Talk:Family of Joe Biden/Archive 1

Archive 1

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Biden family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150601010652/http://bigstory.ap.org:80/article/cd7d717ab72b486a946602ca6c27280c/biden-announces-death-son-beau-brain-cancer to http://bigstory.ap.org/article/cd7d717ab72b486a946602ca6c27280c/biden-announces-death-son-beau-brain-cancer

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 29 March 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved per natural disambiguation. (non-admin closure) ^walk victor falk ^talk 10:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Biden (surname) → Biden family – This article solely lists people in Joe Biden's family, so it seems that this is not a surname article, but is instead a family article, so should be renamed and rebuilt/expanded like the Roosevelt family or Bush family 70.24.250.235 (talk) 08:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• No objection, as there are currently no other pages about people named Biden, but keep a redirect categorised under "surnames". – Fayenatic London 12:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
• Weak no objection. Are we sure that there are no other Bidens? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why is this an article?

It just rehashes what's in the Joe Biden article, and doesn't even include info on his parents and siblings.

It should be deleted.

2606:6000:FECD:1400:9071:4AFD:D2F0:53BF (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Working on improving it. Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

All first families of the united states have articles, that's why it needs to exist, even if it's in poor shape. RobotGoggles (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Family Photo

Is there a free photo available that can be used in the article's infobox? I've been looking, and all I can find is a photo from Getty Images from the 2020 Democratic National Convention. That, of course, is not free content, and I'd rather not invoke fair use on this article. Presumably, the Biden family will be present for his inauguration, but that's several months away. If anyone has a photo they've taken themselves, perhaps that would work, or if you can find a free photo of the family members together that would also work. RobotGoggles (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Why only living family members in the infobox?

RobotGoggles writes in an edit: "Removed dead members from the infobox again; of course they're notable, they have entire sections of the article dedicated to them. But the infobox is early for Current Members, not Former Members of Joe Biden's family."

I don't see the logic of this rule. We wouldn't apply it to a family that lived 70 years ago, so why apply it today? ciphergoth (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Either we include Naomi Biden, or we don't include any of the deceased family members. We can put them in "Connected Members", but they are no longer members of Joe Biden's family, and thus should not be included in that section of the infobox. RobotGoggles (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

When I first edited this page, I added all of Joe Biden's children to the infobox. Later, Naomi Biden was removed, and so I removed Beau Biden. It seems only fair, if we are to include family members who have passed away, we include ALL of them, not just one who happened to survive to adulthood and become attorney general of Delaware. That's completely arbitrary, and takes a stand that Beau's life was more valuable than Naomi's. To be encyclopedic, we need to arrive at a consensus; are we going to include all children in family infoboxes, or not include deceased family members? Those are the two options.

To be clear, removing all family members from the infobox is a non-solution, it only guts the article's infobox of any reason to exist. This is the 46th POTUS' family we're talking about, vandalizing the infobox without engaging in discussion isn't WP:BOLD, it's immature and petty.

These are our two options; Include Beau Biden and Naomi Biden, or do not include either of them. RobotGoggles (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that drawing a line between living and dead makes no sense at all; there's no reason for Wikipedia to care about that. What Wikipedia cares about is notability. However we're not exactly opening the floodgates here; including both Beau and Naomi is a reasonable stance. ciphergoth (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2021

Under the Paternal Ancestry section, it says "Biden's paternal third great-grandfather, William Henry Biden (1789–1849)"... and " William Henry was the second child and son of James Biden". However, there is no evidence that he had a middle name at all. Only the William Henry Biden from Houghton Cambridgeshire had a middle name. Therefore it should read "William Biden (1789-1849)" and "William Biden was the second child...". P.S. By the way, I am currently doing research to discover the father of Richard Biden (the father of James and grandfather of William).

                      -----------Ken Kinman (kinman@hotmail.com) Kinman2014 (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The content calling him "Henry" is sourced from reliable sources - please see WP:V. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 19:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2021: Sources as requested by cn tag

Suggested source/s to replace cn tag. In first Para there is a cn tag on the final sentence:

From 1995 to 2004, he worked at the United States Department of Justice in Philadelphia, first as Counsel to the Office of Policy Development and later as a federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office.

Here are two sources that say what I think the tag is asking to be cited. Please change the cn tag to one or both. (There is also no cite for the same fact on the main article. Although there is no cn tag on that, you may like to use the same source/s to preemptively cite it in that protected article also).49.177.61.250 (talk) 05:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

References

}} 49.177.61.250 (talk) 05:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done, well found. As a side note, we usually don't need to add a quote to the reference for non-controversial statements. I've added it to Beau Biden as well. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Volteer1. Assistance much appreciated. (I only put the quotes in my refs so that any editor could see that the sources did contain the required information, and save them having to scour the reports. I wouldn't put them in if I was adding refs directly to the article. I do appreciate you taking the time to give me tips, though: kind words always appreciated!) 49.177.61.250 (talk) 08:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

All good. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 09:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Irish-American history and Irish-American culture categories

According to the introduction and the paternal ancestry section, the Biden family are Anglos who moved from Sussex, England to Maryland in the 18th century. So why are we pretending he is Irish-American instead of Anglo-American? Torchist (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

You would be referring to his paternal side, however his maternal side, whom Biden has shown more affection to, is from Ireland and migrated to the U.S. following the Irish famine. So in short he is both, but he is allowed to choose for himself what he identifies as and he has chosen Irish-American. Get over it. 37.18.134.184 (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Marriage or wedding

Please correct the sentence 'were married by a catholic priest', wedding was the only sacrament existing before Abrahan was born. It is not the priest, the peace judge, the councilman, the affidavit who makes a marriage, it is the spouses who give sacrament each other, priesthood only gives an special blessing, indicates the community the union took place, and, in sites as Spain, provides legal documents and attestation. The wrong, harmful concept of an 'authority' who marries people may come from the 'pontifex maximus', head of pagan religion and law in Rome, last caesar offered position, Graciano 2, refused it, he considered charge incompatible with his condition of Christian. In Rome, sadly this is the approach in many sites, everybody was inside a power ladder, head of it reported to another ladder above, and so on, just 'furiosus', insane, possessed, energoumenos in Greek, were allowed out of power pyramid. Salut + 81.44.56.7 (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Update Pets Section?

I think the pets section should be updated to reflect that Major has been rehomed, and that the Biden White House has a new German Shepherd, Commander. One source for this is https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-to-get-new-dog-and-cat-as-current-dog-gets-rehomed. I'm aware Fox News is considered an unreliable source for political news here, so if this counts as political news, you're welcome to find and use a different source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleh12479 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2021

Change to pets under “Immediate Family” section: “On December 20th, 2021 the Biden’s were given a pure-bred German Shepherd puppy, named Commander. He was a gift to the Biden’s by Biden’s brother James Biden and sister-in-law Sara Biden.” Jaonrd96 (talk) 04:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Descent

Joe Biden have polish descent from daughter of Przemysław I Noszak*

213.108.115.100 (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

• histmag.org

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Joe Biden and his parents in the 1970s.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2020

Please change "father of an illegitmate child" to "father of a child" to avoid the outdated, judgmental adjective. Thank you. Poppy Deane (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Poppy Deane:  Done! GoingBatty (talk) 02:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Why do y'all protect this known liar and plagiarist? 2600:1015:B12F:DB28:D829:BDE7:A077:517A (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Missing grandchild

Navy Joan Roberts 4 years old by hunter Biden 47.4.5.110 (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Joe Biden's first cousin, third removed.

I did my research about Joe Biden's ancestors and family and to what I found; Edward Biden (1839-1910) of Baltimore, Maryland, who's Joe Biden's great-great-grandfather's youngest brother, had a daughter named Eugenia May Biden (1870-1897), married in 1893 to John Charles Linthicum, a U.S. Congressman from the 4th Congressional district of Maryland, serving from 1911 to 1932, making him Joe Biden's first cousin third removed-in-law.

I don't know if what I'm sending is reliable stuff to you but eh, here's great-great grandfather Joseph H Biden, and and you see Edward Biden listed as "siblings", and you see Edward's daughter Eugenia May Biden Linthicum, and there it explains to you a lot when you see Eugenia May's spouse. I don't know what's more reliable to you but the research I did on Ancestry.com and others matched a lot. Akram GameYT (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Akram GameYT, Wikipedia does not publish original genealogy research. Even if a reliable source mentions this, I see zero reason to mention such a distant relative. All humans by definition have a large number of distant relatives, and we do not clog up the encyclopedia with such trivia. Except when it comes to royal and aristocratic families. Cullen328 (talk) 07:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

RfC on removal of grandchildren's names

An RfC which will impact whether the names of three minor grandchildren should be removed from this article: Robert Hunter Biden II, Beau Biden, and Navy Joan. Your input at Talk:Hunter Biden#RfC about including the name of Hunter Biden's daughter is welcomed. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I have removed them for now due to the unambiguous BLP issues posed by WP:BLPNAME and the unnecessary inclusion of non-WP:PUBLICFIGURE names; these are people who have been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, per WP:LOWPROFILE, which means we should err on the side of not naming them per BLPNAME. See also BLPNAME's admonition 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; such sourcing is lacking here. BLP issues should always err on the side of removal until / unless an unequivocal positive consensus for inclusion has been demonstrated, which isn't the case here. --Aquillion (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

NYT coverage of child

editors need to stop publishing this name prior to consensus. This page will be part of a permanent archive. SPECIFICO talk 03:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Recent coverage in the New York Times including in an op-ed and in a feature piece; shows that (REDACTED)’s story, and her treatment by the Biden family has caught the public imagination. A significant amount of prose has been written about her acceptance as a family member, particularly in the context of commentary regarding Joe Biden and his image. Should we include some very short and simple elaboration about (REDACTED) on this page? If so, what should the prose be? I’d propose: “the circumstances of [REDACTED]’s position in the family has been the subject of considerable media attention. In July 2023 members of the Biden family were criticised for not publicly recognising (REDACTED) as a family member. (REDACTED)’s status as a relation of the family was confirmed through DNA test after a paternity dispute between her mother and father. Her story is a frequent topic of right-wing news media.” with reference links to the NYT op-ed piece, and NYT feature piece discussing this topic While we need to be considerate of privacy, the NYT pieces indicate that the horse has bolted. (REDACTED) is already a public figure. That said, we need to make sure any content about a child is respectful and considered. I might make another proposal later about extended-protecting this page as i think it pretty inevitable that (REDACTED) will be the subject of numerous political attacks in the upcoming election cycle. Jack4576 (talk) 00:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Given the resounding decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Navy Joan Roberts, the Wikipedia community has no appetite for the back story of this young child. WWGB (talk) 04:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC) The discussion wasn’t open very long, after being closed speedily for some policy reasons regarding child safety that I think are fairly contestable. (Clearly there is an ongoing disagreement as to whether (REDACTED) constitutes a public figure as can be seen from multiple talk page discussions). What we can say for sure from that discussion is that a standalone article for (REDACTED) would be inappropriate; and that’s the action that was taken. This is about the Biden family page, where I note (REDACTED) already appears to be named Her story has relevance in the context of the Biden family more broadly, hence it might be more appropriate to include some information about the family’s relationship with her on this page. Clearly from the news coverage at least some people think she is a relevant topic in the context of the broader Biden family. (e.g. the NYT op-ed: “It’s seven grandkids Mr President”) I’m hoping we can have a good-faith discussion here. It’s at least worth having a proper discussion on this topic now prior to the heat that will be generated in the forthcoming presidential election cycle. Jack4576 (talk) 05:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC) For my part, I want to apologize to the page creator for speedily deleting the article less than three hours after nomination. The article itself seemed well-written and well-cited, if about a minor child of low visibility. The presented sources however appear to be using this story to embarrass the father (as a "deadbeat dad" who has paid $750K+ in support) and by extension the grandfather (who "refuses to acknowledge" the relationship). This is coordinated political coat-racking, and it was happening a long time before User:Jack4576 created an article out of these extant sources. The Bush daughters went through it (portrayed as "party girls" with Secret Service protection), and Al Gore III was the subject of seven AfDs (notable for smoking marijuana and speeding in his Prius). In the moment I was acting in what I saw as Wikipedia's interest in protecting the minor child, as expressed in the deletion procedure. A mature process on this subject is likely to draw partisans like dung draws flies. This is the nature of America's "gotcha" political news coverage. I might have short-circuited it last night, but not forever. BusterD (talk) 11:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC) I see flies accumulating. BusterD (talk) 12:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC) That's okay BusterD I could tell that your deletion was in good faith and reasonable. I respectfully disagree with your comment that "The presented sources however appear to be using this story to embarrass the father". I don't think that was true of the NYT coverage, neither the feature piece nor the op-ed. I think its quite understandable that (REDACTED)'s case has captured the public imagination given that a significant section of the public appears to empathise with her apparent rejection from what is the USA's most prominent and powerful family. I think analogies can be drawn with the narrative of princess Diana Of course, the right-wing press is attempting to use this as a smear. Both for the dead-beat Dad narrative, and also to exploit an apparent lack of warmth toward the child by her biological narratives. For that reason, I minimised any use of those sources aside from a perfunctory remark that she has been the topic of a large amount of coverage. I note that the unusually high volume of coverage on this topic was mentioned within the New York Times feature piece. I think its quite understandable that the public would empathise with a four-year-old girl knowing that her grandfather is the president, and yet not having an opportunity to interact with him. As noted in the NYT piece, the exclusion of this granddaughter from family life (such as in the dedication within Jill Biden's picture book) further adds to this empathy. For that reason, I am unsurprised that there is a great deal of coverage of this story, (enough to make her notable); and I think the inclusion of this story on Wikipedia, in a very considered respectful way is warranted. There would be a fair number of readers of our great encyclopedia out there that would be curious about the first family; and what their relations with each other tells us about them. An aspect that makes this story about the granddaughter different to the Bush/Gore examples you mention; is that those children became notorious for things that they had done. That isn't the case here. Here, we have a child who has been made notable due to perceived actions against her, by undeniably notable people. The story really is about the Biden family and the way they treat their relations; rather than being about the child as an independent subject, although one must know who she is to fully appreciate the story. Jack4576 (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC) 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) 14:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC) I don't agree. I don't think this is akin to a person's sartorial choices. This story is about family, and treatment of relations. I'm unsurprised something so near-universal has captured the public imagination. I think this is in the genre of princess Diana stories (although obviously much less prominent; nevertheless, within that narrative genre) I don't think its fair, or reasonable, to describe the coverage we're seen from the NYT on this story a 'concocted narrative' or 'about winning elections'. That isn't usually characteristic of that paper, especially around mainstream, generally favoured candidates like Biden Jack4576 (talk) 14:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC) How long have you been reading the NYT? BusterD (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Perhaps I should qualify; I don't see the NYT as a paper that generally goes out of its way to push Republican narratives, especially in recent times Jack4576 (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC) I was throwing the paper as a child and the New York Times has been pushing right-wing narratives since long before Eisenhower. The right-wing press loves to say (small L) "liberal media" but business owners make all the decisions about what goes in their product. Ask Rupert Murdock. To the modern right "liberal" means a value not beholden to deep-pocketed interests. Reagan couldn't win a primary these days. BusterD (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC) I think the paper has changed a lot over the years, it’s more firmly in the educated progressive camp now than it was a while back. Or, educated people have left the Republican party. Take your pick. US media has become really partisan of late and this include the NYT IMO That said i’m not an expert on this, i’m just parroting my perception as a humble (vaguely) left-winger from Australia It’s an interesting discussion, perhaps for another time. Let’s agree to disagree, and i’ll concede that you probably have many more years of perception and experience than I Jack4576 (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to note that consensus on whether the name should be published or not; had not been resolved at the time of the above discussion that has been closed. I did not ignore consensus when I used the name in the above discussion Jack4576 (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Could we engage an admin to delete any and all mentions of this child's name from this history pages?

It is a child safety concern

Consensus is that we need to ensure her name does not appear here or within Wikipedia's publicly accessible archive Jack4576 (talk) 05:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The safety concern could affect Biden's re-election campaign, as the Biden family has consciously decided to ignore the child's existence. The President has even publicly stated that he has ‘six grandchildren'. Despite this, the child's name has been routinely cited in reliable sources such as The New York Times and CNN, so I don't understand the rationale for ignoring the name in this article. 2603:8000:3F01:90CD:1450:10C2:838F:7759 (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

the child's name has been routinely cited in reliable sources such as The New York Times and CNN. I cannot find a single use of the child's name at CNN. There was one use in the NYTimes; but it was in a much criticized op-ed, not a news article. This is hardly routinely cited. There has been one RfC and two AfD's overwhelmingly against inclusion. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

While the child’s last name is referenced on CNN, the full name is cited on Forbes and The Independent, both of which are recognized as reliable sources. As previously mentioned, these articles are in addition to the above referenced New York Times article.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2023/06/29/hunter-biden-will-give-estranged-daughter-some-of-his-paintings-in-child-support-settlement/amp/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/hunter-biden-daughter-lunden-roberts-b2262651.html

2603:8000:3F01:90CD:1450:10C2:838F:7759 (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Reporting regarding unnamed grandchild

I've added "Joe Biden has been criticised in the NYT for not publicly acknowledging this grandchild. Her relationship with Joe is a prominent conservative media topic." as sentences following the granddaughter that is the child of Lunden Roberts.

I think this is a fair NPOV way to narrate this WP:WELLKNOWN political topic, and person.

The sources for those two sentences are:

Source 1 - NYT Op-Ed: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/08/opinion/hunter-biden-child.html Source 2 - NYT feature piece: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/01/us/politics/hunter-biden-daughter-arkansas.html

There are also numerous conservative stories covering this topic at length, but I don't think its worth citing them here necessarily as the stories are generally quite partisan. Keeping it brief in this way also avoids WP:UNDUE Jack4576 (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

You have incorrectly added an op-ed - the opinion of a single person, suggesting it is the NYTimes talking. This is false. It has been reverted and you re-added without discussion. You attempted to start an article about this 4-year-old child and it was halted with an AfD. You attempted to add her name to another article, and it was halted by an RfC. Now you have taken your campaign here making a statement that omitting an op-ed is somehow "political censorship". No, it is not. Self-revert this and discuss. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

If the issue was only the op-ed, why did you also remove the feature piece that notes the granddaughter is a subject of partisan coverage ? Jack4576 (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I did not suggest it was the NYT talking. I said -in- the NYT, not -by- the NYT

Anyway, in an effort to address this supposed issue, the prose now merely notes the prominent criticism, and the fact that this child is the topic of partisan coverage

To claim this is a backdoor method to mention their name, is an accusation that i’m editing in bad-faith; not to mention completely ridiculous. Her name isn’t there anymore

Given that mentioning her name is no longer an issue (her name no longer appears here) the only reason I can think you would be removing this at this point is your distaste at this story being mentioned at all. Acting on such an urge would be an inappropriate act of political censorship Jack4576 (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

But you've mentioned her name at least a dozen times after being asked not to, haven't you? GA-RT-22 (talk) 03:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

No I haven’t. Show me the ‘at least a dozen’ diffs Jack4576 (talk) 04:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother tracking them all down. Here are eight of them: [1] GA-RT-22 (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

That was before the RfC outcome regarding the use of their name

So I wasn't 'asked not to' by the community prior that point; or at least, what the community was demanding had not yet been determined by consensus Jack4576 (talk) 05:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

the only reason I can think you would be removing this at this point is your distaste at this story being mentioned at all. Acting on such an urge would be an inappropriate act of political censorship. Would you please stop making false claims like this? In all my posts on this subject, I have never said anything like this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

You have multiple times expressed a distaste regarding the mentioning of this story; using a variety of linguistic approaches. It’s not false Jack4576 (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

You cannot read my mind. You must stop these false statements on multiple articles about what my motivations. Not one more time -- understand? And a variety of linguistic approaches is yet another of your unending WP:PAs. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not reading your mind. I've just been reading your comments. You've made the grounds of your opposition to this story being mentioned here very clear. I don't believe I am mischaracterising you. Jack4576 (talk) 12:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

"Biden Crime Family" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Biden Crime Family has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 14 § Biden Crime Family until a consensus is reached. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC on reporting regarding Biden's grandchildren

Should information regarding Joe Biden's relationship with one of his grandchildren, the child of Lunden Roberts, be briefly noted on this page? The text would note that Joe and the Biden family's relationship with the child is a prominent topic in the media, especially in partisan media. It could additionally note (1) that Joe Biden has not publicly mentioned this grandchild, and (2) that the relationship has been a source of criticism for some members of the Biden family Jack4576 (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment - Notified about this RfC by my watchlist. I think if (i) there is sufficient coverage of this news in media deemed by the Wikipedia community as reliable, (ii) this controversy has acquired some political significance, so as to acquire encyclopedic interest (with due caution for WP:Recentism), as opposed to mere tabloid gossip, then I think there is reason to include this information. Be sure to mention and give proportionate coverage to opposing viewpoints, if available. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Hollerith Jack4576 (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jack4576: Note that Biden has now discussed her in public (see citation I added, etc.) Not sure if this changes your proposal. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Support - The child has received extensive media coverage from multiple reliable sources in various contexts. Under normal circumstances, the inclusion of the child’s name would be routine. I would speculate that those advocating for the exclusion of the name are doing so based on partisan point-of-view grounds.

Here are multiple reliable sources outlining the relationship between Joe Biden and his grandchild, with these articles specifically referencing the child's full name.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/hunter-biden-daughter-lunden-roberts-b2262651.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2023/06/29/hunter-biden-will-give-estranged-daughter-some-of-his-paintings-in-child-support-settlement/amp/

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/01/us/politics/hunter-biden-daughter-arkansas.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/08/opinion/hunter-biden-child.html

2603:8000:3F01:90CD:1450:10C2:838F:7759 (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Support - There is substantial media coverage on the relationship between the Biden family and one of Joe Biden's grandchildren, the child of Lunden Roberts. Some of this coverage reports on Joe and Jill Biden's public acknowledgement of that grandchild. An example of this coverage includes this piece from the New York Times: Hunter Biden’s Daughter and a Tale of Two Families This NYT piece notes and describes the Biden family's relationship with this grandchild at length. It notes that it has become a prominent topic in partisan news coverage. Quote: "Aside from the news coverage and commentary, allies of the Biden family are privately worried that the involvement of right-wing operatives in the matter has made any engagement harder for the family." We have established through consensus that the grandchild is not to be named on Wikipedia. In light of the above I would support the following text being added to acknowledge this high-profile issue;

"Joe Biden has not publicly mentioned this grandchild.[source]. His family's relationship with her is a prominent topic in conservative media.[source]"

Thanks Jack4576 (talk) 04:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The current text only lists the grandchildren. No other line of text talks about the president's relationship to other grandchildren. Just because something is in the news does not make it necessary for inclusion. As it is, this suggested wording should be included on the Hunter Biden page. --Enos733 (talk) 05:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  The reporting is about Joe & Jill’s relationship with the grandchild, not Hunter’s relationship Jack4576 (talk) 06:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The section Family of Joe Biden#Grandchildren is just a listing of grandchildren. It is not the place to go into a more detailed biography of one child. WWGB (talk) 06:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
• Commentuninvolved opinion: Recd. WP:FRS notification IMO deserves encyclopedic mention in briefest possible way since section Family of Joe Biden#Grandchildren lists all known grand children, per WP:NOTCENSORED it would not be wise to not mention paternity proved grandchild just because is not named and does not stay with the family. Though entire controversy background may not have enough encyclopedic relevance to the given article as of the day. Bookku (talk) 07:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for your uninvolved contribution Bookku

  Would you be willing to explain what an appropriately brief mention would look like? Jack4576 (talk) 07:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  IMO present brief statement 'One daughter with Lunden Roberts.' is non judgemental and enough for this article. The rest of controversy seem to be adequately covered in the article Hunter Biden. And that seems enough.

  This article is about Family of Joe Biden. If Hunter Biden brings [unnamed] daughter home, or JB comes across her accidentally or she is approaching on her own and still Joe Biden does not give her deserved affection and a controversy occurs with WP:RS then that time any such behaviour of Joe Biden may be covered in this article. Bookku (talk) 07:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  But if bahaviour of any of Joe Biden's own child is haywire and such RS is available a brief mention to that effect need to be there in their relevant section. Bookku (talk) 07:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  My issue with that is that much of the reporting isn't relevant to Hunter

  For example, the New York Times articles I have referenced are about Joe Biden's relationship with the granddaughter. They discuss Jill Biden's decision to leave the child's name out of a picture book, and Joe's public statements about him having 'six' grandchildren

  You have said: "JB comes across her accidentally or she is approaching on her own and still Joe Biden does not give her deserved affection and a controversy occurs with WP:RS". In my view what you are describing is contained within the RS I have linked above: here, and here. User:Bookku do you agree?

  I think those issues, given their high-profile in the media, warrant a brief mention in a 'Family of Joe Biden' article Jack4576 (talk) 08:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Jack4576 Frankly I couldn't read NYT in detail for some reason. But if, as you say, the NYT articles are saying "Jill Biden's decision to leave the child's name out of a picture book, and Joe's public statements about him having 'six' grandchildren" then that should get a mention in this article. As and when, if at all, Jill and Joe defend those decisions then that time a mention to that effect can be included. I hope that clears my own position. Bookku (talk) 09:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for your time User:Bookku Jack4576 (talk) 09:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - You are right about one thing. "it has become a prominent topic in partisan news coverage." Yes, this has been heavily pushed by anti-Biden forces. There is minor mention elsewhere. You linked to an article, but omitted the part in the article about Trump meddling with the personal affairs of Biden's family. The article points to the facts that the mother's lawyer is one of Trump's lawyers and mother's advisor is a member of Trump's campaign. I've never heard of such in any campaign in American history. If there is anything notable about this -- this fact would seem to be it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support footnoted: Currently it is just a list of the grandchildren. Having a separate article may be more appropriate if it meets the criteria, but I'm not sure this is the place for further expansion on the relationship. That said, I would say it is notable that Joe Biden hasn't mentioned the grandchild, so it would be worth having in an {{efn}} would be warranted. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 13:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Hi User:AquilaFasciata, a separate article has already been ruled out as a possibility. A stand-alone article for the relevant grandchild was deleted a few days ago. Jack4576 (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't know that it has been ruled out already, however I suspected it wouldn't be viable. I just prefer to offer alternatives rather than just saying no, and there is always a chance someone knows something I don't . I still think that having a footnote is the route to go. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 14:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  See: [2] O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  The footnote idea is a reasonable one I think Jack4576 (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - if it's getting a lot of coverage? then add said-topic to this page. Otherwise, don't. GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Or add it to a political article, instead of poisoning this family article with politics because of a family situation which is little understood. These days, you can't wear the wrong patterned tie without someone calling it political. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes because the same standard is definitely held in regards to Trumps family. Your political Pov is quite evident here. 174.240.16.248 (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  WP:AGF WP:NPA O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

  Describing this as a ‘family article’ that should avoid being ‘poisoned by politics’ is a problematic viewpoint in respect of an article about the first family of the United States. (to say the least) Jack4576 (talk) 07:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  Agree with GoodDay here and glad to find, among all of the dissonant voices, someone who thinks the same way as I do. Just apply the WP and see if this matter is getting prominent coverage in reliable sources. If yes, it should be included. If not, don't include it. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support - I believe this is relevant. More specifically, aspects of this New York Times article should be mentioned. Biden not publicly acknowledging the child and image issue it causes should be mentioned. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 05:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support - as a footnote. When Karine Jean-Pierre has to field questions about this at a press conference ([3][4]), it merits noting. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - Jack4576’s article on the 4-year-old daughter was unanimously rejected and G10 deleted, with several harsh comments. [5] Jack4576’s article on the mother was unanimously rejected.[6] The RfC on including the daughter’s name on the Hunter Biden article was SNOW closed.[7] He then added her name to his user page, now redacted. We now see him WP:BLUDGEONING this RfC. What is the obsession with this 4-year-old, innocent child? No crime has been committed, and this child has done nothing to be included in an encyclopedia talking about her out of wedlock birth to a stripper and a drug addict. As she goes through her formative years and then the bullying that we see in a child's school years and social media, the news stories will be long forgotten -- but an encyclopedia is permanent. Leave this little girl alone. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  How am I bludgenoning this RfC? Withdraw your accusation.

  The article I wrote about the granddaughter had no mention of her being an 'out of wedlock birth to a stripper and a drug addict'. Editors curious can look at the archive saved at EverybodyWiki if they want to check. Those quoted words are merely your fixation it would seem, as you're the only one who is using that language here. Please also withdraw this accusation that I wrote those words in an article about the granddaughter.

  From this comment, you are increasingly appearing like an editor that is incapable of participating in this subject area civilly and objectively. You are demonstrating a willingness to make up facts to get your way. I'd recommend you drop this fixation.

  I concur with the arguments as stated by Iamreallygoodatcheckers. Perhaps you could address those, instead of these tedious and overwrought arguments about child safety (as if a Wikipedia article is even in the top 100 things this child and her family has to worry about).

  I would like to hear your response to their arguments. Jack4576 (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  Once again, you make false statements about my edits, which you have now done dozens of times. The articles linked to in these cases mentioned what I mentioned. They would be read by WP readers as that what the links are for. I didn't make it up or investigate it. I never heard of her before you started bringing her up everywhere, and I am a subscriber to three print papers and listen to news in the background most of the day. I have NEVER made up a fact. That is a lie. And stop this nonsense about this being something about me. Read the comments in the first AfD: "This is an appalling attack on a child with her entire life ahead of her." "Delete ASAP - whether you like or dislike Hunter and Joe Biden, don't drag a little girl into this." "Speedy Delete - and a trout to whoever created this page. This is totally inappropriate. What the fuck?" I didn't write these. And listen to what admin Liz said to you how WP is very careful with protecting minor children. And no, I will not respond to other posts here because I don't bludgeon. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  I find it troubling that you won't address the arguments of Iamreallygoodatcheckers and just continue to cast aspersions. Are you WP:HERE to discuss this RfC, or not? The AfD that closed a few days ago is a separate issue

  In regard to your point about links; we're allowed to use sources on topics only in part; even if some parts of the rest of the source not being relied upon are problematic. It is for the readers themselves to seek out the sources if they want to obtain problematic details. Again, WP:NOTCENSORED. I note, for example, that the article Hunter Biden at the moment includes a link to an article that contains the name of the child's mother, even though she is regarded as someone deserving privacy.

  Regarding those comments you've quoted, frankly, I don't agree with them. The AfD was closed too quickly for other editors with differing views to have a chance to respond. I note, though, that you've you've left out the comment that called for a trout to the nominator which also noted that the article was not an attack article. Lets not discuss this anymore here. If you want to discuss, bring it to my talk page.

  Please keep further comments on this thread relevant to this RfC. Jack4576 (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  In all fairness I don't think Jack4576 was bludgeoning this RfC. The majority of the input on the RfC come from other users, and Jack4576is quite passive at this RFC for the most part, although I have no doubt that he would have liked to see his edit go through. Btw, I thought everyone agreed that we are not disclosing the name of this poor child? HollerithPunchCard (talk) 03:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Undue relative to the amount of text we spend on his other grandchildren. The coverage is not substantial relative to Biden's overall prominence, and most of the sources presented aren't even about the grandchild in question directly; the framing of it as a controversy also seems to put excessive weight on a single opinion piece. Also, while I oppose going into it at all here, even if the controversy is briefly mentioned, I'd oppose including the child's name in strongest possible terms - that provides no additional useful context and goes against the guidance of WP:BLPNAME, which specifically discourages using news reports to justify the inclusion of the names of non-public figures. --Aquillion (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose If there is enough WP:RS I think it belongs on a political article, however I do not support inclusion of the childs name anywhere. MaximusEditor (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose extending here IMO present brief statement 'One daughter with Lunden Roberts.' is non judgemental and enough for this article. The rest of controversy seem to be adequately covered in the article Hunter Biden. And that seems enough it would be wholly disproportionate to the level of coverage and relative to other g'children. It would also be wrong and WP:COATRACKy to use this page as a stick to bash the grandfather with. It would also be wrong to name the child here IMO. Pincrete (talk) 06:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
• Partial support - I don't think going into the depth proposed by the nom is WP:DUE. That said, it's probably worth including 1-3 words identifying that this particular grandchild is different from the others. We could simply use the descriptor "unacknowledged child", or something similar. NickCT (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Don't name the kids unless they're Shirley Temple. I would agree with Maximus on this one – if there is significant RS coverage here then yes, but unless the child is on the same level of fame as Shirley Temple, or any comparable figure, don't name them. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. Is this RfC about naming the child? NickCT (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

No it isn't, but at present the article says, under the Hunter Biden section: "One daughter with Lunden Roberts." No one I think is proposing removing that mention, simply not extending the coverage to circumstances of conception, lack of public acknowledgement etc. etc. I think we don't know what kind of help or acknowledgement has been offered by JB - only that certain public inclusions/acknowledgements haven't happened. Pincrete (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose For editors not familiar with recent discussions on this subject: This RfC is based on the false premise that the proposed content is a prominent topic in "the media" and then, oh yeah, it's partisan media. But both parts of that are false and misleading. It is a topic of partisan attacks against Biden. It is not a topic of partisan Biden supporters. It is a topic in the mainstream because they're covering these smears. Anyway, for our purposes on the encyclopedia it's UNDUE BLP content with respect to Joe and unacceptable BLP content relative to the child. This RfC is malformed due to its framing and like past attempts to smear Biden with allegations of everything from sexual assault to changing the definition of "recession" it does not deserve further discussion. On the other hand, there's plenty of solid mainstream RS narratives that should be further developed for this page. SPECIFICO talk 19:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
• Strong support, there is a ton of coverage regarding this grandchild and I haven't heard a convincing argument to not include.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose This seems to me to be undue BLP content. It's kind of amazing to me that it's even a question - this sort of thing belongs only on the Hunter Biden page, if anywhere. For an example we might look at how Billy Carter's escapades and lifestyle choices are described on the Jimmy Carter page. Wikipedia isn't a news outlet. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 03:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support - This has received enough coverage to justify some kind of inclusion. I don't think it's something that needs a lot written about in the biography, but this could fit somewhere part of the President's personal life or regarding his son. I'm not sure the name of the grandchild needs to be mentioned. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - those additional details are better where they are in Hunter Biden. Unless we were giving additional details on all the grandchildren here, this doesn't need additional details here. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support - I believe this to be relevant info. — Sadko (words are wind) 23:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Erroneous photo caption

In this article, there is a picture of the 3 children of Joe Biden with the following caption:

"Beau, Ashley and Hunter Biden as young children, c. 1980s"

Given that the car accident in which Ashley was killed occurred in the 1970s, clearly, this photo is mislabeled. I don't know the original provenance of said photo, so I cannot correct it myself, but I post this in the hope of another person being able to do so. Squallleonhartlo (talk) 09:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

"Joe Biden family" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Joe Biden family has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 29 § Joe Biden family until a consensus is reached. TarnishedPath^talk 14:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Birth year wrong

she was born in 1998 no 2000 173.66.87.139 (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)