Talk:Family of Joe Biden

• 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.^[a] - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 13:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  See: [1] O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

  ]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• Support - as a footnote. When Karine Jean-Pierre has to field questions about this at a press conference ([2][3]), it merits noting. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Jack4576’s article on the 4-year-old daughter was unanimously rejected and G10 deleted, with several harsh comments. [4] Jack4576’s article on the mother was unanimously rejected.[5] The RfC on including the daughter’s name on the
  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)[reply
  ]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply
  ]
• 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)[reply
  ]
• 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)[reply
  ]
• 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)[reply
  ]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).