Talk:Hunter Biden

RfC: Washington Post report concerning emails

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? TarnishedPath^talk 11:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

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. TarnishedPath^talk 11:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
• 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)

  @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. TarnishedPath^talk 13:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  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)

• 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)
• 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)
• Yes per Pincrete. Senorangel (talk) 04:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

  @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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• No. It is cited and noteworthy. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

  Also I think that there's no weight unless we know what the genuine emails were about which the Washington Post story neglects. TarnishedPath^talk 01:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

  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. TarnishedPath^talk 02:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

Discussion

• 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)

  @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. TarnishedPath^talk 13:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

  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. TarnishedPath^talk 01:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. TarnishedPath^talk 04:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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. TarnishedPath^talk 13:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. TarnishedPath^talk 23:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath I support the edits. In the absence of reasonable objection, that is consensus. Riposte97 (talk) 05:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@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. TarnishedPath^talk 06:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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. TarnishedPath^talk 01:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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? TarnishedPath^talk 01:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

Don't put words in other editor's mouths. TarnishedPath^talk 04:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@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)

@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. TarnishedPath^talk 09:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@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)

No worries, no offence taken. TarnishedPath^talk 11:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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. TarnishedPath^talk 03:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks like the right call to me. Riposte97 (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

@KiharaNoukan, I must have been reading too fast because I read past that sentence. I've reverted myself. TarnishedPath^talk 03:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Since the CBC article backs the claim, isn't the Politico source redundant? Riposte97 (talk) 04:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't think it really matters either way. KiharaNoukan (talk) 04:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah probably. The NYT reference is also outdated. It's probably optimal to remove the Poltico and NYT references. TarnishedPath^talk 05:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu

What chain of custody objections? I can't find anyone saying anything about this here. KiharaNoukan (talk) 01:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

That's fine with me. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

[1][2] – Muboshgu (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. TarnishedPath^talk 04:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

@Milowent

I trust your expertise 2604:3D09:927F:E900:9CE8:5D57:9E0F:544C (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:Crime labels - it shouldn't be done for anyone. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

• Doesn't belong in the first sentence, should be mentioned in the lead with full context (as is already true). WP:Crime labels gets at some of the reasons. Generally, I feel like the truncated label in the first sentence is both over-weighted and under-informative. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly. Though I agree with the above IP that it should be done in the cases of a Dahmer or a John Wayne Gacy only notable for their crimes. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Heading off topic here, but both of those have first-sentence labels that are clear about what they did, focused on the crimes and not the convictions. Much more informative. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

I agree. The relevant manual of style MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE dictates that not be covered in the lead. Your placement seems best. I think we also need to consider the lead of this article is rather long and we could do with reducing it and moving some other stuff into the body. TarnishedPath^talk 05:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

I agree that "convicted felon" should be included in his opening sentence. These are actual felonies and not politically-motivated misdemeanors that are tried as felonies. EnSingHemm (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

This entire process has been politically motivated. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you please provide the guideline which supports your opinion, because MOS:FIRSTBIOSENTENCE suggests it shouldn’t be in the first sentence because it’s not the main reason for his notability TarnishedPath^talk 05:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose in first sentence per Muboshgu: "WP:Crime labels - it shouldn't be done for anyone." and "it should be done in the cases of a Dahmer or a John Wayne Gacy only notable for their crimes" and per Space4Time3Continuum2x: "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...'" Also WP:Crime labels. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment it doesn't say "convicted felon" any more in the first sentence but "Biden was found guilty on three felony charges..." right at the end of the lead. This is fine in my opinion — Iadmc♫^talk  17:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - First, WP:Crime labels is an essay, not policy. Most important, we need to examine what Hunter is most notable for. Unlike Trump, who is notable for his many accomplishments--businessman, entertainer, president--Hunter is notable for far less. I would agree to hold off on this label, and then re-assess when his tax trial is completed, and when Comer is done with him. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLPSTYLE is a policy: Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Hunter Biden is not. He's mostly known for being the son of his father, and Comer will never stop trying to find a shred of evidence (and good luck with that) as long as he's chairman of the Committee of Biden Family Investigations. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose in first sentence basically per Muboshgu. The first sentence is usually for listing a person's notable activities, and neither "felon" nor "convicted felon" are activities, they're a legal status (and "convicted" is redundant). For someone who is primarily known for their criminal activity, we give a high-level summary of their crimes (from examples given above, Ted Bundy: "an American serial killer"; Jeffrey Dahmer: "an American serial killer and sex offender"; and one more, Bernie Madoff: "an American financial criminal and financier"). There is no way for us to say currently if history will remember Hunter Biden as a criminal, and the current news cycle is not the place to go looking for reliable sourcing on that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

No... hell no. This is no on so many levels. First, Hunter is already a public figure so how is "felon" the thing he is most known for now? This is a BLP so we need to be careful about undue harm to the subject. If the conviction is reversed, thrown out on a technically will we apologize? Is anyone most known for being a "felon"? Do we say a convicted mobster is a felon in the first sentence of their biographies? In the lead is arguably reasonable but even then it should be kept in context. He was convicted of [specific crime] not the nebulous label "felon" that tells the reader nothing about the crime or even if the prosecution may be political etc. Springee (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

No. Absolutely not Grossly undue. Blatantly violates WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment should probably be mentioned pretty early. He's mostly known for being the president's son and making questionable choices in his personal life. And convicted felon gets that second part across quite well. Maybe give it until after sentencing to see how things shake out.©Geni (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• I've left a hidden note in the source to try to limit the number of times this is added by potentially well-meaning editors who are not aware of this discussion. This was an attempt at adminning a contentious topic, as an uninvolved admin. Please let me know if I did something wrong, CT-enforcement-wise. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  I said something similar at the duplicate thread at BLPN but I think adding a hidden note (which any editor capable of editing the page can do) is really pushing the definition of both "admin action" and "arbitration enforcement" quite badly. I think you're fine, in fewer words. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps I worded it too self-importantly for my own good? Nevermind, you're probably too nice to tell me so. Anyway, the rationale was that I really do intend to ECP the article if that doesn't work, so I was kind of leaning on that warning more heavily than normal. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Create an RFC on felon in leade? 207.96.32.81 (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

We're kind of doing one already. Anyway, RfCs are a pain! — Iadmc♫^talk  21:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Calling Hunter Biden a convicted felon violates neutral tone. It's better to just say that he was convicted of three felonies and explain what they were. That applies to pretty much anyone whose notability is not based on a criminal career. TFD (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• No as Hunter Biden's biography is not defined by a conviction, any more than Donald Trump's is. Speaking of Trump, I will also lob a grenade-opinion into the mix; anyone who votes one way on this and the opposite way at Talk:Donald_Trump#RfC_on_use_of_"convicted_felon"_in_first_sentence, regardless of which way it is, should likely be topic-banned from the American Politics topic area. Zaathras (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Comment. Agreed. This article has suffered all year from editors who are influenced by their political bias and I assume the same is true of the Donald Trump article. I think the convictions in both cases are significant enough to mention along with other relevant facts in the lead. Hunter Biden is the first son of a sitting President to be convicted of a felony while his father was in office and Trump is the first former President to be convicted of a felony. There are multiple citations for both these facts and it is likely that these facts will be in n the first paragraph of future articles about them, in history texts and in current news articles. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Comment I agree that generally felony convictions should not be in the first sentence of a lead unless that is the only thing the person is notable for. I disagree on your last point, as a former president and the son a current president are not really comparable. It could be argued, for instance, that Hunter Biden is mostly noteworthy because of his father, and his legal controversy while being the son of a president. Trump is noteworthy independent of his political career, and his presidency has a lot more noteworthy stuff. Trumps conviction after being voted out of office really seems more of a footnote in the grand scheme of things. I don't think either should have this in their lead, but do think someone could hold different opinions on the different pages in good faith. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• No agree with above that 'convicted felon' should only be included in lead sentences only when that descriptor is a defining characteristic/what the person is known for/etc. Pretty easy to come back to this in a couple of years when the dust has settled and know whether it should be included (same goes for Trump in my mind). Not sure if this has been called into question, but the details of the conviction should definitely stay in the lead somewhere, and I like the last paragraph that is currently in the article.Yeoutie (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose adding "convicted felon" to the lead sentences of both this article and the Donald Trump article. 'Convicted felon' means the person has been convicted of a felony; are (Hunter) Biden and Trump notable/known for being convicted of felony charges? I would say no. Some1 (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment At this point I it seems like the consensus is strong here. But I was curious and decided to see how we handled this on the page of someone who is only notable for their crimes. Ted Kaczynski came to mind. A keyword search for "felon", which he clearly is, returned zero hits. So if a serial killer/bomber's biograph can exist without a single mention of "felon" in the whole article I feel like we could make it at least through the first sentence without using the word here (and likely in every other biograph on Wikipedia). Springee (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I support convicted felon being in the lead sentence, due to Hunter Biden's main notoriety now being that he is the first child of a president to be convicted of a crime. This is his main notoriety since he has not held any important offices except at Amtrak. He is mainly known for this conviction and for the laptop scandal. laganrat (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Additionally it seems to be recentism for it to be excluded since his conviction(s) is clearly what he will be known for mostly when historians look back. laganrat (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Wow, what an amazing crystal ball you possess! Not only can it determine that the most recent event in a man's life is automatically the most notable, it has looked forward and recorded what historians have already concluded. Wowzers! Zaathras (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. But if it is put deeper in the page, it may seem slightly less important. I feel that it being put at the end of the lead paragraphs, which is what it has now, should be a good balance. It doesn't appear as the page's main focus, although it definitely has some influence. CosmoCreeper249 (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe your right. I feel that it should be put in the page, although if it gets put in the lead sentence, it may be the main focus for the reader. Although, it should definitely be put somewhere. CosmoCreeper249 (talk) 12:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

traumatic brain injury?

does he have a traumatic brain injury or not 209.214.161.105 (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

That would need reliable sources to establish. I suspect it is a slur and therefore has no place here. — Iadmc♫^talk  18:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Read the article. TFD (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Modeling the lead after Michelle Obama and Ivanka Trump pages

Thinking about how to approach political family member pages consistently, I looked for a few examples to point to and think the pages for Michelle Obama and Ivanka Trump might work. Based on these the biggest issue with the Hunter Biden page in my opinion is that it doesn't mention his relationship to Joe Biden until the fourth sentence, and skips it entirely in the first paragraph of the lead. One relevant point is that mention of controversy related to Ivanka Trump and conflict of interests in her business doesn't appear the second paragraph before the end of the lead. I believe that these two pages can serve as broad templates for pages like Hunter Biden's, where there relationship is in the lead, and controversy is included towards the end (The current placement of his legal issues would be in line with what we see on the Ivanka Trump page). This isn't perfect, and isn't a one size fits all solution.

The lead section of Michelle's page states:

"Michelle LaVaughn Obama (née Robinson; born January 17, 1964) is an American attorney and author who served as the first lady of the United States from 2009 to 2017, being married to former president Barack Obama."

The lead section of Ivanka Trump's page states:

"Ivana Marie "Ivanka" Trump (/ɪˈvɑːŋkə/; born October 30, 1981) is an American businesswoman. She is the second child of Donald Trump (the 45th president of the United States) and his first wife, Ivana. Trump was a senior advisor in his administration (2017–2021), and also was the director of the Office of Economic Initiatives and Entrepreneurship"

Based on these, the lead for Hunter Biden's page might look something like:

"Robert Hunter Biden (born February 4, 1970) is an American attorney, business man, and the second son of U.S. President Joe Biden and his first wife, Neilia Hunter Biden. Biden has worked as a hedge fund principal and a venture capital and private equity fund investor. He formerly worked as a banker, a lobbyist, and a legal representative for lobbying firms."

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Condense lead section

Lead section contains too much information that could distributes to other categories. DatGuyidk (talk) 03:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to start on the extreme end of editing this down. Maybe something like:

"Robert Hunter Biden (born February 4, 1970) is an American attorney, business man, and the second son of U.S. President Joe Biden and his first wife, Neilia Hunter Biden. Biden has worked as a hedge fund principal and a venture capital and private equity fund investor. He formerly worked as a banker, a lobbyist, and a legal representative for lobbying firms. Hunter Biden has been associated with several political controversies and legal investigations, including being convicted of three felony charges in June 2024."

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I would support this, though I would remove the space from "business man" and remove and his first wife, Neilia Hunter Biden to make the sentence more concise. Some1 (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I can agree with that. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Putting the conviction in the first paragraph is giving it too much weight. It belongs towards the back of the lead. TarnishedPath^talk 05:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

This isn't the "first paragraph." I'm preposing that text as the entire lead. The position is therefore towards the back. The goal was to cut it all the way to the most basic content. It is extreme editing, if more needs to be added, that's obviously fine. I believe that it would be better to be closer in length to what I'm preposing then what we have now. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I was well aware you weren’t proposing the first sentence, that you were proposing the last sentence of first paragraph. I don’t agree that it should be given that much prominence. At present it’s in the last sentence of the last paragraph which seems appropriate prominence to me. Additionally I think the last and second last paragraphs should be combined and reduced as too much weight is being given too the criminal trials. The lead should summarise the main events from the body, not expand continuously to cover recent news. TarnishedPath^talk 05:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand, I'm preposing deleting the entire current lead, and moving content into the body, and replacing it with the four sentences in that one paragraph. The first paragraph would be the only paragraph. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

GeogSage, that sounds like a major improvement. Riposte97 (talk) 06:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@GeogSage while I agree a significant reduction to the lead would be a good thing, I think reducing it all down to one paragraph is too sharp a reduction. TarnishedPath^talk 07:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, most individuals BLPs could easily be condensed into a single paragraph (and probably should). Hunter, compared to other notable figures, is simply not that interesting. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

That's fair. I think that one or two paragraphs would be the most needed. If you think there is more needed, what would you suggest? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Wait, I thought the suggestion was for the lead paragraph only -- I would oppose replacing the entire introduction with just four sentences. I agree with TarnishedPath that we can remove including being convicted of three felony charges in June 2024. from the proposal. Some1 (talk) 11:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I attempted to condense the lead section into four paragraphs: see version here. I removed a couple of sentences, combined them, etc. and don't believe I substantially changed anything in terms of content. I self-reverted to get some feedback; let me know what y'all think. Some1 (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I prefer the current placement of his relationship to Joe over having it in the first sentence, and I think we should continue to mention the pending trial. Other than that, the trimming looks good to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks good. A lot more balanced compared to the body and removed some of the recentism that doesn’t belong in the lead. TarnishedPath^talk 12:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I have a talk I started above this one that details the argument for putting his relationship to Joe in the first sentence. I used Ivanka Trump and Michelle Obama as models. It is really the main reason he is notable, and should be emphasized early on. I don't think Hunter needs a longer lead then Ivanka. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

This is better, but I think the last three paragraphs can be condensed into one. Look at the page for Ivanka Trump for a model of what I think it could look at. There is to much detail in the four paragraphs and most can be pushed to the body of the article. Look at the Joe Biden page, Hunter is much less notable then his father, his lead can be condensed. We could also use the page for first lady Jill Biden as a model. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Infobox image

Appears to be unlicensed. The Wikimedia Commons deletion page is protected, so I asked an admin for help getting it deleted. It was already flagged as a WP:COPYVIO in December 2023. Added again yesterday, removed be me, added again. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Removed and readded. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the image that was deleted, but the logs indicate it was deleted because its photographer, Bill Clark, is not on the list of Roll Call staff photographers. This image is credited to Tom Williams, who is on the list, thus there is no copyright violation. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe use the one of him as a kid as a compromise? JK — Iadmc♫^talk  14:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Ivanvector, You're right, the image removed last December was a different one. But the free use to the public in the "Image Rights and Restrictions Statements" you cited presumably only applies to the collection deeded to the Library of Congress in 2013 2011 and, within that collection, only to photographs taken by Roll Call staff photographers. See Hammersoft's comment at User_talk:Hammersoft#Copyright violation. The image removed in December was also taken in 2023, so it would also not fall under the "free use to the public" license. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC) Corrected year of deed. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 16:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

This introduction explains what's part of the Congressional Quarterly & Roll Call Collection: The Congressional Quarterly & Roll Call Collection includes photos taken for both publications and donated together by the Economist Group in 2011. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 15:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, you have a point. If the deletion request page on Commons is protected then you'll need to find a Commons admin, I'm not one. Or you could just tag all four files individually as copyright violations. I'll see what I can do about removing the photo here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Another editor has already reverted the image, and I've left a message on the Talk page of Hammersoft who is an admin (don't know whether they're a Commons admin, though). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I see that the images are already tagged for deletion at Commons and have been since April. I've posted at the Commons administrators' noticeboard to try to draw some attention to it; see c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Economist Group/CQ Roll Call copyright issue. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-Protected

Has the article been extended-protected because of the conviction sentence dispute? CosmoCreeper249 (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)