Talk:Hunter Biden

Unverified comments in Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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. Lennypooh (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree and have changed "false and baseless" to "contested." Bookworm857158367 (talk) 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 WP:FALSEBALANCE to them. – Muboshgu (talk) 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. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 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 Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, 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 Comer investigation of Biden family to see where those allegations presently stand. soibangla (talk) 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. 2600:1700:EE10:57F0:8572:149D:EC12:1B95 (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Disclosures today in the US House of Representatives Oversight Committee make it clear that claims of Hunter Biden being paid to have his father pressure the Ukraine to fire prosecutor Shokin are anything but "debunked". "On Nov. 2, 2015, Burisma executive Vadym Pozharskyi emailed Hunter Biden ... emphasizing in his email that the "ultimate purpose" of the agreement with Blue Star Strategies was to shut down "any cases/pursuits against Nikolay in Ukraine," referring to Zlochevsky, who also went by Nikolay. Hunter Biden responded to Pozharskyi, saying he wanted to "have one last conversation" with Blue Star, but later said he was "comfortable" with Blue Star. "You should go ahead and sign," he wrote on Nov. 5, 2015. "Looking forward to getting started on this". https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republicans-erupt-2015-email-exposing-ultimate-purpose-hunters-involvement-burisma Tvaughan1 (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The only thing your post shows is why we do not use Fox News as a reliable source in the Wikipedia. That spin is laughably fraudulent. Zaathras (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Ahh... the old WP:RS trick. Of course. Claiming that obviously true information (which clearly shows that this article, as written, is biased) is fraudulent is WP:GAME. The facts disclosed by the congressional committee today are part of a public record. The claim that "Hunter and his father Joe Biden have been the subjects of false and baseless claims of corrupt activities" is clearly not a WP:NPOV statement, given what we know now. The article should refer to the corruption accusations as accusations, and not claim to know the ultimate outcome of an evolving situation / ongoing congressional investigation. Tvaughan1 (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

One, a guiding principle of how Wikipedia articles are sourced is not a "trick", sir. Two, the allegations of corruption are indeed conspiracy theories, as supported but reliable sources. Finally, considering that Rep. Comer's start witness has been charged as a Chinese spy, I'm not sure the word fact" and the words" "congressional committee" should appear together in the same sentence. Zaathras (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

This article states that "claims of corrupt activities" are "false and baseless". Effectively, this statement says that Hunter Biden is innocent. It is logically backward and obviously biased to say that Hunter Biden is innocent of any claims of corrupt activities. There is a strong basis for such claims, including Hunter and his associate both being paid $1 million/year for multiple years, and the fact that Joe Biden delivered exactly the result that Vadym Pozharskyi explicitly asked for. There are multiple ongoing investigations. I'm not suggesting an edit that suggests that Hunter is guilty of such claims. But the words "false and baseless" are a quite clearly bridge too far when it comes to reaching conclusions about such claims.Tvaughan1 (talk) 00:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

There are no ongoing investigations, just a feeble ambulance-chase by a partisan Congressman. I believe we're done. Zaathras (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

It is clear from your ad hominem response that you don't have a WP:NPOV. The US Attorney in Delaware, the IRS, the FBI and the House Oversight Committee are all investigating this matter, and none of these agencies have concluded their investigation.Tvaughan1 (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The only one of those we are sure is investigating this is the Comer committee soibangla (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Gone in 60 seconds: At FBI director hearing, Republican conspiracies about Biden go 'POOF!'. Zaathras (talk) 00:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Folks are innocent until proved guilty. And millions have been spent trying to find some reason to convict Hunter Biden for some felony attached to his father. And please, never say things like There is a strong basis for such claims. That is far out of our purview. This is an encyclopedia. If you wish to repeat conspiracy theories; please find an appropriate forum. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

This article states that "claims of corrupt activities" are "false and baseless". So apparently it is somehow within our purview to prove the unprovable and state it as fact, but not within our purview to determine whether or not "false and baseless" is a contested assertion.Tvaughan1 (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

We don't say that, reliable sources do soibangla (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

All this is predicated on a Fox News exclusive from hours ago in which they assert to have found and authenticated new emails from the laptop that no one had previously spotted after three years of intensive inspection. Maybe it's true, but we need to slow down and wait for reliable sources. Until then, the status quo prevails. soibangla (talk) 00:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Damn, I never realized that using reliable sources is a "trick". Would someone fold this conspiracy nonsense from a source that has admitted lying? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:GAME "Editors typically game the system to make a point, to further an edit war, or to enforce a specific non-neutral point of view". Claiming that obvious, verifiable facts (including the record of a US Congressional Committee) don't exist because you the sources reporting these plainly true facts don't make the cut in WP:RS is a game that violates the mission and purpose of Wikipedia. WP:NPOV "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." That is clearly what the phrase "false and baseless" is doing in this article. That is an opinion masquerading as a fact. Tvaughan1 (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

We use reliable secondary sources. It would be ridiculous to use the record of a US Congressional Committee, which you state are obvious, verifiable facts. The witnesses are hand selected by the party in power and are under oath while the interrogators are not under oath and allowed to lie all they wish (and do so to the extreme). It's really quite funny watching the two parties go after each other - until you get sick of the circus. I just watched a recording of the salient discussion in the McCarthy hearings. They're worse now. If you have a problem with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you are on the wrong page and insulting editors will never bring consensus, the purpose of talk pages. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Stop it

You are both in violation of the Wikipedia:Contentious topics procedures. Stop it immediately. (edit to add: Bookworm857158367 and Muboshgu, not the rest of you who are here to discuss) GA-RT-22 (talk) 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. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

did you see "false" and "falsely" in the lead of Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, to which the sentence in question here refers? soibangla (talk) 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. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Attribution is unnecessary here, but go ahead if you disagree. [1] soibangla (talk) 00:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I do think it is necessary to say exactly where this statement is coming from.Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

it's right there in footnote #4 soibangla (talk) 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. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 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. soibangla (talk) 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. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 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. soibangla (talk) 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. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 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. soibangla (talk) 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." Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I oppose your proposal soibangla (talk) 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 Wikipedia 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. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

It isn't necessary. Zaathras (talk) 03:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

This is not Wikipedia policy. The current text is supported by reliable sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

You don't get to revert more than once. Please familiarize yourself with the policies. GA-RT-22 (talk) 03:27, 3 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. Lambland1996 (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Have you got a better source? We can't use the Washington Examiner, per WP:RSP. GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@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. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I have a general problem in a WP:BLP 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. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The Washington Examiner source is not enough to establish weight at this time. @Lambland1996: if there are more sources covering this you should provide them; in accordance with WP:ONUS. If there were to be considerable RS coverage of this arrest, I don't think there would be WP:BLPCRIME 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. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 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. MaximusEditor (talk) 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. TFD (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Why was naming Hunter's daughter reverted?

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.

---

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? —Menischt (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I will add another source which is not an op-ed. —Menischt (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Please don't name a non-notable minor per WP:BLPPRIVACY. – Muboshgu (talk) 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 Wikipedia 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. —Menischt (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Give me reasons here that apply, please! —Menischt (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME, the link I meant to share: 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 WP:ONUS 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I wonder why highest ranking members of Wikipedia, 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. Wikipedia 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? – Menischt (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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? —Menischt (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

This has already been explained to you. See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. GA-RT-22 (talk) 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. My understanding is that the daughter's name is mentioned in reliable sources rather rarely. It is obvious that the daughter is a non-notable person and it would be extremely difficult to argue the name should be mentioned in the article. Politrukki (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC) edited 13:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS 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 Wikipedia". 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.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Both Beau and little Navy Joan are "significant family members", see Family of Joe Biden#Grandchildren. 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". Magnolia677 (talk) 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. Zaathras (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The BLP policy is clear. There is no reason to add her name to the article. TFD (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

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 due for Hunter Biden's biography -- as it is now. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 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 Melissa Cohen Biden 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.

The name of his 3-year-old son which is in the article Melissa Cohen Biden since the article was created is not a problem but the name of his 4-year-old daughter causes high ranking Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia members here do everything to support this denial. Or why else is there such a double standard? —Menischt (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The is a violation of WP:AGF and WP:PA, as well as being absurd. I suggest that you strike it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

You have an interesting profile, Objective3000: You claim to be retired on Wikipedia but you still engage and you do so only on talk pages to fight for the left wing causes, see here: [2]. —Menischt (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Menischt, focus on content, not on contributors. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe Beau's name should be mentioned either for the same reasons. It's not important or relevant. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 20:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Menischt: I would like to add that you have my intentions wrong. I'm not a left-wing POV pusher, trying to create a double standard, or trying to protect the Biden's. I'm trying to shield a small child's name from being plastered on the internet for the whole world to see because of the circumstances of her life that she can not help at all. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 20:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The horse has bolted. Having her name on Wiki makes absolutely zero substantive difference when her name appears in media reporting at the level it already is.

Whatever privacy this person once has is no longer there to protect. We shouldn’t be censoring for the sake of pedantic rule-keeling when there isn’t any actual human benefit to the censorship Jack4576 (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Let's see if we get it. First editors post a child's identity in response to a policy-based effort not to publish it. Then it is repeated many times, and then you compare her to a 4-legged beast? Please stop. This thread is ripe to close and archive. SPECIFICO talk 14:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: "Close the stable door after the horse has bolted" is an English idiom which means that is is difficult to stop something that has already happened. Let's cut some slack, idioms like this are a dime a dozen. Hang in there. It's raining cats and dogs. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

No. See WP:BLP. The relevant weather reference would be [{WP:SNOW]]. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

RfC about including the name of Hunter Biden's daughter

Should the name of Hunter Biden's daughter be mentioned in the article? Magnolia677 (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support - Biden's daughter, Navy Joan, meets the criteria of a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Her name, and details about her, have been published in "a multitude of reliable published sources". As well, WP:BLPNAME does not apply because Navy Joan's name has appeared in multiple, unrelated news events:

Forbes mentioned her name in Hunter's child support case last month.

The Toronto Sun 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.

Magnolia677 (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

That is not what the bit you cited in WP:PUBLICFIGURE means; the bit you quoted is covering accusations against public figures, not about what defines whether someone is a public figure or not. The definition of a public figure vs. a low-profile one is in WP:LOWPROFILE. --Aquillion (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Aquillion: You have misinterpreted the policy, and shoving your comment right to the top of the discussion is not appropriate. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Weak Support - (summoned by bot) Generally feel that we should be cautious about naming minors in situations like this. That said, WP:WELLKNOWN probably applies. NickCT (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• 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. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@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 WP:FORBES. Could you explain why you feel Forbes is a "tabloid"? Magnolia677 (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

First, it's WP:WELLKNOWN, which evinces our general practice to protect unknown individuals from invasive coverage of them. A little girl who has done nothing aside from be born to a famous man falls under that criterion. Second, even reputable publications can fall prey to the demands of the media environment. I didn't say it was a tabloid, I said the coverage was tabloid level. I.e., it is salacious gossip of little substantive value. Plenty of children are born out of wedlock. The only reason people care that Hunter has a daughter out of wedlock is because he is the President's son. Therefore, the DUE coverage is that he has a daughter out of wedlock, not her name. As a comparison, I point out Elon Musk's article. Man has minimum of ten kids, whose names you can easily find in tabloid level coverage. But we only include the names of 1.5 of his kids, mostly cus he named one of them some absurd symbols. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: Where in WP:WELLKNOWN does it say "our general practice to protect unknown individuals from invasive coverage of them"? That policy specifically says, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article." To that end, this article in The Daily Telegraph provides details of how the son of the sitting US president will be providing paintings to help support his daughter. The article mentions Navy Joan six times. How is this "salacious gossip of little substantive value"? Magnolia677 (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Because she is four years old and not notable. Her name is unimportant. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

its about her treatment by a prominent political family

the story has moved on from the wedlock issue Jack4576 (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2023 (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 The Times, Forbes, and Telegraph. I'm a bit conflicted because she is really young, but I feel she is notable enough. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

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! —Menischt (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, per CaptainEek. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2023 (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. O3000, Ret. (talk) 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. GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@GA-RT-22: I provided two reliable sources, and User:Grumpylawnchair provided three. Which of these do you consider unreliable? Magnolia677 (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The child should not be named per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. We should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. Here, the material relevant to the person's notability in relation to this article does not include their name. Therefore, we should exercise restraint and not include the name. The child is clearly not a public figure. WP:PUBLICFIGURE does not define public figure, but does link the Wikipedia page. In the United States, a public figure is "a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs." The child is neither a public official, nor involved in public affairs. The child's parents are both probably public figures, but that status is not WP:inherited. We should exercise restraint here, per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. Especially considering this is about the privacy of a living minor child of public figures. Finally, WP:BLPNAME says it is generally interpreted by the community to include the removal of names of non-notable minors from articles about their notable family members, such as when a notable individual births or sires a non-notable minor. You can only argue it doesn't apply if you don't read the footnote. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The footnote is there so editors don't add the names of movie star's babies. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The daughter is clearly notable, so BLPNAME doesn't apply. Ortizesp (talk) 03:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per CaptainEek and my comments in the above discussion. Her name is not relevant to the understanding of the issues regarding Hunter Biden and a violation of BLPNAME. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 20:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual: "A low-profile individual is a person, usually notable for only one event, who has not sought public attention." The subject obviously is not responsible for being Hunter Biden's child and therefore her privacy should be respected. Also, providing her name provides no useful information about her since she has no notability beyond being Hunter Biden's daughter, unlike Joe Biden who has notability beyond being Hunter Biden's father. IOW the article must name Hunter Biden's father in order to be informative, but not his daughter. TFD (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: this is not acceptable, for reasons outlined by Tryptofish, the Four Deuces, and others. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment There really isn't a point to this rfc if the larger problem is inconsistency across the project. There are 14 children listed by name at Bush family that are 12 or younger, 4 of those age 3 or younger, all of them with their exact day/month/year provided. Zaathras (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Hundreds of articles could be impacted, such as Patrick J. Kennedy#Personal life and family and Chelsea Clinton#Personal life, where the names and birth dates of children are listed. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment There's more, Boris Johnson, Barbara Bush, Meghan Markle .. the list goes on? -- Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Strong support, the daughter is named in notable articles, and notable in and of herself. The names of various other folk are included in similar situations. BLPNAME and PUBLICFIGURE don't apply due to significant coverage. Ortizesp (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support: The name of the a POTUS's grandchild is notable information and this has been widely reported. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support because nobody cared about sharing the names of presidents' minor relatives until one became personally embarrassing for Joe Biden two days ago. This project should not flex its rules to carry water for politicians whom the project's back-office addicts like. Townlake (talk) 04:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don't know what you mean by back-office addicts. And, I don't see how the situation is personally embarrassing to the grandfather. Further, I can't imagine how the child's name makes an iota of difference to Joe Biden. Is her name Let's Go Brandon? But, the child's name in an encyclopedia in a sentence saying she was born out of wedlock to a drug addict makes a difference to the four year-old child just now at the beginning of life's journey. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Objective3000: If the parent of the child was not a recovering drug addict, and the child was born to a married couple, such as the children at Patrick J. Kennedy#Personal life and family, would that be ok? Or should these kids' names be removed as well? Magnolia677 (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see the purpose of names of minors who are not notable for their own actions at all. But, that has zero to do with my position. What I am saying is that this child is an innocent who is about to enter the slings and arrows of her school days, which in the US are fraught with social media bullying and suicides. Why would we do this to her? What has she done to deserve this? And for what value? What does her name add to this article? The tabloid like articles by some irresponsible sources will quickly fade. An encyclopedia is permanent. With freedom of the press comes responsibility. Frankly speaking, I personally think this borders on child abuse. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. "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." WWGB (talk) 11:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - It is a child's name, who is in no way at all a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Mentions of her name in sources does not make her a public figure as others have argued. Related to a public figure, of course, but not a public figure herself. The article goes into full detail about her birth and the paternity suit, so her existence isn't being censored here, despite arguments to the contrary. The argument about other grandchildren's names is different, while also not public figures, their names and details are being published by the White House and Biden family, her's is not. She herself isn't putting herself or her name out their for the public, her mother isn't putting her name out there, and her paternal family isn't putting it out there. It only is media coverage putting her name out there in relation to Hunter Biden and Joe Biden. There is no need to name her here. WikiVirusC^(talk) 12:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support including the president of the United States grandchildren names should not be forbidden, this presents a significant double standard. If editors feel the details around this child's lineage are WP:UNDUE, I suggest making that argument at RFC instead. -- Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• Question. Is the outcome of this RfC relevant to the existence of Navy Joan Roberts? WWGB (talk) 12:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  So what's the next step? We follow her around with a camera? O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose — of course her name shouldn't be included. Agree with CaptainEek — Because she is four years old and not notable. Her name is unimportant. And additionally, just because reliable sources reported her name, doesn't mean we are required to do the same.— Isaidnoway (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support conditionally - she's been covered in the mainstream media. People are going to go looking for her. I recommend a terse mention and then leave it at that. I also recommend creating a redirect page (Navy Joan Roberts) that redirects to the relationships section of Hunter's page.

For instance, in the relationships section, where it says:

"Biden also has another daughter, born in August 2018 in Arkansas to Lunden Alexis Roberts."

insert "Navy," after the words "another daughter". Don't even include the rest of her name.

This avoids a double standard. It's both minimal and discreet for the child's sake while also not feeding the narrative that Wikipedia is censored or biased. That censorship issue is especially touchy considering the heat that Wikipedia and Commons have historically taken over inappropriate editing and images that sexualize children. "You mean they allow all that sick stuff but you can't even mention Hunter's daughter"

Also, this will partially head off some people making their own, more inflammatory additions.

It's the right thing to do, both for the child and our own editorial values.

A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per CaptainEek. She is not notable. Her name is not important for the understanding of the article. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 00:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support - care needs to be taken to ensure any material is BLP compliant. Her featuring prominently on the NYT in op-ed’s and in a feature piece makes her a public figure, which warrants inclusion.

Editors that make the claim she’s not famous ‘for anything she’s done’ miss the point. She’s prominent due to her family and status, and her story has captured the public imagination.

I’m also frankly a little disturbed by the idea that editors seem to be of the view that discussion of her life is shameful or embarrassing or would cause her harm. There is nothing shameful about being born out of wedlock, and we shouldn’t be perpetuating these kinds of moral norms by erasing information about people on the weak presumption that it is ‘shameful’. Including a small amount of text on Wikipedia couldn’t reasonably seen as perpetuating harm… she’s on the front page of the NYT, the horse has bolted, she doesn’t have privacy anymore. Such is the case for many family members of world leaders. Jack4576 (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

We do not use op-eds. We most certainly are not saying being born out of wedlock is shameful. Show me one single editor who has said anything approaching that. But, the fact that millions of people believe it is, is most certainly not a weak presumption. In some places, it can still be a death sentence. Frankly, I do not understand your continuing efforts to put this 4-year-old's name in an encyclopedia. Spelling out her name adds nothing whatsoever to the article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

When an editor claims a simple explanation of a person’s life story is an ‘attack’, despite there being no information about their life at all excepting for circumstances of their birth; then by implication, that editor is claiming that the circumstances of a person’s birth are so negative such that to merely note them is to be in and of itself, an attack. I don’t think so. I don’t think any of this person’s life story reflects negatively upon her or is embarrassing or shameful for her

We don’t use op-ed’s as a RS for claims made within an op-ed. We can however use an op-ed as a primary source to merely note the fact that a op-ed did happen. It’s worthy of note that an op-ed was written about this person at all

I think spelling her name does add something, it tells the reader who is curious about who Hunter Biden’s relations the name of those relations. I don’t think there is any harm in adding it. Privacy is a moot point as she is already the prominent subject of news media. I don’t understand why editors want her name off here, at this point she’s a public figure; and isn’t this what we do regularly on Wikipedia ? write information about public figures ? Why is this person an exception ?

Jack4576 (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

You still don't get it. No one here is saying anything about her is negative. What we are saying is that many of our readers take these things as negative. Why do you think the right-wing press has pushed this story so hard? And, it is not worthy of note that an op-ed was written. And, she is NOT a Public figure. She doesn't even know what it means and, given her age, has never read anything. And she is not a prominent subject. I subscribe to the NYT, WSJ, and Barron's and listen to news in the background most of the day -- and I never heard of her before this page. And, in an encyclopedia, Privacy is a moot point are words that should never be uttered. And why must you keep repeating the name of this 4-year-old, innocent child, as if no one here knows who you are talking about. Please reread the comments made in the AfD of your article attempt. They should be instructive. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

1) Since when do we care if some readers take this thing as a negative. We’re not here to right great wrongs. I don’t think the fact that some readers would do so is relevant

2) Multiple reasons, with one of the biggest reasons the right wing press has pushed this story being because how the presidential family treats their relation says something about the values of that family

3) Subjects don’t need to know they are public figures to be public figures. It doesn’t matter if she’s young or can’t read

4) She is prominent. I’m surprised you claim to be a NYT subscribed and have never heard of her. She’s already been the focused subject of a lengthy NYT op-ed, as well as a feature piece; both in the last 2 weeks. She features prominently in other outlets too.

5) Privacy is a moot point is a reasonable thing to say about someone who is in no plausible way going to have their privacy affected by a wikipedia article. She already has zero privacy due to being the subject of multiple NYT articles. Wikipedia can’t disturb a person’s privacy if they no longer have any in the first place. (at least if we’re only relying on SIRS, as we should be). What you’re saying is akin to saying we should respect the privacy of princess Diana.

6) Why is the name of this person a problem. Many people already know their name, it’s easily Google’able, I find this ‘think of the innocent children’ stance a bit much

7) Some of the words at that discussion were instructive. Most were hyperbolic, and I suspect driven by my unintentional walking into a U.S. Politics buzzsaw. I did take to heart some of the feedback I received afterwards from users Liz and A.B. afterwards regarding it. Jack4576 (talk) 01:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: to the editors saying ‘why is she a public figure? she’s just an out of wedlock child to Hunter’

I disagree, the story has moved on from that now.

Recent coverage has been about the girl’s treatment by the presidential family; including whether or not she is accepted as a member of the family. This is a matter that many of the public care about. Understandably really, as the coverage has discussed the meaning of her acceptance (or lack thereof) and what that says about the values of the presidential family

This is what has captured the imagination and made her a public figure.

It’s a little bit akin to saying “Diana was just a royal! she didn’t do anything famous herself, why all this attention when she died??”. Some people capture the public imagination because their treatment seems to tell us something about the values of other important people. Jack4576 (talk) 01:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Are you seriously comparing this to Diana? O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I think the situations are very comparable actually.

Both involve the capture of the public imagination due to the perceived mistreatment of someone relatable by a powerful family

It’s really not that far-fetched a comparison.

“are you seriously” … I mean, please. Jack4576 (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you need to rethink your position here. This was not a front page story in the NYTimes. It was an op-ed, an opinion piece, on the next to last page in section A. It was about a letter Maureen Dowd received from her sister, not a news story. Yes, the right-wing media picked this up, which is not surprising as they have been constantly bashing Hunter and Joe Biden. Chuck Todd, long time moderator of Meet the Press, said it was ugly for Republicans to exploit Hunter Biden's personal problems. The mainstream press and reliable sources have said little about this. You are now comparing her to Princess Di. Over 60 books have been written and ten movies and documentaries produced about Princess Di. She traveled the world representing Queen Elizabeth II at functions of the royal family, was heavily involved with charity work, help changed the attitudes about AIDS, and was a fashion icon in the 80s and 90s. The Encyclopedia Britannica calls her one of the foremost celebrities of her day. You are building Mt. Everest out of a molehill. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The NYT's op-eds are the most prominent op-eds in the world

I think your arguments would be better served by conceding the point that NYT op-eds are extremely prominent. Your argument minimising the reach of those columns is self-evidently is (respectfully) pretty ridiculous

I do think the political narrative is analogous to Princess Di, insofar as it is a story about acceptance or lack thereof within a prominent family for reasons of 'legitimacy'

I am not saying this has the same level of coverage as Princess Di, of course not. All I'm saying is that its in the same narrative genre

For that reason, I disagree with editors claiming this is a 'mere smear'. It is not. It is a family story that has captured the public imagination; that just so happens to coincidentally have been picked up by the right-wing press for quite cynical political reasons.

However, the right-wing cynicism does not explain this story's prominence and resonance outside of those circles; and especially it does not explain the story's prominence in the New York Times. Jack4576 (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per CaptainEek. This level of coverage in RSs would most likely be sufficient to include a name if she was an adult, or perhaps if she was a teenager who was proactively seeking publicity. That is assuredly not the case here given the young age, and the mere inclusion of her name isn't necessary to communicate the important facts of why this is important for Hunter Biden, the actual subject of this article. In this case it is better to defer to the privacy concerns for now. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per TFD, Drmies, Patar and others. If the child is truly "notable" people should make a separate article for her and argue the merits there. Right now her name is incidental to the need to know Hunter has a daughter and there has been coverage of the relationship. Articles like Family of Joe Biden, List of children of vice presidents of the United States and List of children of presidents of the United States are equally problematic for the record. Koncorde (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  It seems there was an article on the subject, and the consensus for deletion mentioned a number of times that the subject being covered at all was likely more appropriate here, on the Hunter Biden BLP. -- Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

And the matter is covered here, without needing to name the child. WWGB (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

And note that instead of the common seven days for an AfD, it took three hours with several comments on how appalling it was to have such an article about a 4-year-old child. Indeed, it was a G10 deletion: Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose. We need to stop abusing this child. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The above was kind of my point. This is a very niche subject in a niche article about a niche person person related to a niche event. Koncorde (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:LPNAME. It is very noteworthy that Hunter Biden has a child, but the actual kid is not notable in herself. She's relevant for a minor part of a saga in Hunter's life, but otherwise out of the direct spotlight. She's named in newspapers as the kids of famous people generally are. But Wikipedia takes a stricter view on privacy than newspapers do: 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. Endwise (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  Obviously that doesn't apply to this talk page though. Don't really know why it's being argued that we should be forbidden from mentioning it even here. Articles are forever and the product of the encyclopedia; talk pages are our space, and her name will not be made any more public than it already is by being mentioned in this niche chatroom on the internet read by almost no one. Endwise (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  Well, keep in mind that article talk pages are permanently stored in a public archive and fall under WP:BLP. Seems to me it's obvious to us who we are talking about without repeating her name. Common etiquette, if nothing else. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think we censor on Wikipedia on the basis of 'common etiquette', generally speaking

  The name's presence in a niche Wikipedia archive is pretty moot when their name already features prominently in the worlds most high-profile news media Jack4576 (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  And of those three readers in the next century who dig through the talk page archives, maybe one of them might stumble upon her name, who knows. But I think what's an arguable matter for editorial discretion in article space is generally okay here, as it would be other debatable material on a BLP. Minor point but regarding it being obvious, Hunter actually has 4 daughters, so you do actually need a decent bit of context to know who "Hunter Biden's daughter" refers to. Endwise (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: (cross-posted from a thread at Talk:Family of Joe Biden) I've done a lot of reading this morning. IMHO this is the Obama tan suit controversy writ large. The tabloid press must have something to rant about, and they've latched onto this unfortunate child because they don't have any substantive arguments against the current president's policies, and the previous Hunter Biden smears weren't sticking. That's coatracking. This is a story about how corporate media in a maniacal search for profit uses preconception and resentment to frame a false narrative against a quasi-public figure. They'd be doing it against anybody close to the current White House if it gets them pageviews. This is pointing a camera into a toilet, calling it stinky, and charging folks to see the photo. This concocted narrative is entirely about winning elections in 2024, not about any sense of well-being for the child. BusterD (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@BusterD: Some of the sources cited in this RfC are Forbes and The New York Times. Do you consider these "tabloid press"? This topic was brought up last week at a White House press conference. How is reporting on that "pointing a camera in a toilet"? Magnolia677 (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:FORBESCON is utter rubbish. The Times is better but only because of scale. They too must point their cameras in the same toilet because that's what the modern news audience demands. BusterD (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

How did you come to the conclusion that the writer of the Forbes article was a contributor and not staff? From what I can tell, Sara Dorn, the author, is a staff writer. -- Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Any former employee of NewsCorp is suspect, as far as I'm concerned. BusterD (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you should have – for the sake of transparency – directly disclosed here that you were the one who previously closed the AFD about the child. Politrukki (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, since the entire premise here is incorrect and based on a flat misreading of policy; she clearly fails the criteria for a public figure per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, and WP:LOWPROFILE. This is almost a textbook case for that policy, since she is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event - the idea that she could be considered a public figure is flatly absurd and would negate the purpose of that policy if taken seriously. We don't name people who unequivocally fail PUBLICFIGURE so casually, especially in a context where there is no conceivable value to including her name. Note also WP:BLPNAME, which specifically says that When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories; the misguided and groundless-in-policy arguments that people have made, above, in order to try and strip away this individual's WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE protections all rely on brief mentions in news media, which WP:BLP specifically instructs us to disregard even before you get to the fact that no reasonable interpretation of policy could conclude that this is anything but a low-profile individual. --Aquillion (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The daughter is non-notable low-profile individual who has not sought attention. Per BLPNAME a significant family member can be named "if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject". I don't see how the name would be necessary for "complete understanding" in this case. (Then again, I'm not aware of any real case where naming would be necessary for "complete understanding".) Politrukki (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The sourcing provided so far is slim (Forbes and an op-ed). The presumption against naming a living non-notable minor should be high. I don't mind saying that I'm less likely to support mentioning a minor when the context of the mention could be harmful. I don't see that as a double standard, just prudence. Though not applicable directly, the spirit of this is in parts of BLP policy like WP:BLPCRIME: we're more sensitive to naming when the context is negative. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, there are definitely more sources. The Times and The Telegraph have already been mentioned. I would add Hindustan Times, The Independent, Elle magazine, and Reason ("The Volokh Conspiracy" blog) to name a few. Jake Tapper mentioned the name on CNN discussing Dowd's op-ed that received much attention. The number of reliable sources that do name the daughter is still very low compared to all sources covering the topic. Jonathan Adler in Reason mentioned that Roberts wanted the child to bear the Biden name (this was later settled outside the court, against using the Biden name, if I'm not mistaken) and that "Roberts had previously sought to protect their daughter's privacy by redacting her name and identifying information from court filings", which is now moot. Politrukki (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  Is that from the Hindustan Times Arkansas bureau or from wire sources? One can always google a bit of text and find the few sources that mention it. That's how google is supposed to work. Google is not editing an encyclopedia, nor is it bound by WP's BLP, among other policies here. SPECIFICO talk 17:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Just two days ago, the usually left-leaning USA Today attacked grandpa for campaigning on "decency", but refusing to acknowledge little Navy Joan, who was mentioned three times in the article. Sad that people can be so heartless. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

RfC on using a double standard on Hunter Biden's young children

Should a double standard on mentioning Hunter Biden's two young children be avoided? —Menischt (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Malformed RfC. The RfC question is non-neutral, and assumes a preferred outcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Improper RfC. It declares that there is a double standard and is therefore not neutral. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2023 (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. —Menischt (talk) 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 deadnaming a transperson. —Menischt (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  Please self-strike this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  The omission of naming of a non-notable minor is not at all like deadnaming a transgender individual. Not the same ballpark, league, or sport. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  User:Menischt you need to strike this, and take my advice, step away from this Talk page.

  Its not a meaningful analogy you've drawn and its a pretty provocative one too.

  I agree that its problematic to not name a person seemingly on the mere basis that their existence as a out-of-wedlock child is presumed shameful; but I don't at all think that is analagous to deadnaming a person. It is an entirely different issue with very different moral considerations. Jack4576 (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Closed as malformed per WP:RFCNEUTRAL EvergreenFir (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• Close as malformed per RFCNEUTRAL, RFCBEFORE, and it's redundant to the RfC above. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 20:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Repeated talk page publication of the child's name

Please stop doing this. This talk page is part of the public archive, and a policy-based objection has been articulated. Repeated mentions of the child's name are gratuitous. SPECIFICO talk 18:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Her name is currently in the main space over here (twice actually), sourced to Fox News and NYTimes. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Instead of advertising it, perhaps you will remove. SPECIFICO talk 22:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The three minor grandchildren are listed there: Robert Hunter Biden II, Beau Biden, and Navy Joan. Let's wait for the RfC to close before removing the three names. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

That is backwards. SPECIFICO talk 22:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Robert Hunter Biden II--a minor--is also mentioned at List of children of vice presidents of the United States, Beau Biden, Hallie Olivere Biden, and List of children of presidents of the United States. That's a lot of deleting. Why not wait for the RfC to end. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Because of the way this is being used, as is clear from partisan media coverage. First, do no harm. Err on the side of caution and protecting her privacy. SPECIFICO talk 22:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Continually entering the name of the child on the talk page is a clear BLP violation and should be removes them. If it continues, we can proceed with AE. TFD (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree. What purpose does this serve other than harming an innocent? O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

On what planet does the mere naming of a child harm them, when their name has already been featured at length in the New York Times and other news media ? The horse has bolted. Jack4576 (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Please stop stating that this has been featured at length in the NYTimes. This is flatly false. I know it has been repeated in extreme right-wing circles. We can do nothing about their irresponsibility. We can control what's in this encyclopedia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The only news item I could find in NYT, this one, does not name the child. WWGB (talk) 11:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Ahh, a sad article about how politics is messing with a family. Seems the mother's lawyer is one of Trump's lawyers and Ziegler was also involved, who apparently was one of the group that discussed with Trump a plan to seize control of voting machines in key states. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

She was mentioned in this op-ed by name

Why do you underline news User:WWGB; the type of article she's in has no relevance to my point, which is that over there in the real world, the horse has bolted. Jack4576 (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Coverage in media alone is not sufficient to list the name of a low-profile individual. Per WP:BLPNAMES: When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. The constant cites to news media (or worse, opinion pieces from non-experts) certainly does nothing to establish that a name should be included when BLPNAMES specifically says that such sources should not be used for that purpose. And, of course, if you believe that it makes no difference because everyone knows the name already, why are you insistent on including it? That argument would seem to be self-defeating. Either way, BLP is clear - we're not supposed to let a temporary rush of press coverage overwhelm the protections of WP:LOWPROFILE when it comes to names. If you don't understand why the policy works that way, consider that non-WP:SUSTAINED news coverage quickly fades from the public view; while you might feel her name is deeply important and significant to your understanding of the news today, eventually the news cycle will move on. Wikipedia articles are intended to be more enduring - that is why we have WP:NOTNEWS - which means we have some cautions against including stuff based on limited or transient coverage, especially in context where there's no clear argument for inclusion (ie. it isn't something the sources treat as vital to understanding the topic.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Its not false, she was named in this op-ed.

Being the subject of a prominent op-ed might fairly be described as one having 'featured at length in the NYT'. Jack4576 (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

This was about a letter written to Dowd by her sister in an opinion piece on the next to last page of section A. It is not a news story or endorsed by the NYTimes. I don't know where you get "prominent" or "at length" from. NYTimes news feature often go on for pages. Today's Times has a full page on the death of Milan Kundera, a 94-year-old Czech author. Exaggeration has no place here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

So what? If its been in the NYT, its been read by a huge number of people.

This is especially so when the NYT op-ed itself has been the subject of news coverage.

The prominence comes from it being a NYT op-ed. I don't think there are any op-eds more prominent than this? The at-length ... this is around ~900 words

I think its pretty telling that you're arguing semantics.

Additionally, I'll note that the NYT's obituary section is also read by a large number of people. I'd also say Milan Kundera has been prominently featured.

Would you like to get back to the point; on what planet does naming the granddaughter here cause her any 'harm', given the existing media coverage? (which I note includes a lot more outlets than just the NYT) Jack4576 (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

On this planet, obviously. Take to heart the comments on the AfD close of your article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Its not at all obvious how the use of a name on a webpage substantially increases the level of exposure of a name that has already been exposed at perhaps the greatest degree possible already; by mainstream media.

Not obvious. Would you like to spell out to me how it substantially increases the level of exposure of the name? I'm all ears. Jack4576 (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Please stop exaggerating. It is not useful for collaboration. And, obviously I can't explain this to you. End of conversation for me. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think it’s exaggerating to describe being printed in the NYT the most prominent news media exposure.

I take up your offer to agree to disagree. Jack4576 (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure, we can be 'responsible' and 'control' what's on the Wiki

But when control is being done for its own sake, when we have reasons to believe that such control is meaningless (due to existing news coverage) I think its fair to describe that attempt at control as quite ridiculous, and more than a little silly

I'd prefer that we recognise that this person is now a public figure, and that naming them on-wiki will in no way realistically or meaningfully perpetuate further harm to them. The public is already quite aware of her name, and her story. Excluding it from Wikipedia is embarrassingly censorious and merely serves to harm our reputation as a lay information source. Jack4576 (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

No idea about Australian law @Jack4576, but she clearly doesn't meet the American definition of the term "public figure." TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I’m sure you’re right Tulsa. Apologies I’ve been speaking a bit too colloquially

I forgot about the quite particular role that term plays in your first amendment jurisprudence. Good reminder, thank you, i’ll stop using that term until i’m further informed

I’m not sure we have anything analogous. Free speech rights over here are quite a grim thing Jack4576 (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Why not wait for the RfC to end - per WP:CONLOCAL, an RFC held on this page wouldn't govern what we do on other pages anyway. And per WP:BLP (and WP:BLPNAMES in particular) we're supposed to err on the side of caution when there are legitimate BLP concerns, as is the case here; that means we should remove them and anyone who objects ought to produce either a consensus on each of those pages for inclusion, or a broader consensus at a broader venue than this one. You can see the standard necessary to restore them at WP:BLPRESTORE. --Aquillion (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)