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)

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)

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)

"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" Wikipedia, 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. 50.41.24.177 (talk) 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. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 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. soibangla (talk) 01:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

If Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia articles are less qualified at finding the truth than journalists. This is the best we can do. TFD (talk) 02:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Some of the problem is the sources that Wikipedia 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. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 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 tend to be liberal that contradict what our many reliable secondary sources say here, and have said for years without correction or retraction? soibangla (talk) 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 Wikipedia is the one saying it. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, you seem to say there is an overreliance on sources that tend to be liberal and posit there might be 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. soibangla (talk) 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 Wikipedia'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 WP:NPOV. GA-RT-22 (talk) 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 Walter Cronkite was famous for his political activism in support o the fInterfaith Alliance, the Common Cause, the Constitution Project, the Citizens for Global Solutions, and the Drug Policy Alliance. He was also a vocal critic of the Christian right. Dimadick (talk) 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 chronicles and the suggested interpretation of events in history books. Dimadick (talk) 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. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 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. 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. You mentioned Beau Biden, who is a) notable individual (there is even a biography on Beau Biden, 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. Politrukki (talk) 20:41, 10 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)

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)

• 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)

• 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 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)

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

Should a double standard on mentioning Hunter Biden's two young children, Beau and Navy Joan, 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)

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)