Jump to content

Talk:Hunter Biden

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by David Tornheim (talk | contribs) at 17:22, 11 June 2024 (→Convicted felon in opening sentence: oppose). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

You violated page restrictions

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

NO CONSENSUS, DEFAULTING TO OMIT
It's likely that this discussion will be seen by non-Wikipedians, so I'll try to explain what we've decided, and why, in enough detail that a non-Wikipedian would be able to follow it.
This is a Request for Comment ("RfC"), which is a method we Wikipedians use to make tricky content decisions. Interested people who have accounts in good standing are invited to express a view. After a time, and when discussion has died down, another editor summarizes the discussion and communicates the decision the community has made. This is called "closing".
A sacred cow of Wikipedia is that the closer has to be neutral and uninvolved. The closer isn't the decider -- instead the closer writes a closing summary that documents what the community has decided. The closer is expected to apply relevant rules called policies and guidelines. This is my role, and the principle of uninvolvement is why I -- a man who knows nothing about Hunter Biden's emails and has never even set foot in the US -- am writing this. If I seem to be the decision maker, then that's an illusion.
The matter is relevant to a likely US presidential candidate in a US presidential election year, and is therefore extremely contentious and toxic on Wikipedia. It's attracted a lot of participation and interest.
The decision that's needed is how much emphasis to give to two reports, in the New York Times and Washington Post, about emails found on a laptop that's understood to have belonged to Hunter Biden. Nobody's proposing to remove the said journalism from the article, but there's a reasonable case to be made for removing it from the "lead", which is the article's first few paragraphs.
Normally when Wikipedians make a content decision, we refer to the sources to decide how to resolve it, but this decision doesn't lend itself to that mechanism. We aren't deciding what information to include. Instead we're deciding where in the article to place it. As such, it's a matter of encyclopaedic judgment, and I give weight to people's judgment not according to whether I personally agree with them, but instead according to their contribution history (which I use as an approximation for their experience as Wikipedians) and whether their account is in good standing. After carrying out this exercise I get to no consensus.
When there's no consensus in a content decision, the rule is as stated in our core content policy here: in other words, we default to removing the disputed information from the lede, but retaining it in the body text. The consequent edits may be made.
I hope this is clear and suffices to fully resolve the dispute, but questions, comments, criticism, and complaints about this close are welcome and should be directed to my talk page in the first instance.—S Marshall T/C 10:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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]

Survey

  • 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 per Pincrete. Senorangel (talk) 04:48, 26 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. SPECIFICO talk 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]
  • 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. SPECIFICO talk 13:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. It is cited and noteworthy. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:07, 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]
  • No. It is sourced, and noteworthy because it suggests that the laptop's data are not, at least, entirely fabricated. We must be careful not to set a bar to inclusion that equates to 'it's theoretically possible that x fact is a fabrication, or that y evidence was planted as part of a hit job'. Equivocation is the job of politicians and partisans, not Wikipedians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riposte97 (talk • contribs)
  • Yes - This does not seem to be the main point and having a few emails that are genuine does not have weight unless we know what percent or how many of the 22k emails are genuine. I also support the points made by Pincrete. Jurisdicta (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also I think that there's no weight unless we know what the genuine emails were about which the Washington Post story neglects. TarnishedPathtalk 01:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - The only thing to change is to note that WaPo and NYT coverage in March 2022 is not particularly notable on its own. There have been a number of media outlets authenticating laptop contents, such as CNN, CBS, and Politico dating back well to 2021. It should be replaced by mentioning media outlets in general, starting in 2021. Removing it outright makes no sense. This change ends up with the lead discussing the NY Post story and a bunch of media outlets initially not covering it, while omitting the considerable body of RS coverage that has developed over time on the actual substance of the content wrt the laptop. It'll be as if the entire section got stuck in October 2020 and never was updated. KiharaNoukan (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No excluding the significant developments of this story from the lead without excluding everything else about the laptop (in the lead) would be WP:UNDUE, and ultimately, WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY should be respected. Being selective about what aspects of this story belongs in the lead seems partisan, at best. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Incorrect, keeping the sentence would lead to a situation where the lede does not follow the body because that content is not in the body and many editors have detailed exactly why it's UNDUE to keep it. TarnishedPathtalk 02:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. If it's not mentioned in the body of the article it should be added there. If we remove this but keep the previous sentence, the lede would violate NPOV as we would mention the issues with the provenance but not that (some of) the emails turned out to be authentic. Alaexis¿question? 21:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No It is important to note that some of the emails were found to authentic by reliable newspapers like WaPo and the NYT.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 12:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • NoAs per Spy-cicle It is important to note that some of the emails were found to authentic by reliable newspapers The New York Times and The Washington Post.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I submit that the following points, listed chronologically, are factual:
1) NY Post publishes article about laptop
2) Republicans claim laptop contents show evidence of Joe Biden corruption
3) Reliable sources report some laptop emails are authentic
4) Congressional investigations subsequent to initial laptop story find no evidence of J.Biden corruption
I further submit that those four points can be included in the lede. The laptop has been a big continuing story and deserves a place in the Hunter Biden article, including the lede. The laptop became newsworthy because Republicans publicly and repeatedly claimed it showed evidence of Joe Biden corruption. If Republicans had not made those claims, laptop news coverage would be minimal or non-existent. If the lede makes any mention of the laptop, it must give the context that Republicans claimed it contained evidence of J.Biden corruption (point 2 above). To achieve Balance and Due, points 3 and 4 should therefore be included in the lede. DonFB (talk) 07:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reversion of updates and fixes to article content

@SPECIFICO Not sure why you're reverting basic factual fixes and updates, any of which can be easily verified by reading the cited content.

Part 1, Lead:

Post and lack of coverage from other outlets: You reverted back to content that misreads or outright hallucinates content in the cited source. Read the cited WaPo article: It states that what the NYP specifically failed to do was providing info to other outlets. After the story came out, the Post didn’t share the material with other outlets for them to do their own investigations. In other words, coverage necessarily depended on taking the Post’s word for things, which is by itself a disincentive for other outlets. In turn, this and The reticence to aid possible Russian interference are the general items cited for why other media outlets in general did not cover the story initially. "Provenance" was cited wrt Fox News in particular not covering the story independently of and prior to the Post article, not BECAUSE the Post didn't provide "provenance". Fox News had already passed on it, apparently in part because of the questions about provenance. (emphasis mine)

Tax charges in lead: The content you reverted to: "Biden pled not guilty to tax charges for filing two years of his tax returns late" is blatantly unsourced and false. Go ahead, read the cited BBC article and show me the charges being Hunter "filing two years of his tax returns late". I provided a PBS Newshour source that explicitly laid out what he was charged with: Hunter Biden was charged last month with two misdemeanor tax crimes of failure to pay more than $100,000 in taxes from over $1.5 million in income in both 2017 and 2018.

Gun charges in lead: The content you reverted to: "firearms-related charges, in particular possessing an unloaded pistol for 11 days." is obviously misleading and a POV violation. Believe it or not, possessing an unloaded pistol for 11 days in the US is not a federal crime. This is sourced to Biden's lawyer from the cited AP source: Defense attorney Abbe Lowell argued that part of the deal, which includes immunity provisions against other potential charges, remains in place. He said in a statement that Hunter Biden “possessing an unloaded gun for 11 days” presented no threat to public safety The same AP source states in their own words what the actual charges are: A third count alleges he possessed the gun for about 11 days despite knowing he was a drug user.

Biden pleaded not guilty to tax and gun charges: You reverted content establishing that Biden pleaded not guilty to both tax and gun charges. He's not only on trial for tax charges in California. This can be easily verified by bothering to read the cited AP source for a femtosecond.

Biden court date of June 3 in Delaware: You reverted content establishing that he actually has an earlier, June 3 trial in Delaware. His first trial date is on June 3 in Delaware for gun charges per cited Politico article. Again, he is not only facing trial on tax charges in California. The gun charges did not disappear into fairy dust.

Part 2, Investigations and federal indictments:

Actual charges part 3: body version: You reverted back to including content from an outdated NBC news article from April 2023 that incorrectly predicted the charges he faced: two misdemeanor counts for failure to file taxes, a single felony count of tax evasion and a felony count related to a gun purchase. We know what charges he actually was charged with, because the DOJ released them in June 2023: Hunter Biden is charged with two violations of failure to pay income tax and one violation of unlawful possession of a firearm by a person prohibited.

"trial date yet to be determined": You reverted back to outdated content of no trial date determined. The trial date is June 3, 2024 for the gun charges in Delaware. This has been reported in RS for months: CNN.

Biden's appeals: You reverted back to content giving undue weight to Biden appeals that have since been repeatedly thrown out in court, giving details on specifically one (failed) argument he made for his gun charges alone for whatever reason. All while removing content that establishes that Biden has in fact, failed in these appeals. Gun appeal fails, Politico: Tax appeal fails, Courthouse News Also see above for the content you removed establishing a trial date of June 3, 2024.

Part 3, Laptop files:

Moving Biden's congressional deposition: You reverted the moving of this to its appropriate section in the laptop area and content elaborating on what was said in the deposition. This is not really relevant to his charges. This was part of the impeachment inquiry against his father, based on content found on his laptop. Biden also provides important POV details on the laptop during the deposition. Per AP: The impeachment inquiry has focused on several pieces of evidence as Republicans try to build their case, including emails, text messages and a now-in-dispute laptop....As for Hunter Biden’s laptop that was allegedly dropped off at a Delaware repair shop and the source for many allegations against the Biden family, he testified that he does not recall bringing it in.

Now, @SPECIFICO I'm confident that you reviewed these edits and the sourcing before doing a mass revert of cited content from RS; Can you tell me what your reasons are for reverting them? KiharaNoukan (talk) 01:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through the above, and it is rigourous. Are there any objections to restoring any of the above? Riposte97 (talk) 04:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it has been reverted by @SPECIFICO, you might want to wait to give them a chance to state what if any concerns they had. TarnishedPathtalk 04:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find it misleading, not NPOV framed, and poorer written English. Please give editors a few days' time to digest, review, and comment. SPECIFICO talk 15:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to the edits you object to and explain in detail? I can only assume you already reviewed the edits and have reasons to consider them misleading before reverting them, and can thus give these explanations? KiharaNoukan (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS are on you to demonstrate consensus for each of your proposed changes to longstanding content long accepted by the many editors on this page. SPECIFICO talk 12:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's great that you understand that. Since you are the one who reverted the content, and per WP:BRD-NOT: you need to follow BRD yourself, which means joining the discussion and explaining your substantive reasons for rejecting their edits, can you explain your substantive reasons for rejecting any of the edits? Please do elaborate on how you've come to your conclusions on rejecting the edits, I can only presume you would have these readily available, since they would have informed your decision to revert. KiharaNoukan (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. For my part, I think the edits were an improvement. Specifico, I'd also like to engage with your reasoning. Riposte97 (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO has brought up that per WP:ONUS KiharaNoukan needs to demonstrate consensus for their edits. I've yet to see such consensus formed. My suggestion would be that instead of broadly editing the article, all in parts which are contentious, in quick succession that KiharaNoukan slow down and bring specific proposals to talk one at a time. TarnishedPathtalk 13:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Specifico brought up supposed issues like misleading content in the edits. How is one supposed to find out what exactly is "misleading" or "contentious" if that is never explained? Is any editor able to offer an actual material contention or make a claim as to how these edits have issues with policies? Presumably the reverting editor would have such reasons and would be able to explain them. KiharaNoukan (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SPECIFICO, can you please lay out specifically what you find to be misleading, not NPOV framed, and poorer written English point by point? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SPECIFICO, consider that the nonspecific objections you're raised could be interpreted as an attempt to inject a personal political POV. Lexlex (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lexlex, you write "could be interpreted as". That's about as clear a declaration of an intent to assume bad faith as one can get. Don't go there. You must AGF. It is usually a personal attack to invoke another editor's "personal political POV" in a discussion. Stick to discussing content, not an editor's intentions/motives. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've not addressed WP:ONUS and my suggestion that you slow down and bring specific edits to talk one at time to determine if there is consensus. TarnishedPathtalk 23:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath I support the edits. In the absence of reasonable objection, that is consensus. Riposte97 (talk) 05:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Riposte97 I've outlined a reasonable objection in regards to too many edits, covering too many areas of the article, in quick succession. I've also suggested a reasonable way forward. One person's support for the edits does not amount to consensus. TarnishedPathtalk 06:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, that is not a policy-based objection to any of the edits. It is a process objection and ultimately, not relevant to establishing consensus. If you have an objection to any particular edit, then I agree, the most efficient thing to do would be to split them off and discuss those people object to one-by-one. Riposte97 (talk) 06:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ONUS and BURDEN are policy. Are you aware that HB paid his taxes long before this indictment? SPECIFICO talk 08:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone is aware, that is mentioned in the article twice. Is this meant to be an argument against including his actual tax charges and instead OR-ing charges of not filing taxes from a BBC article that doesn't support that claim?
Paying eventually doesn't change the fact that Biden was actually charged with not paying his taxes wrt the initial plea deal charges or that the description of a mere "not filing" fails verifiability. Even the cited BBC article calls the charges "tax evasion". I listed PBS earlier, here are other RS that clearly explain he was charged with failure to pay. NBC, AP, NPR, Al Jazeera, NYT. KiharaNoukan (talk) 14:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all reasonable objections are required to be policy based. WP:ONUS doesn't put the burden on those making the objections to demonstrate that consensus is not met, it places the burden on those seeking to make changes to obtain consensus. You don't get to decide what is and what is not relevant here. TarnishedPathtalk 01:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is measured by weighing arguments based on policies and guidelines, and discounting those without a basis in policy. WP:STONEWALL is a guideline. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be self evident that the existence and purpose of this talk section is to address onus. Do you interpret the onus policy as allowing editors to revert edits, spam WP:ONUS, and get a get out of jail free card to never explain why they revert, forcing discussions into dead ends? As for one at a time, that was, in fact, how I structured my edits. However they were reverted en masse, so I would be interested in finding out what, if any edits, there are actual material objections to, which I am sure the reverting editor should be able to discuss and provide. KiharaNoukan (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A series of edits in quick succession is not what I have in mind when it comes to one at a time. It in no way gives people a chance to digest what is going on when you've made them across broad sections of the article. Your comment is what I'd classify as WP:ABF, so you need to step away from that line and WP:AGF. Now I've suggested a reasonable path forward that could resolve this situation, do you intend of arguing back and forth repeatedly or are we going to try something else? TarnishedPathtalk 01:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A reasonable path forward, as has been mentioned by multiple editors in this discussion, would be an explanation of the reversion, so that a discussion can be facilitated. I broke down my edits on a point by point basis on talk, I broke them down individually in the article itself. It's unclear what you are suggesting. I'm glad you agree that someone applying ONUS in such a hypothetical may be perceived as bad faith, I encourage actual discussion of the actual material behind the edits. KiharaNoukan (talk) 01:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't put words in other editor's mouths. TarnishedPathtalk 04:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath It isn't 'putting words' in editors' mouths. It is simply summarising what I and others have said above. You have not offered a basis for why the edits should not be made. In the absence of policy-based arguments, consensus can be determined over objections, as SFR rightly pointed out above. Riposte97 (talk) 09:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Riposte97 I was referring to the comment directly above mine. The part of the comment that started with "I'm glad you agree ..." as it is abundantly clear that I had not shown agreeance to the words which were being put into my mouth. TarnishedPathtalk 09:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath Apologies, struck. However, we are still faced with the problem that we have a suite of edits ready to go, and we're boxing at shadows when it comes to objections. Riposte97 (talk) 09:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, no offence taken. TarnishedPathtalk 11:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO it's now been over a week since these revisions were mooted. Have you had time to consider specific objections to each? I'm happy to workshop it with you, as I'm sure is @KiharaNoukan, however, to do so we need to understand what your specific objections are. Riposte97 (talk) 09:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it'll be much more worthwhile to discuss the actual edits and move into a constructive discussion. KiharaNoukan (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO If you have time to revert even more updates to article content, surely you can explain those here in addition to the earlier reversions?
For your edit removing an update on what prosecutors are utilizing the laptop for, why would prosecutors utilizing the actual laptop as evidence be "notnews" and premature to assess significance? We have random snippets like an account about an anonymous twitter poster posting laptop documents, but not the Weiss special counsel utilizing the laptop itself as evidence? We have Biden making an ask to the DOJ to investigate people involved with the laptop, but not an actual DOJ decision to use the laptop in prosecution? This is easily one of the most due pieces of content here. Or is this linked to your revert on mentioning Hunter's impending gun trial in your previous edits?
For your edit removing an update to the total loan amount given by Morris, you realize this is in the article already, just with outdated figures and an irrelevant date given of when NYT happened to report on it vs when loans actually started? KiharaNoukan (talk) 03:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, remove the other trivia if you wish. I didn't intend to reverse the dollar amount update. SPECIFICO talk 03:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's great, what about all the other reverts you did, see earlier comment and original post? KiharaNoukan (talk) 03:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO: I have undone your revert which re-inserted incorrect information into the article. Against my better judgement, I have left for now your removal of the fact prosecutors are treating the laptop as evidence. I do so in the hope that you will engage here. Riposte97 (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KiharaNoukan: I think we should wait 24h for an explanation, then go ahead and make the edits. Unfortunately, SPECIFICO has form in this area, and I don't think it's productive to give them much more of the benefit of the doubt than we already have. Riposte97 (talk) 03:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KiharaNoukan: I think we should wait 24h for an explanation, then go ahead and make the edits. Unfortunately, SPECIFICO has form in this area, and I don't think it's productive to give them much more of the benefit of the doubt than we already have. Riposte97 (talk) 03:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the Politico citation in the section of text to do with the loan of monies because a) the reporter's source isn't named and therefore it strikes me as gossip and b) the material is adequately supported by the CBS News source in any case.
I was considering removing the whole of the material to do with the loaning of monies because it strikes me as WP:UNDUE, however I've refrained. Other's can have that discussion if they wish. TarnishedPathtalk 03:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the right call to me. Riposte97 (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't really matter, but I don't think you're looking in the right part...?
From the Politico article: It is unclear precisely how much Morris has spent thus far to support Biden, but in a January letter to the House oversight committee, Morris’ lawyer said Morris had loaned Biden more than $6.5 million. They hyperlink the letter in the article, which is signed by Early Sullivan Wright Gizer & McRae LLP, on the law firm's letterhead. If you're referring to Morris running out of money to pay Hunter's legal bills, that's not what I'm using in the article and at any rate, Politico reached out for comment and got confirmation of it: Morris confirmed the person’s account but declined to elaborate further. KiharaNoukan (talk) 03:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KiharaNoukan, I must have been reading too fast because I read past that sentence. I've reverted myself. TarnishedPathtalk 03:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the CBC article backs the claim, isn't the Politico source redundant? Riposte97 (talk) 04:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I don't think it really matters either way. KiharaNoukan (talk) 04:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah probably. The NYT reference is also outdated. It's probably optimal to remove the Poltico and NYT references. TarnishedPathtalk 05:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu
What chain of custody objections? I can't find anyone saying anything about this here. KiharaNoukan (talk) 01:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There were concerns about the chain of custody. Enough so that I think that term should remain. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure we can just add those particular words in too, they are present in the WaPo article and linked to media inability to vet on their own from lack of access to the laptop/emails, just not in the "the Post did not provide evidence of chain of custody" wording currently present. The WaPo article implies that if anything, that the other outlets wouldn't just take the Post's word for it even if it did provide content on chain of custody. After the story came out, the Post didn’t share the material with other outlets for them to do their own investigations. In other words, coverage necessarily depended on taking the Post’s word for things, which is by itself a disincentive for other outlets. After the story published Oct. 14, media outlets tried to assess its credibility, without luck.
For an edit with that term: The laptop supposedly contained about 129,000 emails and other materials, but the Post did not provide them to other media outlets to vet and investigate. Other media outlets declined to publish the story because of a lack of access to the Post's material, problems in verifying the laptop's chain of custody, and concerns about aiding suspected Russian interference. KiharaNoukan (talk) 01:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[1][2] – Muboshgu (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed tag

@Acroterion
Regarding your claim of a drive by tag, can I ask what would be sufficient to not be a "drive by tag"? WP:DRIVEBY states Adding tags for non-obvious or perceived problems—without identifying the problem well enough for it to be easily fixed—is frequently referred to as "drive-by tagging", particularly when done by editors who are not involved in the article's development. When it comes to confusing or subjective tags, such as NPOV, it is important to explain yourself on the article's talk page or in an edit summary
What should I clarify on this talk page to identify the problem? KiharaNoukan (talk) 03:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That tag is usually used for low-traffic articles that are years out of date, and tags should not be placed by editors who are in disagreement with other editors - tagging should reflect a broad consensus that an article needs a particular sort of cleanup. Tags are increasingly deprecated because they tend to be abused as weapons in editing disputes, and really should not be placed on articles subject to CT remedies without broad agreement. Acroterion (talk) 04:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I'd say that a lot of the tags I see are on articles that there isn't a lot of activity. They're generally tags to do with citations. If there was more activity on the articles that would cause the tags to disappear one would think, because the issues would be resolved.
I agree with not using tags as a means to push a content dispute. I can't remember the number of times I've seen that as the catalyst for a WP:AN/I report. TarnishedPathtalk 04:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there another tag or anything else that might work to flag this issue? Some of the content is literally a year+ out of date, incorrectly referencing his charges. KiharaNoukan (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can change the article or start a discussion. A purpose of tags is to bring in editors. But this page has 368 watchers, 34 of whom have been here in the last month. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No work history conducted

There is no evidence that he ever contributed to any company. He did hold titles, nut no services are reported to exist. 172.242.106.208 (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By who, in what source? Koncorde (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Service in the US Navy

So he was in the Navy for one year? That's a very atypical term of service. Any explanation for that? 57.135.233.22 (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Convicted felon in opening sentence

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 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hunter_Biden&oldid=1228515713"