Misplaced Pages

Talk:Hunter Biden: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:36, 11 July 2023 editMagnolia677 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers138,769 edits RfC about including the name of Hunter Biden's daughter: Comment← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:16, 4 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,301,114 editsm Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Talk:Hunter Biden/Archive 9) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|archive_age=7|archive_bot=lowercase sigmabot III}} {{Talk header}}

{{Controversial}}
{{American politics AE |1RR=no |Consensus required=no |BRD=yes}}
{{American English}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice |topic=blp}}{{Not a forum}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|living=yes|collapsed=yes|1=
{{FAQ|collapsed=yes}}
{{WikiProject Biography|class=B|living=yes|auto=yes|listas=Biden, Hunter|activepol=no}}
{{American English}}
{{WikiProject Connecticut|class=B|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject United States|USPresidents=yes |class=B |importance=High |Delaware=y |DE-importance=High}} {{WikiProject banner shell |blp=yes |collapsed=yes |class=B |listas=Biden, Hunter |1=
{{WikiProject Law |class=B |importance=High}} {{WikiProject Biography |politician-work-group=y |politician-priority=high |auto=yes}}
{{WikiProject Business |class=B |importance=High}} {{WikiProject United States |USPresidents-importance=Mid|USPresidents=yes |importance=Mid|Delaware=y |DE-importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Joe Biden |class=B |importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Law |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Politics |class=B |importance=Top |American=yes |American-importance=Top}} {{WikiProject Business |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Top}}
| blp=yes
{{WikiProject Politics |importance=High |American=yes |American-importance=High}}
}} }}
{{Press|collapsed=yes {{Press|collapsed=yes
Line 21: Line 22:
|date=September 25, 2019 |date=September 25, 2019
|quote=The page has been viewed nearly 230,000 times in the past 30 days, more than the page for Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, or for Vice President Pence. Misplaced Pages dominates Google’s search results and helps supply the information spit out by Siri and Amazon Alexa. |quote=The page has been viewed nearly 230,000 times in the past 30 days, more than the page for Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, or for Vice President Pence. Misplaced Pages dominates Google’s search results and helps supply the information spit out by Siri and Amazon Alexa.
|author2 = Fang, Lee
|title2 = Emails Show Hunter Biden Hired Specialists to Quietly Airbrush Misplaced Pages
|date2 = August 15, 2023
|org2 = ]
|url2 = https://www.leefang.com/p/emails-show-hunter-biden-hired-specialists
|accessdate2 = August 17, 2023
|quote2 = Powerful individuals and corporations routinely tap specialized consultants to edit Misplaced Pages for more favorable entries, often through anonymous accounts designed to appear organic. Emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop show that he made continuous efforts to airbrush his image and the Misplaced Pages articles associated with his Ukrainian benefactors.
|author3 = Rondón, Emmanuel Alejandro
|title3 = Hunter Biden hired specialists to clean up his image and that of his Ukrainian associates on Misplaced Pages
|date3 = August 15, 2023
|org3 = ]
|url3 = https://voz.us/hunter-biden-hired-specialists-to-clean-up-his-image-and-that-of-his-ukrainian-associates-on-wikipedia/?lang=en
|accessdate3 = August 17, 2023
|quote3 = Independent journalist Lee Fang released a series of emails and evidence showing that Hunter Biden . . . hired specialists to quietly edit biographies on Misplaced Pages in order to launder his image and that of his Ukrainian associates.
}} }}
{{Top 25 Report|May 31 2015|Sep 22 2019|Sep 29 2019|Sep 27 2020|Oct 11 2020|Oct 18 2020|Nov 1 2020|Nov 8 2020|Jan 17 2021|Jun 9 2024|Dec 1 2024}}
{{Forum}}
{{annual readership}}
{{American politics AE|1RR=no|Consensus required=no |BRD=yes }}
{{Ds/talk notice|topic=blp}}
{{annual readership|scale=log}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(7d) | algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Hunter Biden/Archive %(counter)d | archive = Talk:Hunter Biden/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 7 | counter = 9
|maxarchivesize = 200K | maxarchivesize = 200K
|archiveheader = {{aan}} | archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 | minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadsleft = 4 | minthreadsleft = 3
}} }}
{{Top 25 Report|May 31 2015|Sep 22 2019|Sep 29 2019|Sep 27 2020|Oct 11 2020|Oct 18 2020|Nov 1 2020|Nov 8 2020|Jan 17 2021}}
{{faq|collapsed=yes}}

== Unverified comments in Misplaced Pages stories. ==

I just read the article regarding Hunter Biden and am personally incensed by the statement "Since early 2019, Hunter and his father Joe Biden have been the subjects of false and baseless claims of corrupt activities in a Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory pushed by then-U.S. President Donald Trump and his allies."

This is a totally biased and demonstrably false statement. Yes, Hunter and Joe Biden have been charged with corrupt activities, but there has been no official decision whether or not there is factual basis for those charges. In fact, there is significant evidence supporting the veracity of the charges, and only Joe Biden's denials to disprove those accusations.

I suggest you remove the obviously biased, fallacious claim that the accusations are false and baseless, and the subject is far from decided at this point. Misplaced Pages should work harder to verify the accuracy and obvious bias of statements posted on their space, especially if you continue to beg for money from people of ALL political leanings to continue your presence on social media.

BE FAIR, NOT BIASED IF YOU WANT TO SURVIVE. ] (]) 22:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

::I agree and have changed "false and baseless" to "contested." ] (]) 23:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
:::I have changed it back since these are false and baseless claims. Biden critics can say whatever they want, that doesn't mean we provide ] to them. – ] (]) 23:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
::::Asserting that they are "false and baseless claims" is decidedly NOT neutral, unbiased language. It would be equally egregious to claim that they are true. "Contested" is neutral. ] (]) 23:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::No, we report what the sources report. Do you see how many sources after that line call them "false"? "Neutral" means "neutrally reflecting the sources", not trying to hedge in between two positions, especially when they are not equal. – ] (]) 23:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

There is a vital distinction that you and others need to understand, as there are many are trying to blur the distinctions. The sentence you cite specifically references the ], which has been specifically shown to be false, years ago. More recently, there have been other allegations such as bribery and money laundering, which are now pending. See ] to see where those allegations presently stand. ] (]) 23:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

:Totally agree with this comment. What happened to the rule “neutral point of view?” Some accusations and conspiracies have been debunked. ] (]) 22:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

===Stop it===
You are both in violation of the ] procedures. Stop it immediately. (edit to add: Bookworm857158367 and Muboshgu, not the rest of you who are here to discuss) ] (]) 23:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
::I didn't revert more than twice and suggested it be discussed on the talk page. I still don't think the current wording is neutral. "Contested" might be or "What (Insert sources) stated (or a court/investigation determined) are false and baseless claims" would be neutral. ] (]) 00:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
:::did you see "false" and "falsely" in the lead of ], to which the sentence in question here refers? ] (]) 00:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
::::So just attribute it. The sentence should say who or what investigating agency determined they are false and baseless allegations. ] (]) 00:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::Attribution is unnecessary here, but go ahead if you disagree. ] (]) 00:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
::::::I do think it is necessary to say exactly where this statement is coming from.] (]) 01:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::::it's right there in footnote #4 ] (]) 01:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::I see news articles from The New York Times, USA Today, The Guardian and The New Yorker, among others, all asserting that the claims are false and baseless. Maybe I'm missing a government source. It might be more accurate to say no charges have ever been filed and no one has been convicted as a result of these allegations. ] (]) 01:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::Then again, it might be more accurate to say it was a fabricated hoax designed to smear the Bidens to win an election. ] (]) 01:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::That is certainly the way the story has been represented in these particular sources, yes. The factual statement would be that he has never been charged or convicted and investigatory reporting by The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Guardian, USA Today and others have stated the allegations are false and baseless. ] (]) 01:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Multiple reliable secondary sources have characterized the allegation as false. That's how we do things here. We don't keep a conspiracy theory alive by hinting at a possibility it could be true just because no court has shown otherwise. ] (]) 01:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Again, just attribute it. "Investigatory reporting by multiple news agencies (footnote) found the claims were false and baseless. No charges were brought and no one was convicted of any crimes related to these allegations" etc. etc. ] (]) 01:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Many reliable secondary sources say the allegation is false. I see no reason to make an extraordinary exception by qualifying that here, though I can understand why some might like to. ] (]) 02:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::See above. It's a point of contention, so a neutral and objective editor will say who has said the claims are false and baseless and why. Name the multiple secondary sources quoted by the various investigatory reports or, if that is too lengthy, say "Investigatory reporting by multiple news agencies, quoting legal experts, have determined the charges were false and baseless. (footnote citing all sources) No charges were ever brought." ] (]) 02:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::I oppose your proposal ] (]) 02:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Why is that? Attribution makes clear where the statements came from — investigatory reporters quoting various secondary sources — and gives the factual statement that no charges were ever brought. I think the primary objection above is probably that to the lay reader it makes it sound like Misplaced Pages or whoever edited the article is the one making the statement. Not everyone is going to read every source story in that footnote. Your opinion and mine do not belong there. So, in this instance, because it is a point of contention, make it crystal clear where it comes from. ] (]) 03:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::It isn't necessary. ] (]) 03:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
:::You don't get to revert more than once. Please familiarize yourself with the policies. ] (]) 03:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

== "Just the facts, please." ==

The exchange regarding this article reminds me why "old" journalistic standards need to be reinstituted. Once upon a time, young journalists were trained to write just the facts. A publishable, news-worthy piece could contain no hint of the writer/reporter's personal stance on a topic or event. Biased writing was typically considered unprofessional and would result in the article being canned (or assigned to another writer) unless it was specifically identified as an editorial piece. As an educator I used to tell my students that while they could generally rely on the news, they had to beware of the subtle wording of commercials because those were '''''Designed''' '' to sell you something. Unfortunately, right now it seems nearly everyone, even once respected news journalists, are in the business of "selling" their opinions. I know this is "just" Misplaced Pages, but I've long enjoyed searching out information here and, yes, I have even referred students to the site after warning them to use their critical thinking skills when browsing. When searching for information, we would all do well to look for articles written by authors who present the relevant facts and who realize their readers are intelligent enough to either form their own opinions or reserve judgement for another time. ] (]) 01:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
::As a onetime reporter, I agree. The reporter's opinion has no place in a story. Objectivity is paramount. If an assertion has been made, it should be attributed to a particular source. As for suggestions to improve the article, I have made them above. Attribution is necessary here. ] (]) 02:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
:Talk pages are not intended for philosophical discussions, but rather to discuss specific ways to improve articles. If you have a specific recommendation on how this article can be improved (change this, remove that) we'd certainly welcome it. ] (]) 01:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
:If Misplaced Pages editors follow policy, articles about current events should summarize what appears in mainstream news sources. News media has always been biased, it's just nostalgia to say they weren't. Walter Cronkite for example is praised for saying in 1968 that the Vietnam War was unwinnable. But for the last decade he had been reporting all the garbage the Pentagon told him, including the lie about the Tonkin incident.
:Anyway, Misplaced Pages articles are less qualified at finding the truth than journalists. This is the best we can do. ] (]) 02:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
::Some of the problem is the sources that Misplaced Pages editors deem acceptable and those they have decided should be denigrated, as well as the "narrative" that most national mainstream news agencies adopt and what they deem worthy of covering. National reporters do tend to be liberal. National editorial boards are as well. Citing news coverage by more centrist or conservative publications, such as The Wall Street Journal or The London Telegraph, as well as The Times and The Guardian, might improve the overall balance. But I do think attributing the statements so readers know where they came from would vastly improve this article. ] (]) 02:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
:::Let's take this from the obverse direction. Can you provide ''news'' sources (not WSJ opinion pieces) that you deem do not {{tq|tend to be liberal}} that contradict what our ''many'' reliable secondary sources say here, and have said for years without correction or retraction? ] (]) 03:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
::::As far as I know, they didn't report otherwise and I don't have the time or the inclination to start digging for additional articles in a paper I stopped subscribing to a while back. I do think the statement should be attributed and phrased as I wrote above, for the reasons I gave above, so that it doesn't read as though Misplaced Pages is the one saying it. ] (]) 03:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::Well, you seem to say there is an overreliance on sources that {{tq|tend to be liberal}} and posit there might be {{tq|news coverage by more centrist or conservative publications}} and I asked you to provide some but you don't seem interested in doing that. "false and baseless" is not written in wikivoice, it's just been overwhelmingly supported by reliable sources for literally years now. I have to wonder if more recent allegations of bribes and money laundering and tapes and coverup might be causing some to call into question what has been established fact for years. ] (]) 03:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::What you are suggesting (attribution and re-phrasing) is not our policy. "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Misplaced Pages's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability." "False and baseless" is uncontested. See ]. ] (]) 05:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
::"Walter Cronkite for example is praised for saying in 1968 that the Vietnam War was unwinnable. But for the last decade he had been reporting all the garbage the Pentagon told him" I thought ] was famous for his ] in support o the ], the ], the ], the ], and the ]. He was also a vocal critic of the ]. ] (]) 10:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
:"why "old" journalistic standards need to be reinstituted" They are "old" because they are outdated and worthless. The facts are meaningless without interpretations and opinions. This is also the deference between historical trivia in ]s and the suggested interpretation of events in ]s. ] (]) 10:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
::"Outdated and worthless?" No. The only place interpretations and opinions belong is on the editorial page. A journalist needs to be fair and objective and able to cover any subject without giving any hint what his or her personal opinion might be. ] (]) 11:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

== Hunter Biden arrested for "possession of controlled substance" in 1988 ==

Hello,
I would like to propose an addition to Hunter Biden's page. In 1988, Hunter Biden was arrested and charged with "possession of controlled substance." The arrest occurred in Stone Harbor, New Jersey. He was 18 at the time.

Hunter Biden's arrest is also mentioned in disclosures he made as part of his nomination to the Amtrak Reform Board. “In June 1988, I was cited for possession of a controlled substance in Stone Harbor, New Jersey. There was a pretrial intervention, and the record was expunged,” Hunter Biden acknowledged during a 2006 hearing before the Senate Committee on Science, Commerce, and Transportation on his nomination.

The information can be attributed to this 2019 news story from the Washington Examiner: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/revealed-hunter-biden-possession-of-a-controlled-substance-charge-kept-under-wraps-while-father-spearheaded-drug-war-from-senate

As a new account I cannot add the information myself, but I do believe it warrants an addition. There are other references on his page to his past drug use, as well as his discharge from thee U.S. Navy for failing a drug test. ] (]) 19:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

:Have you got a better source? We can't use the ''Washington Examiner'', per ]. ] (]) 20:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
::{{ping|GA-RT-22}} Why can't you use the ''Washington Examiner''? "No consensus on the reliability" does not mean the source cannot be used. Please explain. ] (]) 17:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
:I have a general problem in a ] of bringing up a 35 year old charge when someone was a teenager that was expunged. Expungement means any record has been completely removed; not even available to police. ] (]) 00:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
:The Washington Examiner source is not enough to establish ] at this time. {{ping|Lambland1996}} if there are more sources covering this you should provide them; in accordance with ]. If there were to be considerable RS coverage of this arrest, I don't think there would be ] issue even though he was young and the arrest was expunged because it's not a secret that Biden has had a lifelong drug problem -- it's well documented in reliable sources and he's discussed it himself. So it's not as though this would be damaging to his reputation more than what we already know, and that is what BLPCRIME is designed to prevent. ]<sup>]</sup> 02:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
::Agree, I think if better sources are available we can add it into the article. However, I do think because of the nature of expunged records, it is not very likely to have any fresh new additional reliable articles covering this topic. ] (]) 16:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
:It's already alluded to in the article: "Biden received an age-related waiver and a waiver due to a past drug-related incident." Incidents of this nature should only be mentioned to the extent they are considered significant in reliable sources.
:I appreciate the view that any arrest is significant to understanding a subject. But It's not up to editors to determine what is significant, but the body of reliable sources covering the subject. Readers are free to follow the links provided and explore any area of Hunter Biden's life that they find of interest. But a brief article cannot contain all this information and editorial judgement is required to determine what should be included. ] (]) 20:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

== Why was naming Hunter's daughter reverted? ==
{{atop|This has been fully addressed.]] 18:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)}}
Her name was several times in an article about {{redacted}} in the New York Times! The name is absolutely public! Why then was it reverted? To help Joe and Hunter to deny her existence? —] (]) 17:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
:: I will add another source which is not an op-ed. —] (]) 17:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
:::Please don't name a non-notable minor per ]. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 17:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
:::: Her name is all over the internet! Hunters very young son Beau is also named, why not Navy Joan. By the way I did not give any postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for a living person. By the way, that she was born in August 2018 was in the article before. But I see, I seems several experienced Misplaced Pages user — most probably alerted through back lists — are teaming together to scare a user away with reverting and bombarding with arguments that do not apply in order to silence him. I'm curious if this will become a text book example for such a behavior. —] (]) 17:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
::::: Give me reasons here that apply, please! —] (]) 17:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
::::::], the link I meant to share: {{tq|The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject.}} The ] is on you to show why we should include the name, which I see adding no value and potentially causing more harm to the individual. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 18:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I wonder why highest ranking members of Misplaced Pages, even administrators like you, rush to the spot because of such a non-essential change. Highly important issues seem at stake, like – who knows – maybe the presidency of the United States, or why else all that? Why is Hunter's son Beau notable but his daughter Navy Joan is not? To redact her name out here is ridiculous since one can find her name and even pictures of her by just searching for the name of her mother in one minute. Misplaced Pages is dominated by left-leaning people, that's no secret, and left leaning people tent to do everything to protect "their" president and his son.
:::::::So please, explain to me why Hunter's son Beau is notable but his daughter Navy Joan is not? – ] (]) 18:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== False allegations of corruption? ==
== Why was the discussion about naming Hunter's daughter closed? ==
Why was this discussion closed? The matter of Hunter Biden's daughter with Lunden Roberts was nowhere addressed in the discussion at SPECIFICO's talk, I could not find it. Please give me the exact lines where I can find the discussion about naming Hunter's daughter at SPECIFICO's talk page, or — to make things easier — just copy these passages here? —] (]) 19:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
:This has already been explained to you. See ]. ] (]) 20:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
:The discussion was erroneously closed and there is no compelling reason to redact the name ''on this talk page''. That being said, there is a strong argument against naming the child in the article per BLPNAME and specifically per note f. You mentioned Beau Biden, who is a) ] individual (there is even a biography on ], b) non-minor, and c) long dead, so the privacy argument would be moot. My understanding is that Navy Joan's name is mentioned in reliable sources rather rarely. It is obvious that Navy Joan is a non-notable person and it would be extremely difficult to argue the name should be mentioned in the article. ] (]) 20:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
:The ] is on you to find a reason to add a non-notable, living, minor, granddaughter to an encyclopedia. You have been asked for a rationale and have provided none. Instead, you came up with some nonsense about the "highest ranking members of Misplaced Pages". It has become really tiring to put up with conspiracy theories and attempts to attack people because of relatives. The supposed sins of the father's father should not be visited on the daughter or vice-versa. Leave her alone. (And, I think it should also be redacted here.) ] (]) 21:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
::Both Beau and little Navy Joan are "significant family members", see ]. Navy Joan has received significant media coverage. Moreover, when Karine Jean-Pierre needs to field questions about her at a press conference, she's hardly a "loosely involved, otherwise low-profile person". ] (]) 21:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
:::I really don't care where the name is or isn't mentioned, if it is already being name-dropped in the Biden family tree, then I don't see a strong argument to exclude it here. But to say that a 5 year-old has received "significant media coverage" is a bit absurd. What coverage that exists is a just mention of the child's name in the context of her parentage, that is all. ] (]) 21:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


I don't believe it is the place of what is supposed to be an objective news source to claim that these allegations are false. Unproven at this moment perhaps, however the pardon alone strongly suggests that there is SOMETHING to the allegations. There would be no other reason to extend the pardon all the way back ro January 2014. I was asked to donate money which I would very much like to do but I cannot donate money to a source that clearly has an agenda such as Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 14:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)


:Well, the phrase "false allegations of corruption" in the introduction to this article includes a link to an article titled "Biden-Ukraine Conspiracy Theory," which appears to show that there have indeed been such false allegations. And it's not the place of an encyclopedia article to speculate on the reasons for the period covered by the pardon. If someone finds reliable sources that discuss the possible reasons, they can be added here. ] (]) 19:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:The BLP policy is clear. There is no reason to add her name to the article. ] (]) 01:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
:I think it would be fair to just say "allegations" without any modifier that could be construed as partisan ] (]) 23:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::No, it would be ] to suggest that the arguments that he did engage in malfeasance have validity. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 00:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::"False" implies some sort of verification. Something like "unproven" would at least provide a more neutral interpretation by the encyclopedia in the event that there ever is some sort of decisive outcome. ] (]) 03:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:"False" is correct, but it should be more specific to the claim of Burisma's investigation and Biden's efforts to fire Shokin, especially since that is what that linked article actually focuses on and that is actually objectively false according to RS. Beyond that, Biden played off his last name and his relation to the then-vice president to rake in a lot of money. Colloquially, if not statutorily, getting hired to a foreign energy company to use your last name to influence your politically powerful parent might be something a reasonable person would call "corrupt" to some extent. Ex: on Hunter arranging a meeting between a Burisma exec and VP Biden, among other foreign dealings: {{tq|“Even though this administration isn’t corrupt on the same level as the previous administration, which seemed to embrace the corruption,” said Kathleen Clark, a law professor and government ethics expert at Washington University in St. Louis, “the public has reason to be concerned."}} ] (]) 05:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::We should stay away from using loaded terms like "corrupt" as to a lot of people that entails illegal behavoiur such as government/law enforcement officials take bribes in exchange for looking the other way. '']''<sup>]</sup> 06:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Yeah, specificity should be the remedy here, I made an edit in that sense. ] (]) 06:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Good edit. '']''<sup>]</sup> 08:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::Also care should be taken about claims that Hunter Biden was "hired to a foreign energy company to use last name to influence politically powerful parent" unless it has been shown that this is what happened. (And in describing an American person, the correct phrasing is "hired by" not "hired to".) ] (]) 20:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)


== "Contrary to the statement"? ==
:BLPNAME is quite clear: her name should '''''not''''' be mentioned in this article. Her actual name is not relevant to an understanding of what matter for Hunter here; also, special care should be taken since she is a non-notable child who is involved in something relatively contentious. However, her existence, her mother, and relevant legal proceedings around her can be included if ] for Hunter Biden's biography -- as it is now. ]<sup>]</sup> 03:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
::Please explain to me why Hunter Biden's son Beau (born in March 2020, not his brother) is notable and mentioned by name in the article ] but his daughter Navy Joan (born in August 2018) is not? I tried to insert the name into both articles and the name Navy Joan was deleted in both articles but the name of his son Beau was not. You are clearly establishing a double standard here. All this fuss about the name his daughter Navy Joan but no problem with the name of his son.


Currently the subsection on President Biden's pardon refers to claims made in the White House statement in which the president announced and explained the decision to issue the pardon: the president argued there that the prosecution was selective and specifically that the collapse of a plea deal was politically biased. Then the subsection goes on, "Contrary to the statement," and (1) notes that it was the judge who rejected the plea deal and (2) quotes that Special Counsel David Weiss as rejecting the claim of selective prosecution.
::The name of his 3-year-old son which is in the article ] since the article was created is not a problem but the name of his 4-year-old daughter causes high ranking Misplaced Pages members to immediately intervene. There is one clear reason for this double standard: Joe and Hunter try to deny her existence ("six grandchildren") and left-leaning Misplaced Pages members here do everything to support this denial. Or why else is there such a double standard? —] (]) 15:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
:::The is a violation of ] and ], as well as being absurd. I suggest that you strike it. ] (]) 15:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
:::: You have an interesting profile, Objective3000: You claim to be retired on Misplaced Pages but you still engage and you do so only on talk pages to fight for the left wing causes, see here: . —] (]) 17:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


The first point probably is true enough for this article, although rather superficial.
== RfC about including the name of Hunter Biden's daughter ==


The second point runs into a tricky and possibly novel issue: the official position of the executive branch of the U.S. government, of which David Weiss is currently an employee, as he was when he denied the claims of selective prosecution, now is that the prosecution was indeed selective. Weiss's (boss's) boss, the president, has said that Weiss is wrong. This article could just as easily cite Weiss's claims and say, "Contrary to Weiss's statements, President Biden has written that the prosecution was indeed selective." Who makes the call that the special counsel is correct and the president is incorrect, or vice versa? ] (]) 19:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
<!-- ] 17:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1692118887}}
{{rfc|bio|pol|policy|rfcid=EED3930}}
Should the name of Hunter Biden's daughter be mentioned in the article? ] (]) 16:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


:To elaborate on the possible difficulties with the first point as currently written: with citation to Devlin Barrett at the New York Times, it says that "the plea deal had fallen apart due to the presiding judge questioning its unusual construction, which violated a basic tenet of federal guilty pleas against having side deals in the plea agreement."
* '''Support''' - Biden's daughter, Navy Joan, meets the criteria of a ]. Her name, and details about her, have been published in "a multitude of reliable published sources". As well, ] does not apply because Navy Joan's name has appeared in multiple, unrelated news events:
:But that's not what is said earlier in the article, in the two paragraphs on the plea deal and its collapse in the long introduction to the "Investigations and federal indictments" section (of which the "Pardon of criminal offenses" subsection is the last part). There it says that the deal fell apart because Hunter Biden and his attorneys believed the agreement would result in the investigation being closed while prosecutors said there was an "ongoing" investigation into possible FARA violations and adds that the judge, expressing "concerns over immunity Biden might receive from future charges," gave the parties thirty days to resolve their differences.
:* mentioned her name in Hunter's child support case last month.
:These explanations given in two different parts of the article should be made to comport with each other.
:* mentioned her name in a report about White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre fielding questions from reporters about why Joe Biden will not acknowledge Navy Joan as his granddaughter. ] (]) 16:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
:In addition, neither explanation really explains why the deal fell apart -- possibly there has been no reliable reporting about that -- nor conclusively undermines the president's claim that the deal fell apart for political reasons. Why did both parties go into court believing different things about the deal. Had one or both sides mispresented their positions to the other? Why were prosecutors willing to forgo a plea deal in order to pursue a FARA investigation that never resulted in any charges? The separate article titled "Weiss special counsel investigation," which is linked from this article, notes that a former FBI informant named Alexander Smirnov had been peddling false claims about Hunter Biden and his family taking bribes to help the Ukrainian company Burisma and that Smirnov's false claims had also "played a key role" in Congressional investigations of the president and his son. Smirnov was later indicted for this. Did his claims underlie the FARA investigation that prosecutors were pursuing? Were they pursuing it because of pressure from members of Congress similarly influenced by his false allegations? Should Smirnov at least be mentioned in this article?
*'''Weak Support''' - (summoned by bot) Generally feel that we should be cautious about naming minors in situations like this. That said, ] probably applies. ] (]) 17:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
:Finally, the paragraphs about the plea deal explains that FARA "requires that anyone who acts on the behalf of a foreign government, e.g. China or Ukraine, must register with the Department of Justice and file regular reports on their activities for that government."
*'''Oppose''' The DUE coverage is that he has a young child out of wedlock, not that their name is XYZ. I don't think this child is a public figure; even Forbes only mentions her name once and otherwise calls her "the child," reflecting that people don't know who she is. I'm not a fan of falling prey to tabloid level coverage of all the sordid details of Hunter's transgressions. ] <sup>]</sup>] 17:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
:Why are China and Ukraine specifically mentioned there? Did prosecutors identify those countries or is that a Misplaced Pages editor's speculation? There are two sources cited at the end of that section. One quotes a paragraph from a "Wall Street Journal" article published shortly after the hearing. It specifically mentions FARA, but no specific countries are named in that paragraph. The other links to an article in "The Hill" from before the hearing. That one doesn't mention FARA or any specific countries, although it refers to "bribery allegations" made by a member of Congress who also mentioned the Biden family's supposed "schemes."
::{{ping|CaptainEek}} First, the coverage of Navy Joan originates from two distinct news items; this was mentioned in my example above. You write, "I don't think this child is a public figure". Could you explain why you think that, with regard to specific policy? Second, you write, "I'm not a fan of falling prey to tabloid level coverage". ''Forbes'' is considered a generally reliable source, per ]. Could you explain why you feel ''Forbes'' is a "tabloid"? ] (]) 18:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
:If there is to be a specific country mentioned there, should it instead be Romania? As noted at the end of the introduction to the "Investigations and federal indictments" section, while Hunter Biden was never charged for violating FARA, prosecutors in August of this year did seek permission to allege in his tax trial -- nominally to demonstrate that he was aware of how much money he made -- that he "agreed to lobby on behalf of a Romanian businessman seeking to 'influence U.S. government agencies' while his father was vice president." ] (]) 20:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Weak Support''' As others have said, even though she is a minor, she has received enough coverage in reliable sources to warrant a mention. Such as , , and . I'm a bit conflicted because she is ''really'' young, but I feel she is notable enough. <span style="background-color:black; color:white; padding: 3px;] (])</span> 17:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
:The president makes a claim, but it is reported as being false. ] requires mentioning that it is false rather than presenting it unchallenged. "Contrary to" is for the first sentence, which mentions the reality of how the case fell apart, contrary to the false claim made by the president. Weiss is listed as a specific person who objected to the president's claims in general as well, it is attributed to him, and the call is left to the reader as to whether to trust the president or Weiss.
:*The question asked here is the '''wrong question''', the the much more fundamental question is if a double standard should used or not, see the RfC below. I plead for not using a double standard! —] (]) 17:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
:The article's mention of {{tq| On July 26, the plea deal was rejected by the presiding judge, who cited concerns over immunity Biden might receive from future charges}} is the questioning from the judge. The immunity is the unusual side deal. ] (]) 05:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', per CaptainEek. --] (]) 18:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
::Thanks, but I'm still left wondering why this can't be seen from the opposite perspective. To adopt the model in your phrasing, the counterargument might be "The special counsel makes a claim, but that claim is disputed by the president." In other words, it could be that the special counsel not the president is he one making the false claim. Also, I would quibble slightly with your statement here that Misplaced Pages guidelines on neutral points of view require about the president's statement that this article "mention that it is false"; rather the guidelines require "mentioning that it has been claimed by someone else to be false." ] (]) 20:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - This is a very young child who is to blame for nothing. What does her name add to this encyclopedia article other than to tell the world the circumstances of her birth? As if bullying isn't enough of a problem in schools. ] (]) 18:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' – So far I have not seen a citation to a reliable source for this. If someone wants to provide one I would look at it. ] (]) 18:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
::{{ping|GA-RT-22}} I provided two reliable sources, and ] provided three. Which of these do you consider unreliable? ] (]) 18:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


== RfC on using a double standard on Hunter Biden's young children == == Add context to date of Biden pardon ==


I propose to add some context to Biden's pardon dates.
<!-- ] 18:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1692122472}}
{{rfc|bio|pol|policy|rfcid=42EEFC0}}
Should a double standard on mentioning Hunter Biden's two young children, Beau and Navy Joan, be avoided? —] (]) 17:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


On December 1, 2024, President Biden issued a full and unconditional pardon for his son. The pardon covered all federal offenses committed between January 1, 2014, '''the year when Hunter Biden joined the board of Burisma Holdings''', and December 1, 2024 and included his tax charges, gun charges, and any other potential charges within that time. ] (]) 15:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Malformed RfC'''. The RfC question is non-neutral, and assumes a preferred outcome. --] (]) 18:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


:1) do you have a source which specifically connect the pardon starting January 1, 2014 to the year he joined the board of Burisma.
:*Improper RfC. It declares that there is a double standard and is therefore not neutral. ] (]) 18:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
:2) I don't think it's due for the lead anyway. '']''<sup>]</sup> 00:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::* The question above is also improper, that's the problem! I asked this question here to make clear that both questions are improper. Read the discussion above! Using different standards for two very young children, in light of the question that the existence of one of them is denied by the president ("six grandchildren") and his son, is the problem. This question is more fundamental than a question that can be solved just by opinion, in the same way as the question if bias is okay or not is not just a question of opinion. —] (]) 18:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
::* Denying the name of a person is an attack on the core of the existence of this person like ] a transperson. ] (]) 18:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC) ::] lists Hunter's starting date as April 2014 so surely one of the cited sources for that contains the date. But I also agree that this kind of aside is inappropriate for the lede. ] (]) 04:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Even if it was DUE, and we both agree it isn't, per ] we can't combine sources in that way in order to arrive at statements that neither of them say by themselves. '']''<sup>]</sup> 04:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:Even if a source mentions both, the phrasing is synthesis because it implies a connection between the two. You would have to add a second sentence that says someone noted that the pardon date back to Hunter's appointment to Burisma. However, there is no reason it should not be in the lead, because Hunter's notability is based on his alleged criminal and unconventional behavior. ] (]) 21:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::Hunter was notable prior to the criminal stuff. '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::: a link to his article before 1 January 2014, before the period under which he has been pardoned. He lacked notability and the article would have been a good candidate for deletion. Being the son of a VP does not establish notability. ] (]) 03:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Your comment above presumes that the start of Hunter's "alleged criminal and unconventional behavior" was 1 January 2014. A read of the article indicates that their legal troubles started in 2020 and any allegations in relation with ] are at this point unhinged conspiracy theory as the article ] makes clear. '']''<sup>]</sup> 04:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::See a BBC article about Hunter Biden's pardon: "That spans a period beyond Hunter Biden's tax and gun offences and dates back to the year he joined the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, while his father, then US vice-president, had a key role in US policy towards Kyiv."
:::::The "unhinged conspricy theory" btw was about Joe Biden, not Hunter. It claimed that Biden forced the resignation in order to protect Hunter, which is untrue, because the prosecutor was not investigating him.
::::: a link to Hunter Biden's article at the end of 2018: the main issues are the controversy around his role in Burisma and his drug use. Without those, he would have no notability.
:::::Take the controversy out of the article and there's nothing left. That does not mean of course that any of the allegations are true. ] (]) 21:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I agree that the 2018 version is indicative of what he is notable for, however my point above was at that stage we was not facing any criminal charges, therefore his notability isn't in relation to criminal charges. The issuing of a pardon going back to 2014 is not indicative that there was any criminal conduct at Barisma, it could easily be a pre-emptive strategy to make any mud-raking pointless. '']''<sup>]</sup> 08:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Exactly. This is context that should be provided for that date ] (]) 11:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:16, 4 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hunter Biden article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information
Enforcement procedures:
  • Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
  • Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Hunter Biden. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Hunter Biden at the Reference desk.
? view · edit Frequently asked questions
Q: Why does this article characterize the allegations of corruption vis a vis Ukraine as "false"?
A: Please see the article Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory and the discussion at its talk page.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconBiography: Politics and Government
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconUnited States: Delaware / Presidents Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Delaware (assessed as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconLaw High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBusiness High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics: American High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance).
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 11 times. The weeks in which this happened:

False allegations of corruption?

I don't believe it is the place of what is supposed to be an objective news source to claim that these allegations are false. Unproven at this moment perhaps, however the pardon alone strongly suggests that there is SOMETHING to the allegations. There would be no other reason to extend the pardon all the way back ro January 2014. I was asked to donate money which I would very much like to do but I cannot donate money to a source that clearly has an agenda such as Misplaced Pages. 2601:18C:8B00:27F0:EB9B:F11B:A6F0:D56A (talk) 14:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, the phrase "false allegations of corruption" in the introduction to this article includes a link to an article titled "Biden-Ukraine Conspiracy Theory," which appears to show that there have indeed been such false allegations. And it's not the place of an encyclopedia article to speculate on the reasons for the period covered by the pardon. If someone finds reliable sources that discuss the possible reasons, they can be added here. NME Frigate (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
I think it would be fair to just say "allegations" without any modifier that could be construed as partisan 71.210.42.253 (talk) 23:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
No, it would be WP:FALSEBALANCE to suggest that the arguments that he did engage in malfeasance have validity. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
"False" implies some sort of verification. Something like "unproven" would at least provide a more neutral interpretation by the encyclopedia in the event that there ever is some sort of decisive outcome. 71.210.42.253 (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
"False" is correct, but it should be more specific to the claim of Burisma's investigation and Biden's efforts to fire Shokin, especially since that is what that linked article actually focuses on and that is actually objectively false according to RS. Beyond that, Biden played off his last name and his relation to the then-vice president to rake in a lot of money. Colloquially, if not statutorily, getting hired to a foreign energy company to use your last name to influence your politically powerful parent might be something a reasonable person would call "corrupt" to some extent. Ex: Politico on Hunter arranging a meeting between a Burisma exec and VP Biden, among other foreign dealings: “Even though this administration isn’t corrupt on the same level as the previous administration, which seemed to embrace the corruption,” said Kathleen Clark, a law professor and government ethics expert at Washington University in St. Louis, “the public has reason to be concerned." KiharaNoukan (talk) 05:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
We should stay away from using loaded terms like "corrupt" as to a lot of people that entails illegal behavoiur such as government/law enforcement officials take bribes in exchange for looking the other way. TarnishedPath 06:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, specificity should be the remedy here, I made an edit in that sense. KiharaNoukan (talk) 06:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Good edit. TarnishedPath 08:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Also care should be taken about claims that Hunter Biden was "hired to a foreign energy company to use last name to influence politically powerful parent" unless it has been shown that this is what happened. (And in describing an American person, the correct phrasing is "hired by" not "hired to".) NME Frigate (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

"Contrary to the statement"?

Currently the subsection on President Biden's pardon refers to claims made in the White House statement in which the president announced and explained the decision to issue the pardon: the president argued there that the prosecution was selective and specifically that the collapse of a plea deal was politically biased. Then the subsection goes on, "Contrary to the statement," and (1) notes that it was the judge who rejected the plea deal and (2) quotes that Special Counsel David Weiss as rejecting the claim of selective prosecution.

The first point probably is true enough for this article, although rather superficial.

The second point runs into a tricky and possibly novel issue: the official position of the executive branch of the U.S. government, of which David Weiss is currently an employee, as he was when he denied the claims of selective prosecution, now is that the prosecution was indeed selective. Weiss's (boss's) boss, the president, has said that Weiss is wrong. This article could just as easily cite Weiss's claims and say, "Contrary to Weiss's statements, President Biden has written that the prosecution was indeed selective." Who makes the call that the special counsel is correct and the president is incorrect, or vice versa? NME Frigate (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

To elaborate on the possible difficulties with the first point as currently written: with citation to Devlin Barrett at the New York Times, it says that "the plea deal had fallen apart due to the presiding judge questioning its unusual construction, which violated a basic tenet of federal guilty pleas against having side deals in the plea agreement."
But that's not what is said earlier in the article, in the two paragraphs on the plea deal and its collapse in the long introduction to the "Investigations and federal indictments" section (of which the "Pardon of criminal offenses" subsection is the last part). There it says that the deal fell apart because Hunter Biden and his attorneys believed the agreement would result in the investigation being closed while prosecutors said there was an "ongoing" investigation into possible FARA violations and adds that the judge, expressing "concerns over immunity Biden might receive from future charges," gave the parties thirty days to resolve their differences.
These explanations given in two different parts of the article should be made to comport with each other.
In addition, neither explanation really explains why the deal fell apart -- possibly there has been no reliable reporting about that -- nor conclusively undermines the president's claim that the deal fell apart for political reasons. Why did both parties go into court believing different things about the deal. Had one or both sides mispresented their positions to the other? Why were prosecutors willing to forgo a plea deal in order to pursue a FARA investigation that never resulted in any charges? The separate article titled "Weiss special counsel investigation," which is linked from this article, notes that a former FBI informant named Alexander Smirnov had been peddling false claims about Hunter Biden and his family taking bribes to help the Ukrainian company Burisma and that Smirnov's false claims had also "played a key role" in Congressional investigations of the president and his son. Smirnov was later indicted for this. Did his claims underlie the FARA investigation that prosecutors were pursuing? Were they pursuing it because of pressure from members of Congress similarly influenced by his false allegations? Should Smirnov at least be mentioned in this article?
Finally, the paragraphs about the plea deal explains that FARA "requires that anyone who acts on the behalf of a foreign government, e.g. China or Ukraine, must register with the Department of Justice and file regular reports on their activities for that government."
Why are China and Ukraine specifically mentioned there? Did prosecutors identify those countries or is that a Misplaced Pages editor's speculation? There are two sources cited at the end of that section. One quotes a paragraph from a "Wall Street Journal" article published shortly after the hearing. It specifically mentions FARA, but no specific countries are named in that paragraph. The other links to an article in "The Hill" from before the hearing. That one doesn't mention FARA or any specific countries, although it refers to "bribery allegations" made by a member of Congress who also mentioned the Biden family's supposed "schemes."
If there is to be a specific country mentioned there, should it instead be Romania? As noted at the end of the introduction to the "Investigations and federal indictments" section, while Hunter Biden was never charged for violating FARA, prosecutors in August of this year did seek permission to allege in his tax trial -- nominally to demonstrate that he was aware of how much money he made -- that he "agreed to lobby on behalf of a Romanian businessman seeking to 'influence U.S. government agencies' while his father was vice president." NME Frigate (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
The president makes a claim, but it is reported as being false. WP:NPOV requires mentioning that it is false rather than presenting it unchallenged. "Contrary to" is for the first sentence, which mentions the reality of how the case fell apart, contrary to the false claim made by the president. Weiss is listed as a specific person who objected to the president's claims in general as well, it is attributed to him, and the call is left to the reader as to whether to trust the president or Weiss.
The article's mention of On July 26, the plea deal was rejected by the presiding judge, who cited concerns over immunity Biden might receive from future charges is the questioning from the judge. The immunity is the unusual side deal. KiharaNoukan (talk) 05:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'm still left wondering why this can't be seen from the opposite perspective. To adopt the model in your phrasing, the counterargument might be "The special counsel makes a claim, but that claim is disputed by the president." In other words, it could be that the special counsel not the president is he one making the false claim. Also, I would quibble slightly with your statement here that Misplaced Pages guidelines on neutral points of view require about the president's statement that this article "mention that it is false"; rather the guidelines require "mentioning that it has been claimed by someone else to be false." NME Frigate (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Add context to date of Biden pardon

I propose to add some context to Biden's pardon dates.

On December 1, 2024, President Biden issued a full and unconditional pardon for his son. The pardon covered all federal offenses committed between January 1, 2014, the year when Hunter Biden joined the board of Burisma Holdings, and December 1, 2024 and included his tax charges, gun charges, and any other potential charges within that time. Отец Никифор (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

1) do you have a source which specifically connect the pardon starting January 1, 2014 to the year he joined the board of Burisma.
2) I don't think it's due for the lead anyway. TarnishedPath 00:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
The first sentence of the section about Burisma Holdings lists Hunter's starting date as April 2014 so surely one of the cited sources for that contains the date. But I also agree that this kind of aside is inappropriate for the lede. Big Thumpus (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Even if it was DUE, and we both agree it isn't, per WP:SYNTH we can't combine sources in that way in order to arrive at statements that neither of them say by themselves. TarnishedPath 04:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Even if a source mentions both, the phrasing is synthesis because it implies a connection between the two. You would have to add a second sentence that says someone noted that the pardon date back to Hunter's appointment to Burisma. However, there is no reason it should not be in the lead, because Hunter's notability is based on his alleged criminal and unconventional behavior. TFD (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Hunter was notable prior to the criminal stuff. TarnishedPath 01:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Here's a link to his article before 1 January 2014, before the period under which he has been pardoned. He lacked notability and the article would have been a good candidate for deletion. Being the son of a VP does not establish notability. TFD (talk) 03:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Your comment above presumes that the start of Hunter's "alleged criminal and unconventional behavior" was 1 January 2014. A read of the article indicates that their legal troubles started in 2020 and any allegations in relation with Burisma Holdings are at this point unhinged conspiracy theory as the article Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory makes clear. TarnishedPath 04:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
See a BBC article about Hunter Biden's pardon: "That spans a period beyond Hunter Biden's tax and gun offences and dates back to the year he joined the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, while his father, then US vice-president, had a key role in US policy towards Kyiv."
The "unhinged conspricy theory" btw was about Joe Biden, not Hunter. It claimed that Biden forced the resignation in order to protect Hunter, which is untrue, because the prosecutor was not investigating him.
Here's a link to Hunter Biden's article at the end of 2018: the main issues are the controversy around his role in Burisma and his drug use. Without those, he would have no notability.
Take the controversy out of the article and there's nothing left. That does not mean of course that any of the allegations are true. TFD (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree that the 2018 version is indicative of what he is notable for, however my point above was at that stage we was not facing any criminal charges, therefore his notability isn't in relation to criminal charges. The issuing of a pardon going back to 2014 is not indicative that there was any criminal conduct at Barisma, it could easily be a pre-emptive strategy to make any mud-raking pointless. TarnishedPath 08:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Exactly. This is context that should be provided for that date Отец Никифор (talk) 11:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: