The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message
Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Hunter Biden is within the scope of WikiProject Joe Biden, a project dedicated to creating and improving content related to Joe Biden. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Joe BidenWikipedia:WikiProject Joe BidenTemplate:WikiProject Joe BidenJoe Biden articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Isaac Stanley-Becker (September 25, 2019). "Checking the Web on Hunter Biden? A 36-year-old physicist helps decide what you'll see". Washington Post. Retrieved September 25, 2019. The page has been viewed nearly 230,000 times in the past 30 days, more than the page for Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, or for Vice President Pence. Wikipedia dominates Google's search results and helps supply the information spit out by Siri and Amazon Alexa.
Fang, Lee (August 15, 2023). "Emails Show Hunter Biden Hired Specialists to Quietly Airbrush Wikipedia". Lee Fang. Retrieved August 17, 2023. Powerful individuals and corporations routinely tap specialized consultants to edit Wikipedia for more favorable entries, often through anonymous accounts designed to appear organic. Emails from Hunter Biden's laptop show that he made continuous efforts to airbrush his image and the Wikipedia articles associated with his Ukrainian benefactors.
That certainly would be a more objective/unbiased way of stating an issue. But I am not an intellectual. HillbillyWoman (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The wording reminds me of Gertrude's comment in Hamlet: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." The article loses the appearance of objectivity and doesn't help Hunter Biden. TFD (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A lot of people are here writing this article to help Hunter Biden. I think @TFD was just observing that they are so blatantly biased that thankfully it shows through. It’s supposed to be an encyclopedia with no bias but it’s not. 65.195.242.118 (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yup HillbillyWoman (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree with this statement. ExpertPrime (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Casting aspersions about the intent of long-standing editors is a swift road to being at best topic-banned from politics articles, or at worst blocked from the Wikipedia entirely. Curb the behavior, please. Zaathras (talk) 05:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I guess folks should not judge intent. Objectively, the article was way biassed. It would be good to be able to point out bias, suggest corrections, and develop an unbiased, objective article without being given the boot. HillbillyWoman (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are welcome to point out what in the article you think is biased and suggest corrections. Whether or not they will be implemented depends on what you'd propose. Be sure to use reliable sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Felony indictment in infobox, highly inappropriate[edit]
A single-purpose account and another reverter insist on bloating the infobox with a listing of the Hunter Biden's indictments. I find this to be inappropriate as it is giving undue weight to recent events, of a biographical subject who is known for much more than that most recent court filing. Reverter #2 cited George Santos' situation as a relevant example, but one would argue that the core of Santos', only the 3rd post-Civil War Representative to be expelled from that body, entire notability is his penchant fraud, deception, and lies. Thus it is pertinent to his infobox listing. My better analogy is to that of Donald Trump, where I doubt anyone, including myself, would support adding his 9 indictments to his infobox. Zaathras (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I removed it. Template:Infobox criminal says in part This template is generally reserved for convicted serial killers, gangsters, mass murderers, old west outlaws, murderers, mafia members, fugitives, FBI 10 Most Wanted, serial rapists, mobsters, and other notorious criminals. Let's reconsider using it if there's a conviction. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given the policies on that template, it probably shouldn’t be on Santos’ BLP for his indictments given he has not been convicted for them as of present day. However, that’s a topic for another Talk Page. Good day! Kcmastrpc (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We need to stop edit warring on this page. Santos has taken a plea on one of his charges, so he does have a conviction. Whether or not it should be there should be discussed on that talk page. On this page, its use has been contested and so it should not go back in without a consensus to put it back. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Historygeek64" is in clear violation of the "must not revert challenged edits" restriction. Sanction this user, and the edit warring ceases. Zaathras (talk) 05:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kudos to the removal, per the template-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 04:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I saw that we now have the main photo in the homepage being a photo from his press conference after his indictment and defiance of the congressional subpoena. But it just says “Biden at a press conference in 2023.” Shouldn’t say “Biden at a press conference in 2023 following his indictment and refusal to appear before Congress?” I think this would give context to the photo. Not judging anything he did I just it should be in context.
of course, we know right now he denied the subpoena and didn’t show up but if he’s ever charged with a crime for that then it will be that it was alleged that he denied the subpoena and alleged that he didn’t show up. But since nothing has been charged we’re in the stage where we can state it as though it’s a fact. Or maybe like the tax cover story here they’ll say that he didn’t show up on time because maybe he will have showed up in the conference room a year later on his own volition. 71.26.30.181 (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Er, no. WP:BLPCRIME, might be relevant. but also, captions are just supposed to be simple and descriptive. That's my 2c. Andre🚐 00:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Trump falsely told Zelenskyy that "[Joe] Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution" of his son; Joe Biden did not stop any prosecution, did not brag about doing so, and there is no evidence his son was ever under investigation.
In bold above should be deleted. In the original transcript it is completely unclear whether he is claiming Hunter or Joe Biden or both prevented a prosecution of Zlochevsky and Burisma holdings. This is non factual and a very much biased lie. Sorry guys, if it's worth getting impeached over, it's worth correcting the detail here.
The last bit is speculation. Trump could literally have been curious as to how Hunter Biden could have been able go be on that board and not given bribes from over him across to prevent prosecution. His own guy was proven guilty, so it was pragmatic to check all close to the scene. 78.17.60.189 (talk) 08:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From the CNN source at the end of the bolded text: According to a White House transcript released Wednesday, Trump said to Zelensky during a phone call in July: “There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it…It sounds horrible to me.” So, it's clearly about Hunter. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
