Jump to content

Talk:Hunter Biden

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RfC: Washington Post report concerning emails[edit]

NO CONSENSUS, DEFAULTING TO OMIT
It's likely that this discussion will be seen by non-Wikipedians, so I'll try to explain what we've decided, and why, in enough detail that a non-Wikipedian would be able to follow it.
This is a Request for Comment ("RfC"), which is a method we Wikipedians use to make tricky content decisions. Interested people who have accounts in good standing are invited to express a view. After a time, and when discussion has died down, another editor summarizes the discussion and communicates the decision the community has made. This is called "closing".
A sacred cow of Wikipedia is that the closer has to be neutral and uninvolved. The closer isn't the decider -- instead the closer writes a closing summary that documents what the community has decided. The closer is expected to apply relevant rules called policies and guidelines. This is my role, and the principle of uninvolvement is why I -- a man who knows nothing about Hunter Biden's emails and has never even set foot in the US -- am writing this. If I seem to be the decision maker, then that's an illusion.
The matter is relevant to a likely US presidential candidate in a US presidential election year, and is therefore extremely contentious and toxic on Wikipedia. It's attracted a lot of participation and interest.
The decision that's needed is how much emphasis to give to two reports, in the New York Times and Washington Post, about emails found on a laptop that's understood to have belonged to Hunter Biden. Nobody's proposing to remove the said journalism from the article, but there's a reasonable case to be made for removing it from the "lead", which is the article's first few paragraphs.
Normally when Wikipedians make a content decision, we refer to the sources to decide how to resolve it, but this decision doesn't lend itself to that mechanism. We aren't deciding what information to include. Instead we're deciding where in the article to place it. As such, it's a matter of encyclopaedic judgment, and I give weight to people's judgment not according to whether I personally agree with them, but instead according to their contribution history (which I use as an approximation for their experience as Wikipedians) and whether their account is in good standing. After carrying out this exercise I get to no consensus.
When there's no consensus in a content decision, the rule is as stated in our core content policy here: in other words, we default to removing the disputed information from the lede, but retaining it in the body text. The consequent edits may be made.
I hope this is clear and suffices to fully resolve the dispute, but questions, comments, criticism, and complaints about this close are welcome and should be directed to my talk page in the first instance.—S Marshall T/C 10:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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? TarnishedPathtalk 11:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

  • 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. TarnishedPathtalk 11:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    @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. TarnishedPathtalk 13:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My original vote was pointed towards inclusion in the article itself, but this seems WP:UNDUE to be mentioned in the lead. So changing vote to yes. This is fine for the body of the article. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Yes per Pincrete. Senorangel (talk) 04:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Should be removed and, frankly, the following sentence stating that "some of the Bidens' detractors have said that the laptop contents exposed corruption by Hunter's father, but no evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden has been found" should be cut down as well. It's unclear to me whether "Biden's detractors" refers to Hunter or Joe, and either way, it should be explained in the body of the article. The salient point that this sentence should convey is that "No evidence of wrongdoing by Hunter's father, Joe Biden, has been found." Avgeekamfot (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • NoIf it's verifiably factual, then I think it should stay in, though there is something to be said for including it somewhere other than the lead.Coalcity58 (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Coalcity58: Please see WP:ONUS, which is part of our core policy. Not all verified fact passes the other tests necessary for inclusion in any particular article or even any article at all. SPECIFICO talk 14:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - If it's in the body of the page? Then it doesn't matter (IMHO) whether or not it's in the lead. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's WP:UNDUE for the lead. It can be discussed in more detail if necessary in the article itself (or more preferably in the article about the laptop controversy specifically) but not the lead. Fieari (talk) 07:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - Not keen on this kind of statement about what could have been innocuous emails near text speaking of possible corruption in a WP:BLP. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes This is UNDUE for this biography page without a lot of detail and context. Such detail is provided in other article pages. Without the context, the proposed text would be misleading to many or most of our readers. SPECIFICO talk 13:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. It is cited and noteworthy. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes per Pincrete, and also support the change to the following sentence proposed by Avgeekamfot. Choucas Bleu (T·C) 21:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. It's misleading. The WaPo article says that 22,000 emails among the "289,000 individual user files" had "cryptographic signatures that could be verified using technology that would be difficult for even the most sophisticated hackers to fake" and that those signatures prove "that the message came from a verified account and has not been altered in some way". But does that necessarily mean that they were sent to or from the laptop? The email account isn't the client that sits on the laptop, it's hosted by a provider and can be accessed from other hardware. (The next sentence doesn't belong in the lead, either. This isn't Joe Biden's article, "some of the Bidens' detractors" is clunky, and juxtaposing corruption with "no evidence of wrongdoing has been found" is a BLP violation.) Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. It is sourced, and noteworthy because it suggests that the laptop's data are not, at least, entirely fabricated. We must be careful not to set a bar to inclusion that equates to 'it's theoretically possible that x fact is a fabrication, or that y evidence was planted as part of a hit job'. Equivocation is the job of politicians and partisans, not Wikipedians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riposte97 (talk • contribs)
  • Yes - This does not seem to be the main point and having a few emails that are genuine does not have weight unless we know what percent or how many of the 22k emails are genuine. I also support the points made by Pincrete. Jurisdicta (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also I think that there's no weight unless we know what the genuine emails were about which the Washington Post story neglects. TarnishedPathtalk 01:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - The only thing to change is to note that WaPo and NYT coverage in March 2022 is not particularly notable on its own. There have been a number of media outlets authenticating laptop contents, such as CNN, CBS, and Politico dating back well to 2021. It should be replaced by mentioning media outlets in general, starting in 2021. Removing it outright makes no sense. This change ends up with the lead discussing the NY Post story and a bunch of media outlets initially not covering it, while omitting the considerable body of RS coverage that has developed over time on the actual substance of the content wrt the laptop. It'll be as if the entire section got stuck in October 2020 and never was updated. KiharaNoukan (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No excluding the significant developments of this story from the lead without excluding everything else about the laptop (in the lead) would be WP:UNDUE, and ultimately, WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY should be respected. Being selective about what aspects of this story belongs in the lead seems partisan, at best. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Incorrect, keeping the sentence would lead to a situation where the lede does not follow the body because that content is not in the body and many editors have detailed exactly why it's UNDUE to keep it. TarnishedPathtalk 02:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. If it's not mentioned in the body of the article it should be added there. If we remove this but keep the previous sentence, the lede would violate NPOV as we would mention the issues with the provenance but not that (some of) the emails turned out to be authentic. Alaexis¿question? 21:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No It is important to note that some of the emails were found to authentic by reliable newspapers like WaPo and the NYT.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 12:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • NoAs per Spy-cicle It is important to note that some of the emails were found to authentic by reliable newspapers The New York Times and The Washington Post.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I submit that the following points, listed chronologically, are factual:
1) NY Post publishes article about laptop
2) Republicans claim laptop contents show evidence of Joe Biden corruption
3) Reliable sources report some laptop emails are authentic
4) Congressional investigations subsequent to initial laptop story find no evidence of J.Biden corruption
I further submit that those four points can be included in the lede. The laptop has been a big continuing story and deserves a place in the Hunter Biden article, including the lede. The laptop became newsworthy because Republicans publicly and repeatedly claimed it showed evidence of Joe Biden corruption. If Republicans had not made those claims, laptop news coverage would be minimal or non-existent. If the lede makes any mention of the laptop, it must give the context that Republicans claimed it contained evidence of J.Biden corruption (point 2 above). To achieve Balance and Due, points 3 and 4 should therefore be included in the lede. DonFB (talk) 07:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

  • 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)[reply]
    @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. TarnishedPathtalk 13:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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. TarnishedPathtalk 01:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

No work history conducted[edit]

There is no evidence that he ever contributed to any company. He did hold titles, nut no services are reported to exist. 172.242.106.208 (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By who, in what source? Koncorde (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Service in the US Navy[edit]

So he was in the Navy for one year? That's a very atypical term of service. Any explanation for that? 57.135.233.22 (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Convicted felon in opening sentence[edit]

Why is it ok to label him as a convicted felon, but not Donald Trump? This is a serious question/ 2604:3D09:927F:E900:9CE8:5D57:9E0F:544C (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Milowent
I trust your expertise 2604:3D09:927F:E900:9CE8:5D57:9E0F:544C (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Crime labels - it shouldn't be done for anyone. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • yeah, I don't think it is appropriate to list either of them as a felon in the opening sentence of the articles. That's the sort of thing that happens and gets reverted on the news day.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with no labels except for people like Dahmer or Bundy only known for their atrocities.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.246.97.81 (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't belong in the first sentence, should be mentioned in the lead with full context (as is already true). WP:Crime labels gets at some of the reasons. Generally, I feel like the truncated label in the first sentence is both over-weighted and under-informative. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. Though I agree with the above IP that it should be done in the cases of a Dahmer or a John Wayne Gacy only notable for their crimes. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Heading off topic here, but both of those have first-sentence labels that are clear about what they did, focused on the crimes and not the convictions. Much more informative. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I challenged the addition of the label but was immediately reverted with the editsum "small fix". I added the felony conviction to the last lead paragraph which is entirely about the gun charges and the conviction. Repeating what I said in my edit summary: MOS:LEADSENTENCE: "Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE: The felony conviction is not the most notable thing about him; the conspiracy theories about him are more notable and not mentioned (WP:WEIGHT.) Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The relevant manual of style MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE dictates that not be covered in the lead. Your placement seems best. I think we also need to consider the lead of this article is rather long and we could do with reducing it and moving some other stuff into the body. TarnishedPathtalk 05:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagreed with having that in the opening sentence for Trump, and I think the same standard should be applied here. 100.11.18.155 (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "convicted felon" should be included in his opening sentence. These are actual felonies and not politically-motivated misdemeanors that are tried as felonies. EnSingHemm (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This entire process has been politically motivated. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide the guideline which supports your opinion, because MOS:FIRSTBIOSENTENCE suggests it shouldn’t be in the first sentence because it’s not the main reason for his notability TarnishedPathtalk 05:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in first sentence per Muboshgu: "WP:Crime labels - it shouldn't be done for anyone." and "it should be done in the cases of a Dahmer or a John Wayne Gacy only notable for their crimes" and per Space4Time3Continuum2x: "MOS:LEADSENTENCE: 'Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead. MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE:The felony conviction is not the most notable thing about him...'" Also WP:Crime labels. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it doesn't say "convicted felon" any more in the first sentence but "Biden was found guilty on three felony charges..." right at the end of the lead. This is fine in my opinion — Iadmc♫talk  17:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - First, WP:Crime labels is an essay, not policy. Most important, we need to examine what Hunter is most notable for. Unlike Trump, who is notable for his many accomplishments--businessman, entertainer, president--Hunter is notable for far less. I would agree to hold off on this label, and then re-assess when his tax trial is completed, and when Comer is done with him. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPSTYLE is a policy: Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Hunter Biden is not. He's mostly known for being the son of his father, and Comer will never stop trying to find a shred of evidence (and good luck with that) as long as he's chairman of the Committee of Biden Family Investigations. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in first sentence basically per Muboshgu. The first sentence is usually for listing a person's notable activities, and neither "felon" nor "convicted felon" are activities, they're a legal status (and "convicted" is redundant). For someone who is primarily known for their criminal activity, we give a high-level summary of their crimes (from examples given above, Ted Bundy: "an American serial killer"; Jeffrey Dahmer: "an American serial killer and sex offender"; and one more, Bernie Madoff: "an American financial criminal and financier"). There is no way for us to say currently if history will remember Hunter Biden as a criminal, and the current news cycle is not the place to go looking for reliable sourcing on that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No... hell no. This is no on so many levels. First, Hunter is already a public figure so how is "felon" the thing he is most known for now? This is a BLP so we need to be careful about undue harm to the subject. If the conviction is reversed, thrown out on a technically will we apologize? Is anyone most known for being a "felon"? Do we say a convicted mobster is a felon in the first sentence of their biographies? In the lead is arguably reasonable but even then it should be kept in context. He was convicted of [specific crime] not the nebulous label "felon" that tells the reader nothing about the crime or even if the prosecution may be political etc. Springee (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Absolutely not Grossly undue. Blatantly violates WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment should probably be mentioned pretty early. He's mostly known for being the president's son and making questionable choices in his personal life. And convicted felon gets that second part across quite well. Maybe give it until after sentencing to see how things shake out.©Geni (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've left a hidden note in the source to try to limit the number of times this is added by potentially well-meaning editors who are not aware of this discussion. This was an attempt at adminning a contentious topic, as an uninvolved admin. Please let me know if I did something wrong, CT-enforcement-wise. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I said something similar at the duplicate thread at BLPN but I think adding a hidden note (which any editor capable of editing the page can do) is really pushing the definition of both "admin action" and "arbitration enforcement" quite badly. I think you're fine, in fewer words. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I worded it too self-importantly for my own good? Nevermind, you're probably too nice to tell me so. Anyway, the rationale was that I really do intend to ECP the article if that doesn't work, so I was kind of leaning on that warning more heavily than normal. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Create an RFC on felon in leade? 207.96.32.81 (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're kind of doing one already. Anyway, RfCs are a pain! — Iadmc♫talk  21:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Calling Hunter Biden a convicted felon violates neutral tone. It's better to just say that he was convicted of three felonies and explain what they were. That applies to pretty much anyone whose notability is not based on a criminal career. TFD (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No as Hunter Biden's biography is not defined by a conviction, any more than Donald Trump's is. Speaking of Trump, I will also lob a grenade-opinion into the mix; anyone who votes one way on this and the opposite way at Talk:Donald_Trump#RfC_on_use_of_"convicted_felon"_in_first_sentence, regardless of which way it is, should likely be topic-banned from the American Politics topic area. Zaathras (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Agreed. This article has suffered all year from editors who are influenced by their political bias and I assume the same is true of the Donald Trump article. I think the convictions in both cases are significant enough to mention along with other relevant facts in the lead. Hunter Biden is the first son of a sitting President to be convicted of a felony while his father was in office and Trump is the first former President to be convicted of a felony. There are multiple citations for both these facts and it is likely that these facts will be in n the first paragraph of future articles about them, in history texts and in current news articles. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I agree that generally felony convictions should not be in the first sentence of a lead unless that is the only thing the person is notable for. I disagree on your last point, as a former president and the son a current president are not really comparable. It could be argued, for instance, that Hunter Biden is mostly noteworthy because of his father, and his legal controversy while being the son of a president. Trump is noteworthy independent of his political career, and his presidency has a lot more noteworthy stuff. Trumps conviction after being voted out of office really seems more of a footnote in the grand scheme of things. I don't think either should have this in their lead, but do think someone could hold different opinions on the different pages in good faith. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No agree with above that 'convicted felon' should only be included in lead sentences only when that descriptor is a defining characteristic/what the person is known for/etc. Pretty easy to come back to this in a couple of years when the dust has settled and know whether it should be included (same goes for Trump in my mind). Not sure if this has been called into question, but the details of the conviction should definitely stay in the lead somewhere, and I like the last paragraph that is currently in the article.Yeoutie (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose adding "convicted felon" to the lead sentences of both this article and the Donald Trump article. 'Convicted felon' means the person has been convicted of a felony; are (Hunter) Biden and Trump notable/known for being convicted of felony charges? I would say no. Some1 (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At this point I it seems like the consensus is strong here. But I was curious and decided to see how we handled this on the page of someone who is only notable for their crimes. Ted Kaczynski came to mind. A keyword search for "felon", which he clearly is, returned zero hits. So if a serial killer/bomber's biograph can exist without a single mention of "felon" in the whole article I feel like we could make it at least through the first sentence without using the word here (and likely in every other biograph on Wikipedia). Springee (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support convicted felon being in the lead sentence, due to Hunter Biden's main notoriety now being that he is the first child of a president to be convicted of a crime. This is his main notoriety since he has not held any important offices except at Amtrak. He is mainly known for this conviction and for the laptop scandal. laganrat (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally it seems to be recentism for it to be excluded since his conviction(s) is clearly what he will be known for mostly when historians look back. laganrat (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, what an amazing crystal ball you possess! Not only can it determine that the most recent event in a man's life is automatically the most notable, it has looked forward and recorded what historians have already concluded. Wowzers! Zaathras (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. But if it is put deeper in the page, it may seem slightly less important. I feel that it being put at the end of the lead paragraphs, which is what it has now, should be a good balance. It doesn't appear as the page's main focus, although it definitely has some influence. CosmoCreeper249 (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe your right. I feel that it should be put in the page, although if it gets put in the lead sentence, it may be the main focus for the reader. Although, it should definitely be put somewhere. CosmoCreeper249 (talk) 12:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support adding "convicted felon" in the first sentence, as Hunter Biden is primarily notable for being investigated (by Congress) and criminally prosecuted, including for illicit drug use.
Side-note: I also supported adding "convicted felon" to the lead of Trump's article (no consensus was reached), as his New York trial and verdict generated massive media attention for weeks. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a lofty peak of intellectual dishonesty to take Hunter Biden being the center of a far-right conspiracy theory (Ukraine, Burisma) and claim that he is a notable felon because of a conviction in a completely, like literally 100%, unrelated gun and drug matter. It would be like writing "Al Capone is a gangster, businessman, and tax cheat." Zaathras (talk) 01:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I hope to be similarly consistent as the commenter before me; I also opposed this on the Donald Trump article. jp×g🗯️ 01:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — Unless an individual is known for being a convicted felon, it would be inappropriate to add that descriptor to the introductory sentence. This applies to Al Capone—arguably more notable for being a felon, even if on tax charges—and Donald Trump. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hunter Biden is known for being under investigation for his actions, including drug addiction, the later of which resulted in his conviction. Biden's other children--Ashley Biden, Beau Biden (died in 2016), and Naomi Biden (died in 1972)--are all far less mentioned compared to Hunter Biden, because they have not committed questionable and illegal actions.
    Side-note: I continue to support adding "convicted felon" to the first paragraph of the Donald Trump article, either in the 1st or 2nd sentence. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

traumatic brain injury?[edit]

does he have a traumatic brain injury or not 209.214.161.105 (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would need reliable sources to establish. I suspect it is a slur and therefore has no place here. — Iadmc♫talk  18:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read the article. TFD (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Modeling the lead after Michelle Obama and Ivanka Trump pages[edit]

Thinking about how to approach political family member pages consistently, I looked for a few examples to point to and think the pages for Michelle Obama and Ivanka Trump might work. Based on these the biggest issue with the Hunter Biden page in my opinion is that it doesn't mention his relationship to Joe Biden until the fourth sentence, and skips it entirely in the first paragraph of the lead. One relevant point is that mention of controversy related to Ivanka Trump and conflict of interests in her business doesn't appear the second paragraph before the end of the lead. I believe that these two pages can serve as broad templates for pages like Hunter Biden's, where there relationship is in the lead, and controversy is included towards the end (The current placement of his legal issues would be in line with what we see on the Ivanka Trump page). This isn't perfect, and isn't a one size fits all solution.

The lead section of Michelle's page states:

"Michelle LaVaughn Obama (née Robinson; born January 17, 1964) is an American attorney and author who served as the first lady of the United States from 2009 to 2017, being married to former president Barack Obama."

The lead section of Ivanka Trump's page states:

"Ivana Marie "Ivanka" Trump (/ɪˈvɑːŋkə/; born October 30, 1981) is an American businesswoman. She is the second child of Donald Trump (the 45th president of the United States) and his first wife, Ivana. Trump was a senior advisor in his administration (2017–2021), and also was the director of the Office of Economic Initiatives and Entrepreneurship"

Based on these, the lead for Hunter Biden's page might look something like:

"Robert Hunter Biden (born February 4, 1970) is an American attorney, business man, and the second son of U.S. President Joe Biden and his first wife, Neilia Hunter Biden. Biden has worked as a hedge fund principal and a venture capital and private equity fund investor. He formerly worked as a banker, a lobbyist, and a legal representative for lobbying firms."

GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Condense lead section[edit]

Lead section contains too much information that could distributes to other categories. DatGuyidk (talk) 03:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to start on the extreme end of editing this down. Maybe something like:
"Robert Hunter Biden (born February 4, 1970) is an American attorney, business man, and the second son of U.S. President Joe Biden and his first wife, Neilia Hunter Biden. Biden has worked as a hedge fund principal and a venture capital and private equity fund investor. He formerly worked as a banker, a lobbyist, and a legal representative for lobbying firms. Hunter Biden has been associated with several political controversies and legal investigations, including being convicted of three felony charges in June 2024."
GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this, though I would remove the space from "business man" and remove and his first wife, Neilia Hunter Biden to make the sentence more concise. Some1 (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with that. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Putting the conviction in the first paragraph is giving it too much weight. It belongs towards the back of the lead. TarnishedPathtalk 05:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the "first paragraph." I'm preposing that text as the entire lead. The position is therefore towards the back. The goal was to cut it all the way to the most basic content. It is extreme editing, if more needs to be added, that's obviously fine. I believe that it would be better to be closer in length to what I'm preposing then what we have now. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was well aware you weren’t proposing the first sentence, that you were proposing the last sentence of first paragraph. I don’t agree that it should be given that much prominence. At present it’s in the last sentence of the last paragraph which seems appropriate prominence to me. Additionally I think the last and second last paragraphs should be combined and reduced as too much weight is being given too the criminal trials. The lead should summarise the main events from the body, not expand continuously to cover recent news. TarnishedPathtalk 05:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you understand, I'm preposing deleting the entire current lead, and moving content into the body, and replacing it with the four sentences in that one paragraph. The first paragraph would be the only paragraph. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 06:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GeogSage, that sounds like a major improvement. Riposte97 (talk) 06:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GeogSage while I agree a significant reduction to the lead would be a good thing, I think reducing it all down to one paragraph is too sharp a reduction. TarnishedPathtalk 07:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, most individuals BLPs could easily be condensed into a single paragraph (and probably should). Hunter, compared to other notable figures, is simply not that interesting. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. I think that one or two paragraphs would be the most needed. If you think there is more needed, what would you suggest? GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 18:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal suggested by @Some1 and then implemented by @Starship.paint is what I think is the best so far. TarnishedPathtalk 15:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, I thought the suggestion was for the lead paragraph only -- I would oppose replacing the entire introduction with just four sentences. I agree with TarnishedPath that we can remove including being convicted of three felony charges in June 2024. from the proposal. Some1 (talk) 11:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted to condense the lead section into four paragraphs: see version here. I removed a couple of sentences, combined them, etc. and don't believe I substantially changed anything in terms of content. I self-reverted to get some feedback; let me know what y'all think. Some1 (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the current placement of his relationship to Joe over having it in the first sentence, and I think we should continue to mention the pending trial. Other than that, the trimming looks good to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. A lot more balanced compared to the body and removed some of the recentism that doesn’t belong in the lead. TarnishedPathtalk 12:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a talk I started above this one that details the argument for putting his relationship to Joe in the first sentence. I used Ivanka Trump and Michelle Obama as models. It is really the main reason he is notable, and should be emphasized early on. I don't think Hunter needs a longer lead then Ivanka. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 18:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is better, but I think the last three paragraphs can be condensed into one. Look at the page for Ivanka Trump for a model of what I think it could look at. There is to much detail in the four paragraphs and most can be pushed to the body of the article. Look at the Joe Biden page, Hunter is much less notable then his father, his lead can be condensed. We could also use the page for first lady Jill Biden as a model. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 18:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Best I could do is three-paragraphs; I couldn't think of what else to trim (maybe the sentences regarding his former jobs and the car accident?) or ways to merge the first and second paragraphs (of this new version [1]) without losing too much detail or having the paragraph be too bloated. Some1 (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've incorporated the feedback given above into this 3-paragraph version of the lead section: see latest version here. As always, feedback is welcome. Some1 (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks good. Seeing the positive feedback already above regarding the previous version, I am going to boldly implement it. Hunter is controversial, yes, but he really hasn't done a ton of things to warrant a very long lead. starship.paint (RUN) 03:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is better than the version I proposed. Riposte97 (talk) 04:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead does look better. One part of the first paragraph seems to be a bit more detail then necessary, however. I believe the following sentence could be dropped and handled in the main body:
"Hunter was two years old when a car crash killed his mother and one-year-old sister, Naomi, and seriously injured both him and his older brother, Beau. In his memoir, Beautiful Things, Biden wrote of his struggles with drug and alcohol abuse, which escalated after Beau's 2015 death from brain cancer."
GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 16:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it depends -- is his struggle with drug/alcohol addiction a significant aspect of his life?
Another option could be this (further simplified) version:
------------
Robert Hunter Biden (born February 4, 1970) is an American attorney and businessman. He is the second son of U.S. President Joe Biden and his first wife, Neilia Hunter Biden. Biden was a founding board member of BHR Partners, a Chinese investment company, in 2013, and later served on the board of Burisma Holdings, one of the largest private natural gas producers in Ukraine, from 2014 until his term expired in April 2019. He has worked as a lobbyist and legal representative for lobbying firms, a hedge fund principal, and a venture capital and private equity fund investor.
Since early 2019, Hunter and his father Joe have been the targets of false allegations of corrupt activities concerning Ukraine, which intensified after the New York Post published an article in October 2020 about a laptop computer that had belonged to Hunter Biden. Biden's tax affairs have been under federal criminal investigation since late 2018, and he is scheduled to face trial for the charges in September 2024. Biden was convicted of three federal firearms-related felony charges in June 2024 after he had admitted to "illegally owning a gun while a drug user".
After losing his mother and sister at a young age, and his brother Beau to brain cancer, Biden wrote of the grief and trauma he experienced after their deaths, and his struggles with drug and alcohol abuse, in his 2021 memoir Beautiful Things.
------------
Some1 (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it would be very subjective. Is Hunter Biden noteworthy because of drug/alcohol addiction, his mothers death, and trauma? That seems like details for the body of the article, but I tend to favor shorter leads when possible. I prefer your revised version over what we currently have though.GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That looks even better than the current 4 paragraphs. TarnishedPathtalk 12:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last paragraph seems unnecessary and out of place, and could easily be redacted and covered exclusively in the body. Even though Biden's drug addiction is one of the main aspects of his notability (given the controversies that surrounded it) I would support changing the lead to the first two paragraphs. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image[edit]

Appears to be unlicensed. The Wikimedia Commons deletion page is protected, so I asked an admin for help getting it deleted. It was already flagged as a WP:COPYVIO in December 2023. Added again yesterday, removed be me, added again. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed and readded. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the image that was deleted, but the logs indicate it was deleted because its photographer, Bill Clark, is not on the list of Roll Call staff photographers. This image is credited to Tom Williams, who is on the list, thus there is no copyright violation. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe use the one of him as a kid as a compromise? JK — Iadmc♫talk  14:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
👍 ☺ Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanvector, You're right, the image removed last December was a different one. But the free use to the public in the "Image Rights and Restrictions Statements" you cited presumably only applies to the collection deeded to the Library of Congress in 2013 2011 and, within that collection, only to photographs taken by Roll Call staff photographers. See Hammersoft's comment at User_talk:Hammersoft#Copyright violation. The image removed in December was also taken in 2023, so it would also not fall under the "free use to the public" license. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC) Corrected year of deed. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This introduction explains what's part of the Congressional Quarterly & Roll Call Collection: The Congressional Quarterly & Roll Call Collection includes photos taken for both publications and donated together by the Economist Group in 2011. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you have a point. If the deletion request page on Commons is protected then you'll need to find a Commons admin, I'm not one. Or you could just tag all four files individually as copyright violations. I'll see what I can do about removing the photo here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: Another editor has already reverted the image, and I've left a message on the Talk page of Hammersoft who is an admin (don't know whether they're a Commons admin, though). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the images are already tagged for deletion at Commons and have been since April. I've posted at the Commons administrators' noticeboard to try to draw some attention to it; see c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Economist Group/CQ Roll Call copyright issue. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-Protected[edit]

Has the article been extended-protected because of the conviction sentence dispute? CosmoCreeper249 (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Navy rank[edit]

Biden was kicked out of the US Naval Academy therefore never graduated. Which means he never achieved the rank of Ensign, the rank assigned to Navy Midshipmen who actually graduate. At best, Hunter Biden reached the rank of Plebe!!! 2601:2C7:4200:2A60:FC34:CA72:C123:8606 (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have provided no sources, unlike the article which has sources stating that he was commissioned as an ensign. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What reliable sources do you have which state what you claim? We don't do original research. TarnishedPathtalk 01:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hunter_Biden&oldid=1231029242"