The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message
Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Hunter Biden is within the scope of WikiProject Joe Biden, a project dedicated to creating and improving content related to Joe Biden. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Joe BidenWikipedia:WikiProject Joe BidenTemplate:WikiProject Joe BidenJoe Biden articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Isaac Stanley-Becker (September 25, 2019). "Checking the Web on Hunter Biden? A 36-year-old physicist helps decide what you'll see". Washington Post. Retrieved September 25, 2019. The page has been viewed nearly 230,000 times in the past 30 days, more than the page for Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, or for Vice President Pence. Wikipedia dominates Google's search results and helps supply the information spit out by Siri and Amazon Alexa.
Fang, Lee (August 15, 2023). "Emails Show Hunter Biden Hired Specialists to Quietly Airbrush Wikipedia". Lee Fang. Retrieved August 17, 2023. Powerful individuals and corporations routinely tap specialized consultants to edit Wikipedia for more favorable entries, often through anonymous accounts designed to appear organic. Emails from Hunter Biden's laptop show that he made continuous efforts to airbrush his image and the Wikipedia articles associated with his Ukrainian benefactors.
That certainly would be a more objective/unbiased way of stating an issue. But I am not an intellectual. HillbillyWoman (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The wording reminds me of Gertrude's comment in Hamlet: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." The article loses the appearance of objectivity and doesn't help Hunter Biden. TFD (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to help Hunter Biden. SPECIFICOtalk 03:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of people are here writing this article to help Hunter Biden. I think @TFD was just observing that they are so blatantly biased that thankfully it shows through. It’s supposed to be an encyclopedia with no bias but it’s not. 65.195.242.118 (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this statement. ExpertPrime (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Casting aspersions about the intent of long-standing editors is a swift road to being at best topic-banned from politics articles, or at worst blocked from the Wikipedia entirely. Curb the behavior, please. Zaathras (talk) 05:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I guess folks should not judge intent. Objectively, the article was way biassed. It would be good to be able to point out bias, suggest corrections, and develop an unbiased, objective article without being given the boot. HillbillyWoman (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to point out what in the article you think is biased and suggest corrections. Whether or not they will be implemented depends on what you'd propose. Be sure to use reliable sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may be unaware, Sleyece, that you violated the active arbitration remedy of enforced WP:BRD on this page with this reversion of my reversion. See the top banners on this page for more detail. And the content you removed is cited with the WaPo article directly following it. I recommend you self-revert and seek consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And you were reverted by someone else. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not required to self-revert when you're reverting to keep half a sentence in the lead that had no source because you like reading it. Someone else reverted my revert, so I'm now subject to leave the opinionated information that has no source. -- Sleyece (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source is right there, like I said. You are required to follow BRD, which you did not. And it's not "opinionated", it's factual. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"In March 2022, The New York Times and The Washington Post reported that some of the emails found on the computer were authentic.[6][7]" Literally the next sentence --Sleyece (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You really should become better informed of the subject matter before editing the article. The authenticity of the device and the authenticity of the contents of the hard drive are \separate matters. Zaathras (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is the accusation that I don't understand policy or that I do understand policy and am willfully ignorant of the subject? -- Sleyece (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're misapplying policy because you do not know the subject matter. So, a twofer. Zaathras (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're just mad that the paragraph is in the lead in the first place. It just seems like you're butt-hurt over the encyclopedic data cited in the article to me. -- Sleyece (talk) 02:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're getting needlessly antagonistic, and forgetting that the actual issue here was your "if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit" violation. Take a breath, have some tea, try again. Zaathras (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're leaving out a lot of contextual policy to make it seem like I violated something. I'm the only user getting attacked here and a lot of the basis is stuff about me not being able to "understand". Does any of it have to do with the fact that I shared that I have a genetic condition that affects the nervous system if left unchecked on my user page? What exactly am I being randomly bombarded for all of a sudden? -- Sleyece (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did violate something, the editing restriction placed on this article. I have never viewed your userpage but if you're going to play the disability card, then this engagement ends here. Zaathras (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm playing the I dog-walked you on policy card. -- Sleyece (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is an accusation of impropriety against my character, I'd like to know the nature of it so I can respond. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If any user would like to make an official accusation against me, let's get to it. If not, that'll be all Chief. -- Sleyece (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RfC: Washington Post report concerning emails[edit]
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
The fourth paragraph of the lede currently contains the following sentence:
"In March 2022, The New York Times and The Washington Post reported that some of the emails found on the computer were authentic."
Should it be removed? TarnishedPathtalk 11:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the source given for the sentence from the Washington Post clearly states that a) the laptop is "purportedly from the laptop computer of Hunter Biden". Further b) "[t]he verifiable emails are a small fraction of 217 gigabytes of data provided to The Post on a portable hard drive by Republican activist Jack Maxey". Therefore keeping this sentence in the article, let alone the lede, would be wildly WP:UNDUE when it does not give full context. When covering this kind of stuff we must give mind to WP:BLP which states "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". Further per MOS:LEADBIO "When writing about controversies in the lead section of a biography, relevant material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources, and make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article" (emphasis mine). It is clear from the body of this article that Washington Post report is not mentioned in the body of the article in regards to the laptop emails, therefore nor should it be in the lede. TarnishedPathtalk 11:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No The two RFCs cited by Firefangledfeathers below already settled the topic on the ownership of the laptop. The argument made by TarnishedPath appears to relitigate that discussion, perhaps inadvertently. Consensus can change, but typically that requires some new information. Nothing presented here so far or would require the community to revisit this topic. Given the ownership of the laptop is settled by previous discussion it's not WP:UNDUE to mention it in the lead. There is nothing "sensationalist" about the claim and it's perfectly reasonable reflection of the sources and previous discussions. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nemov, I don't mean to relitigate ownership of the laptop. I am questioning the use of an out of context sentence which states some emails were authentic. It's wild given the rest of the paragraph it finds itself in. TarnishedPathtalk 13:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My original vote was pointed towards inclusion in the article itself, but this seems WP:UNDUE to be mentioned in the lead. So changing vote to yes. This is fine for the body of the article. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but mostly because the sentence is not easy to read, not because of any policy reasons. Would be open if someone did a more detailed rewrite but would probably become UNDUE. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but mostly because the paragraph is UNDUE in a BLP article. Some of the emails are (probably?) genuine, so what? Without knowing how many, how they came to be there and what they say it's an insignificant snippet purporting to be substantive and trying to imply something. "But the Post provided no evidence of the chain of custody or authenticity of the device" is also unnec and covered by the following sentence with minor mods. Anyone wanting a 'blow by blow' account can read the 'laptop' article. That the laptop controversy happened is significant, but the substantive BLP point is that, since some years ago, "no evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden has been found" as a result of the laptop. Wake me when they find out otherwise! Pincrete (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; it makes sense to include that on an article about the laptop, but Hunter Biden's personal article isn't the place for every blow-by-blow bit of partisan wrangling over the laptop. Only the top-level summary of what it means is needed here. --Aquillion (talk) 06:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should be removed and, frankly, the following sentence stating that "some of the Bidens' detractors have said that the laptop contents exposed corruption by Hunter's father, but no evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden has been found" should be cut down as well. It's unclear to me whether "Biden's detractors" refers to Hunter or Joe, and either way, it should be explained in the body of the article. The salient point that this sentence should convey is that "No evidence of wrongdoing by Hunter's father, Joe Biden, has been found." Avgeekamfot (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NoIf it's verifiably factual, then I think it should stay in, though there is something to be said for including it somewhere other than the lead.Coalcity58 (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Coalcity58: Please see WP:ONUS, which is part of our core policy. Not all verified fact passes the other tests necessary for inclusion in any particular article or even any article at all. SPECIFICOtalk 14:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - If it's in the body of the page? Then it doesn't matter (IMHO) whether or not it's in the lead. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - It's WP:UNDUE for the lead. It can be discussed in more detail if necessary in the article itself (or more preferably in the article about the laptop controversy specifically) but not the lead. Fieari (talk) 07:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - Not keen on this kind of statement about what could have been innocuous emails near text speaking of possible corruption in a WP:BLP. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes This is UNDUE for this biography page without a lot of detail and context. Such detail is provided in other article pages. Without the context, the proposed text would be misleading to many or most of our readers. SPECIFICOtalk 13:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes per Pincrete, and also support the change to the following sentence proposed by Avgeekamfot. Choucas Bleu (T·C) 21:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It's misleading. The WaPo article says that 22,000 emails among the "289,000 individual user files" had "cryptographic signatures that could be verified using technology that would be difficult for even the most sophisticated hackers to fake" and that those signatures prove "that the message came from a verified account and has not been altered in some way". But does that necessarily mean that they were sent to or from the laptop? The email account isn't the client that sits on the laptop, it's hosted by a provider and can be accessed from other hardware. (The next sentence doesn't belong in the lead, either. This isn't Joe Biden's article, "some of the Bidens' detractors" is clunky, and juxtaposing corruption with "no evidence of wrongdoing has been found" is a BLP violation.) Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There were two major RfCs at Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy about how to discuss ownership of the laptop. The first, in late 2022, resulted in consensus against using the word "alleged" to describe Biden's ownership of the laptop, and the second, in early 2023, resulted in rough consensus to describe the laptop as belonging to Biden. Many sources and arguments were collected/presented in both RfCs that might be useful here. I'm also posting a note at that talk page to invite comment here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers, much obliged. Mine is also a question of DUE. I recognise that there is material in the body, but that the material in the body doesn't inform the lede. TarnishedPathtalk 13:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
how about "reported that some of the emails found on the computer were verified as authentic, though the vast majority were not verified" soibangla (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two issues with that. Firstly it's not even in the body at this point so is against MOS:LEADBIO and secondly it would present a WP:FALSEBALANCE putting it in the lede even if it were in the body. TarnishedPathtalk 01:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
