe, far-right-wing, Trump-promotional, anti-democracy, propagandist agenda. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Far right I would argue is an opinion and not based on any fact Conservative cheese ball (talk) 07:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The point is that the New York Post has been deemed unreliable at WP:RSP. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily call them "far right" myself, but their political bias leads them to make too many errors for us to consider them reliable. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that "far-right" might be a bit too much, so have stricken it. They are still very right-wing, and being Murdoch owned (like Fox News and the Wall Street Journal), are against democracy, and consistently bury Trump's misdeeds. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@Wpow: The discussion that led to the deletion is available here. To briefly summarize, the nominator pointed out (correctly in my opinion) that basically all of the coverage of the company itself was within the context of Hunter Biden. As you might be able to know, Rosemont Seneca Partners currently redirects to this page's section on Biden's lobbying and investing activities, which covers it briefly. Just as the New York Post notes, the deleted article was thin on details, so there wasn't all that much information that could be really merged here. On top of that, Wikipedia has a fairly high bar that a company needs to meet in order to be eligible for its own standalone Wikipedia article.

In particular, there are companies that have a number of significant sources discussing its (alleged) illegal conduct. Sources that primarily discuss purely such conduct cannot be used to establish an organization's notability under this guideline. Additionally, per the notability guideline, An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. ... If a notable person buys a restaurant, the restaurant does not "inherit" notability from its owner. If a notable person joins an organization, the organization does not "inherit" notability from its member. In other words: (1) sources that more or less only discuss potentially illegal activity don't contribute towards a company satisfying our thresholds for having a standalone article; and (2) just because Hunter Biden and Christopher Heinz are notable people with their own Wikipedia articles doesn't mean that Rosemont Seneca Partners should get its own article. Instead, there need to be multiple in-depth reliable sources that independently cover the company without relying on corporate press releases (or other PR material) to form their coverage content.

If you think that the closure of the deletion discussion was inappropriate in light of our deletion policy and notability guidelines, you are free to open up a request on WP:DELREV to have the deletion reviewed. I would personally advise against doing so in this case unless you have found coverage that would justify making an article on the group itself (which I personally can't). — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)