This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.
Due to length, I would like to consider implementing more summary style. This would apply, for example, to the Hunter Biden laptop material, which is entirely out of place and out of proportion to its overall significance, importance, and impact. I am considering trimming a lot of this as a result. Furthermore, it’s not even a real issue, it’s a manufactured controversy, and it should be given less prominence as a result. Viriditas (talk) 04:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the Hunter Biden laptop material could be trimmed. The main article on the laptop seems to be pretty comprehensive. The section in the campaign article seems to want to leave the reader with the impression that there is good reason to think that the laptop was a Russian disinformation scheme, a claim which seems to have been conclusively refuted. As for the laptop matter being a manufactured controversy, I don't see the reasons to look at it that way. The laptop really did belong to Hunter Biden, and no evidence has emerged that anything on the laptop was inauthentic. GrinningBar69 (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
