Talk:Hunter Biden

False and baseless

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name of 4th daughter

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

You violated page restrictions

You may be unaware, Sleyece, that you violated the active arbitration remedy of enforced WP:BRD on this page with this reversion of my reversion. See the top banners on this page for more detail. And the content you removed is cited with the WaPo article directly following it. I recommend you self-revert and seek consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

And you were reverted by someone else. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not required to self-revert when you're reverting to keep half a sentence in the lead that had no source because you like reading it. Someone else reverted my revert, so I'm now subject to leave the opinionated information that has no source. -- Sleyece (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The source is right there, like I said. You are required to follow BRD, which you did not. And it's not "opinionated", it's factual. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

"In March 2022, The New York Times and The Washington Post reported that some of the emails found on the computer were authentic.[6][7]" Literally the next sentence --Sleyece (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

You really should become better informed of the subject matter before editing the article. The authenticity of the device and the authenticity of the contents of the hard drive are \separate matters. Zaathras (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Is the accusation that I don't understand policy or that I do understand policy and am willfully ignorant of the subject? -- Sleyece (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

You're misapplying policy because you do not know the subject matter. So, a twofer. Zaathras (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you're just mad that the paragraph is in the lead in the first place. It just seems like you're butt-hurt over the encyclopedic data cited in the article to me. -- Sleyece (talk) 02:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you're getting needlessly antagonistic, and forgetting that the actual issue here was your "if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit" violation. Take a breath, have some tea, try again. Zaathras (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

You're leaving out a lot of contextual policy to make it seem like I violated something. I'm the only user getting attacked here and a lot of the basis is stuff about me not being able to "understand". Does any of it have to do with the fact that I shared that I have a genetic condition that affects the nervous system if left unchecked on my user page? What exactly am I being randomly bombarded for all of a sudden? -- Sleyece (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

You did violate something, the editing restriction placed on this article. I have never viewed your userpage but if you're going to play the disability card, then this engagement ends here. Zaathras (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm playing the I dog-walked you on policy card. -- Sleyece (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

If there is an accusation of impropriety against my character, I'd like to know the nature of it so I can respond. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

If any user would like to make an official accusation against me, let's get to it. If not, that'll be all Chief. -- Sleyece (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Washington Post report concerning emails

The fourth paragraph of the lede currently contains the following sentence:
"In March 2022, The New York Times and The Washington Post reported that some of the emails found on the computer were authentic."
Should it be removed? TarnishedPath^talk 11:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes the source given for the sentence from the Washington Post clearly states that a) the laptop is "purportedly from the laptop computer of Hunter Biden". Further b) "[t]he verifiable emails are a small fraction of 217 gigabytes of data provided to The Post on a portable hard drive by Republican activist Jack Maxey". Therefore keeping this sentence in the article, let alone the lede, would be wildly WP:UNDUE when it does not give full context. When covering this kind of stuff we must give mind to WP:BLP which states "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". Further per MOS:LEADBIO "When writing about controversies in the lead section of a biography, relevant material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources, and make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article" (emphasis mine). It is clear from the body of this article that Washington Post report is not mentioned in the body of the article in regards to the laptop emails, therefore nor should it be in the lede. TarnishedPath^talk 11:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
• No The two RFCs cited by Firefangledfeathers below already settled the topic on the ownership of the laptop. The argument made by TarnishedPath appears to relitigate that discussion, perhaps inadvertently. Consensus can change, but typically that requires some new information. Nothing presented here so far or would require the community to revisit this topic. Given the ownership of the laptop is settled by previous discussion it's not WP:UNDUE to mention it in the lead. There is nothing "sensationalist" about the claim and it's perfectly reasonable reflection of the sources and previous discussions. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Nemov, I don't mean to relitigate ownership of the laptop. I am questioning the use of an out of context sentence which states some emails were authentic. It's wild given the rest of the paragraph it finds itself in. TarnishedPath^talk 13:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• Yes but mostly because the sentence is not easy to read, not because of any policy reasons. Would be open if someone did a more detailed rewrite but would probably become UNDUE. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
• Yes but mostly because the paragraph is UNDUE in a BLP article. Some of the emails are (probably?) genuine, so what? Without knowing how many, how they came to be there and what they say it's an insignificant snippet purporting to be substantive and trying to imply something. "But the Post provided no evidence of the chain of custody or authenticity of the device" is also unnec and covered by the following sentence with minor mods. Anyone wanting a 'blow by blow' account can read the 'laptop' article. That the laptop controversy happened is significant, but the substantive BLP point is that, since some years ago, "no evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden has been found" as a result of the laptop. Wake me when they find out otherwise! Pincrete (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
• Yes per Pincrete. Senorangel (talk) 04:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
• Yes; it makes sense to include that on an article about the laptop, but Hunter Biden's personal article isn't the place for every blow-by-blow bit of partisan wrangling over the laptop. Only the top-level summary of what it means is needed here. --Aquillion (talk) 06:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• There were two major RfCs at Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy about how to discuss ownership of the laptop. The first, in late 2022, resulted in consensus against using the word "alleged" to describe Biden's ownership of the laptop, and the second, in early 2023, resulted in rough consensus to describe the laptop as belonging to Biden. Many sources and arguments were collected/presented in both RfCs that might be useful here. I'm also posting a note at that talk page to invite comment here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Firefangledfeathers, much obliged. Mine is also a question of DUE. I recognise that there is material in the body, but that the material in the body doesn't inform the lede. TarnishedPath^talk 13:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• how about "reported that some of the emails found on the computer were verified as authentic, though the vast majority were not verified" soibangla (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  Two issues with that. Firstly it's not even in the body at this point so is against MOS:LEADBIO and secondly it would present a WP:FALSEBALANCE putting it in the lede even if it were in the body. TarnishedPath^talk 01:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)