[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Hunter Biden

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

Convicted felon in opening sentence

[edit]

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

@Milowent
I trust your expertise 2604:3D09:927F:E900:9CE8:5D57:9E0F:544C (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Crime labels - it shouldn't be done for anyone. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • yeah, I don't think it is appropriate to list either of them as a felon in the opening sentence of the articles. That's the sort of thing that happens and gets reverted on the news day.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with no labels except for people like Dahmer or Bundy only known for their atrocities.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.246.97.81 (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I challenged the addition of the label but was immediately reverted with the editsum "small fix". I added the felony conviction to the last lead paragraph which is entirely about the gun charges and the conviction. Repeating what I said in my edit summary: MOS:LEADSENTENCE: "Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE: The felony conviction is not the most notable thing about him; the conspiracy theories about him are more notable and not mentioned (WP:WEIGHT.) Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The relevant manual of style MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE dictates that not be covered in the lead. Your placement seems best. I think we also need to consider the lead of this article is rather long and we could do with reducing it and moving some other stuff into the body. TarnishedPathtalk 05:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagreed with having that in the opening sentence for Trump, and I think the same standard should be applied here. 100.11.18.155 (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "convicted felon" should be included in his opening sentence. These are actual felonies and not politically-motivated misdemeanors that are tried as felonies. EnSingHemm (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This entire process has been politically motivated. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide the guideline which supports your opinion, because MOS:FIRSTBIOSENTENCE suggests it shouldn’t be in the first sentence because it’s not the main reason for his notability TarnishedPathtalk 05:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPSTYLE is a policy: Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Hunter Biden is not. He's mostly known for being the son of his father, and Comer will never stop trying to find a shred of evidence (and good luck with that) as long as he's chairman of the Committee of Biden Family Investigations. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in first sentence basically per Muboshgu. The first sentence is usually for listing a person's notable activities, and neither "felon" nor "convicted felon" are activities, they're a legal status (and "convicted" is redundant). For someone who is primarily known for their criminal activity, we give a high-level summary of their crimes (from examples given above, Ted Bundy: "an American serial killer"; Jeffrey Dahmer: "an American serial killer and sex offender"; and one more, Bernie Madoff: "an American financial criminal and financier"). There is no way for us to say currently if history will remember Hunter Biden as a criminal, and the current news cycle is not the place to go looking for reliable sourcing on that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No... hell no. This is no on so many levels. First, Hunter is already a public figure so how is "felon" the thing he is most known for now? This is a BLP so we need to be careful about undue harm to the subject. If the conviction is reversed, thrown out on a technically will we apologize? Is anyone most known for being a "felon"? Do we say a convicted mobster is a felon in the first sentence of their biographies? In the lead is arguably reasonable but even then it should be kept in context. He was convicted of [specific crime] not the nebulous label "felon" that tells the reader nothing about the crime or even if the prosecution may be political etc. Springee (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Absolutely not Grossly undue. Blatantly violates WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment should probably be mentioned pretty early. He's mostly known for being the president's son and making questionable choices in his personal life. And convicted felon gets that second part across quite well. Maybe give it until after sentencing to see how things shake out.©Geni (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've left a hidden note in the source to try to limit the number of times this is added by potentially well-meaning editors who are not aware of this discussion. This was an attempt at adminning a contentious topic, as an uninvolved admin. Please let me know if I did something wrong, CT-enforcement-wise. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I said something similar at the duplicate thread at BLPN but I think adding a hidden note (which any editor capable of editing the page can do) is really pushing the definition of both "admin action" and "arbitration enforcement" quite badly. I think you're fine, in fewer words. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I worded it too self-importantly for my own good? Nevermind, you're probably too nice to tell me so. Anyway, the rationale was that I really do intend to ECP the article if that doesn't work, so I was kind of leaning on that warning more heavily than normal. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Create an RFC on felon in leade? 207.96.32.81 (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're kind of doing one already. Anyway, RfCs are a pain! — Iadmc♫talk  21:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Calling Hunter Biden a convicted felon violates neutral tone. It's better to just say that he was convicted of three felonies and explain what they were. That applies to pretty much anyone whose notability is not based on a criminal career. TFD (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No as Hunter Biden's biography is not defined by a conviction, any more than Donald Trump's is. Speaking of Trump, I will also lob a grenade-opinion into the mix; anyone who votes one way on this and the opposite way at Talk:Donald_Trump#RfC_on_use_of_"convicted_felon"_in_first_sentence, regardless of which way it is, should likely be topic-banned from the American Politics topic area. Zaathras (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Agreed. This article has suffered all year from editors who are influenced by their political bias and I assume the same is true of the Donald Trump article. I think the convictions in both cases are significant enough to mention along with other relevant facts in the lead. Hunter Biden is the first son of a sitting President to be convicted of a felony while his father was in office and Trump is the first former President to be convicted of a felony. There are multiple citations for both these facts and it is likely that these facts will be in n the first paragraph of future articles about them, in history texts and in current news articles. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I agree that generally felony convictions should not be in the first sentence of a lead unless that is the only thing the person is notable for. I disagree on your last point, as a former president and the son a current president are not really comparable. It could be argued, for instance, that Hunter Biden is mostly noteworthy because of his father, and his legal controversy while being the son of a president. Trump is noteworthy independent of his political career, and his presidency has a lot more noteworthy stuff. Trumps conviction after being voted out of office really seems more of a footnote in the grand scheme of things. I don't think either should have this in their lead, but do think someone could hold different opinions on the different pages in good faith. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No agree with above that 'convicted felon' should only be included in lead sentences only when that descriptor is a defining characteristic/what the person is known for/etc. Pretty easy to come back to this in a couple of years when the dust has settled and know whether it should be included (same goes for Trump in my mind). Not sure if this has been called into question, but the details of the conviction should definitely stay in the lead somewhere, and I like the last paragraph that is currently in the article.Yeoutie (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose adding "convicted felon" to the lead sentences of both this article and the Donald Trump article. 'Convicted felon' means the person has been convicted of a felony; are (Hunter) Biden and Trump notable/known for being convicted of felony charges? I would say no. Some1 (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At this point I it seems like the consensus is strong here. But I was curious and decided to see how we handled this on the page of someone who is only notable for their crimes. Ted Kaczynski came to mind. A keyword search for "felon", which he clearly is, returned zero hits. So if a serial killer/bomber's biograph can exist without a single mention of "felon" in the whole article I feel like we could make it at least through the first sentence without using the word here (and likely in every other biograph on Wikipedia). Springee (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support convicted felon being in the lead sentence, due to Hunter Biden's main notoriety now being that he is the first child of a president to be convicted of a crime. This is his main notoriety since he has not held any important offices except at Amtrak. He is mainly known for this conviction and for the laptop scandal. laganrat (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally it seems to be recentism for it to be excluded since his conviction(s) is clearly what he will be known for mostly when historians look back. laganrat (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, what an amazing crystal ball you possess! Not only can it determine that the most recent event in a man's life is automatically the most notable, it has looked forward and recorded what historians have already concluded. Wowzers! Zaathras (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. But if it is put deeper in the page, it may seem slightly less important. I feel that it being put at the end of the lead paragraphs, which is what it has now, should be a good balance. It doesn't appear as the page's main focus, although it definitely has some influence. CosmoCreeper249 (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe your right. I feel that it should be put in the page, although if it gets put in the lead sentence, it may be the main focus for the reader. Although, it should definitely be put somewhere. CosmoCreeper249 (talk) 12:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously not. I'm not sure how this turned into an impromptu RfC, but we do not refer to people as convicted felons in the lead sentence unless that is the source of their notability. In this case, it is not. AlexEng(TALK) 01:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support adding "convicted felon" in the first sentence, as Hunter Biden is primarily notable for being investigated (by Congress) and criminally prosecuted, including for illicit drug use.
Side-note: I also supported adding "convicted felon" to the lead of Trump's article (no consensus was reached), as his New York trial and verdict generated massive media attention for weeks. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a lofty peak of intellectual dishonesty to take Hunter Biden being the center of a far-right conspiracy theory (Ukraine, Burisma) and claim that he is a notable felon because of a conviction in a completely, like literally 100%, unrelated gun and drug matter. It would be like writing "Al Capone is a gangster, businessman, and tax cheat." Zaathras (talk) 01:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I hope to be similarly consistent as the commenter before me; I also opposed this on the Donald Trump article. jp×g🗯️ 01:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — Unless an individual is known for being a convicted felon, it would be inappropriate to add that descriptor to the introductory sentence. This applies to Al Capone—arguably more notable for being a felon, even if on tax charges—and Donald Trump. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hunter Biden is known for being under investigation for his actions, including drug addiction, the later of which resulted in his conviction. Biden's other children--Ashley Biden, Beau Biden (died in 2016), and Naomi Biden (died in 1972)--are all far less mentioned compared to Hunter Biden, because they have not committed questionable and illegal actions.
    Side-note: I continue to support adding "convicted felon" to the first paragraph of the Donald Trump article, either in the 1st or 2nd sentence. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Hunter is mostly known for being the son of Joe Biden and for the whole Ukraine conspiracy theory. His conviction on a completely different matter (gun and drug stuff) is not what he is primarily notable for. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think Hunter is more known for his drug/alcohol abuse, than that he was convicted of some specific crime. If the opening sentence would include (1) "former drug abuser" or (2) "convicted felon" in the opening sentence, then I'd rather have (1) than (2). But I also don't think the opening sentence should talk about "former" things so I don't think (1) or (2) should be in the opening sentence.
With that in mind, I think the current sentence "Biden was convicted of three federal ..." should be preceded by a mention of his history with drug/alcohol abuse. Paditor (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for starters, Trump was never convicted of a felony, whereas Hunter saw for not only to commit them flagrantly, but to record himself in the act. 98.97.74.69 (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Facts matter. Guilty: Trump becomes first former US president convicted of felony crimes – Muboshgu (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At a criminal trial in New York State, a jury found Trump guilty on 34 felony counts. If -- for whatever reason -- want to argue for some significant distinction to be made between state and federal convictions, have at it and we'll see what that looks like. I can't think of any. But for now it suffices to say that what you wrote above is false. Trump stands convicted of 34 felony crimes. Iandiareii (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is moot now that he has been pardonned. TarnishedPathtalk 03:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see how RS treat it in the coming months. He was still convicted, although lead sentence might be too much. Riposte97 (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with seeing how the play out, but it's hard to see inclusion of wording calling them a convicted criminal in the lead being either DUE or informing our readers of anything when the lead already describes exactly what crimes they were previously convicted of. TarnishedPathtalk 03:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon

[edit]

I don't think that this sentence maintains a neutral stance:

'Hunter Biden was pardoned by his father, President Joe Biden, in December breaking repeated promises by the president that he would not do so.'

I think that as this is in the lead section, it should try to keep extra context out and stick only to the fact that on December 1st 2024, President Joe Biden issued a pardon to Hunter Biden for the aforementioned charges. 99.254.70.184 (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:Ex Parte just beat me to it--thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems it was put back in? I took it out. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think User:Iljhgtn is trying hard to make Biden look as bad as possible, including with this edit, where he claimed that "CNN also directly criticized President Biden for the apparent act of nepotistic corruption". Muboshgu, I wonder what you think of this editor's work. Note also that they put the claim in the lead to begin with; Ex Parte removed part of it and Iljhgtn just put it back. Is that not a violation of the Contentious Topics rules? Drmies (talk) 03:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are assuming bad faith, just as you did with your tier-3 warning first time we have interacted as well as claiming "intentional" and "deliberate" misrepresentation of the facts. I am not the one that issued the pardon, Hunter Biden's father did, and his father is President Joe Biden. I placed what the reliable sources say, minus some of your comments being factored in, to a new section for the article. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also to note, the line, "CNN also directly criticized President Biden for the apparent act of nepotistic corruption" was removed already. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The news about Joe Biden and his history of promises etc. is newsworthy and sourced and deserves inclusion... on Joe Biden's page. This page is about Hunter Biden and in its context the relevant part of that story is that Hunter was pardoned.--Noren (talk) 04:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If we're going to put JB's stated justification for doing it in, we can also include commentary about what the pardon itself means, including criticisms. The fact that he didn't take the decision doesn't mean analysis of a decision taken concerning him should be left out. Riposte97 (talk) 04:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention, as has been pointed out, that every RS on this mentions the broken promise. Riposte97 (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
agree that the "he said he wouldn't then he did" is an important aspect, but imo characterizing it as "breaking a promise" sounds a little juvenile. i've update the wording a bit. and again, the intention is not to soften or whitewash, just to elevate the prose. ValarianB (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead currently discusses Biden's stated justifications for the pardon and also the fact that he reneged on repeated promises. Seems more than fair to me. Practically every RS I can find that mentions this either prominently highlights the latter point or puts it right up there in prominence next to the pardon itself. Examples include AP and WaPo reporting, where it's mentioned in the same 1st paragraph. This isn't just the president pardoning an unrelated person that they never spoke about beforehand. KiharaNoukan (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should consider reorganizing the section headings

[edit]

I’m not logged in rn but the current sections we have are a bit confusing and could easily be condensed and reorganized. A single section detailing his legal issues and eventual pardon is probably preferable. 65.112.8.31 (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for assistance from qualified editor on one very minor change

[edit]

Please remove the [clarification needed] tag, which I set apart from existing text, below, with multiple added asterisks.

Under the section "Investor, lobbyist, philanthropy" in the subsection "Burisma Holdings", a paragraph begins with the sentence •

"Ukrainian lawmaker Andrii Derkach, an associate of Rudy Giuliani with links to ***** [clarification needed] ***** Russian intelligence, released in May 2020 alleged snippets of recordings of Joe Biden speaking with Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko during the years Hunter Biden worked for Burisma."

•

Not sure at what stage of the article the clarification request was made, but as the article exists today there's full clarification within the same paragraph itself just a few sentences later. There we read, with appropriate citations, that

•

"The United States Department of the Treasury sanctioned Derkach in September 2020, stating he "has been an active Russian agent for over a decade, maintaining close connections with the Russian Intelligence Services"

•

Additional information follows immediately afterwards along the same lines. Every supporting detail can't get crammed into a single sentence. The clarification that I take is being asked for -- of Derkach's ties to Russian intelligence -- comes only a couple dozen words later, backed by fully cited quotes from the Treasury Department and others. It doesn't get much clearer than that, it seems to me.

Please remove the [clarification needed] tag. As the article exists today, that clarification has been provided. Iandiareii (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The clarification should be put into the article, not just mentioned on the talk page. I suggest saying, "who was sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury Department for being a Russian agent." TFD (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The information ** is ** already article. The sentence I included above that mentions Treasury finding Derkach to have ongoing connections to Russian intelligence agencies is copied directly from the article as is. It's already there with proper citation, now. And there's more already there (also cited) following the sentence I included above.
What you're suggesting be done has already been done, but the [clarification needed] tag still remains. In my opinion it should be removed as it raises a question or casts doubt that would be immediately and fully dispelled if the reader continues with to the end of that same paragraph. As I wrote, everything can't get get crammed into one sentence. Two or three sentences later the clarification comes, in spades.
I would do the removal myself if I could but I'm not accredited here sufficient to edit locked down articles such as this one. I apologize if I was unclear initially. The request still stands. Iandiareii (talk) 18:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, done. KiharaNoukan (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still a Convicted Criminal

[edit]

While an extensive Pardon section has been added, and curiously enough a note saying "the pardon cannot be rescinded by President-elect Donald Trump or any future presidents" there's nothing stating that Hunter remains a convicted criminal. This needs clarifying IMHO.

https://www.justice.gov/pardon/frequently-asked-questions#:~:text=Does%20a%20presidential%20pardon%20expunge,No.

Per the link above "... if you were to be granted a presidential pardon, the pardoned offense would not be removed from your criminal record. Instead, both the federal conviction as well as the pardon would both appear on your record."

Hunter is also apparently seeking to have his Californian tax evasion charges dismissed while Special Counsel David Weiss is arguing his pardon doesn't change anything about his criminal record - he was granted mercy, not declared innocent. Resolution of this is TBD but it connects to the above. Do other concur, disagree ...? 人族 (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link to the article about pardoning so that readers can learn what that is (and isn't). That should be sufficient EvergreenFir (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that clarifications is necessary per the suggestion given by 人族. It is an omission or at the very least misleading to not state that Hunter remains a convicted criminal in this BLP article. To reiterate, he was not declared innocent as a result of the pardon.--FeralOink (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this is veering into original research and synthesis. we should be providing factual information about the subject found in sources and not editorializing about what the next president can or cannot do (the "cannot be rescinded" line should be snipped entirely) or about the legal status of pardoned persons. Hunter Biden's conviction remains on-record, so he can be categorized appropriately. Roger Stone is still in Category:American people convicted of making false statements and Category:American people convicted of obstruction of justice for example. but characterizing him as a "convicted criminal" in direct prose would be wrong. ValarianB (talk) 14:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He plead guilty...no? Magnolia677 (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that it is entirely appropriate and even necessary for any convicted criminal with a Wikipedia page to have this fact mentioned on said page 71.210.42.253 (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

False allegations of corruption?

[edit]

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

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

"Contrary to the statement"?

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Missing from lead initial refusal to pardon

[edit]

You will have to add that Joe Biden made a point of NOT pardoning his son, but now has flip flopped. That is important. Not only did he pardon his son (which is in the lede) but also he previously said over and over again he would NOT pardon him. That has to be in the lede.[[1]] Hausa warrior (talk) 09:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's already covered at Hunter Biden#Pardon of criminal offenses. This isn't an article about Joe Biden's flip flops, it's an article about Hunter Biden. The important part for the lead is that he was pardoned by his father. TarnishedPathtalk 10:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add context to date of Biden pardon

[edit]

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

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

1) do you have a source which specifically connect the pardon starting January 1, 2014 to the year he joined the board of Burisma.
2) I don't think it's due for the lead anyway. TarnishedPathtalk 00:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of the section about Burisma Holdings lists Hunter's starting date as April 2014 so surely one of the cited sources for that contains the date. But I also agree that this kind of aside is inappropriate for the lede. Big Thumpus (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it was DUE, and we both agree it isn't, per WP:SYNTH we can't combine sources in that way in order to arrive at statements that neither of them say by themselves. TarnishedPathtalk 04:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if a source mentions both, the phrasing is synthesis because it implies a connection between the two. You would have to add a second sentence that says someone noted that the pardon date back to Hunter's appointment to Burisma. However, there is no reason it should not be in the lead, because Hunter's notability is based on his alleged criminal and unconventional behavior. TFD (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hunter was notable prior to the criminal stuff. TarnishedPathtalk 01:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link to his article before 1 January 2014, before the period under which he has been pardoned. He lacked notability and the article would have been a good candidate for deletion. Being the son of a VP does not establish notability. TFD (talk) 03:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment above presumes that the start of Hunter's "alleged criminal and unconventional behavior" was 1 January 2014. A read of the article indicates that their legal troubles started in 2020 and any allegations in relation with Burisma Holdings are at this point unhinged conspiracy theory as the article Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory makes clear. TarnishedPathtalk 04:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See a BBC article about Hunter Biden's pardon: "That spans a period beyond Hunter Biden's tax and gun offences and dates back to the year he joined the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, while his father, then US vice-president, had a key role in US policy towards Kyiv."[2]
The "unhinged conspricy theory" btw was about Joe Biden, not Hunter. It claimed that Biden forced the resignation in order to protect Hunter, which is untrue, because the prosecutor was not investigating him.
Here's a link to Hunter Biden's article at the end of 2018: the main issues are the controversy around his role in Burisma and his drug use. Without those, he would have no notability.
Take the controversy out of the article and there's nothing left. That does not mean of course that any of the allegations are true. TFD (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the 2018 version is indicative of what he is notable for, however my point above was at that stage we was not facing any criminal charges, therefore his notability isn't in relation to criminal charges. The issuing of a pardon going back to 2014 is not indicative that there was any criminal conduct at Barisma, it could easily be a pre-emptive strategy to make any mud-raking pointless. TarnishedPathtalk 08:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hunter_Biden&oldid=1263552806"