Line 1,486: | Line 1,486: | ||
:RS do not state that they know that anyone "dropped it off" because the laptop was first revealed when the Post story broke, via collaboration with other Trump-affiliated operatives. "Dropped off at the repair shop fails verification in RS. It does not address the issue and the reinsertion of that unverified content, after the attribution was conformed to the statement in the cited source, is a disallowed BLP violation.[[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 16:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC) |
:RS do not state that they know that anyone "dropped it off" because the laptop was first revealed when the Post story broke, via collaboration with other Trump-affiliated operatives. "Dropped off at the repair shop fails verification in RS. It does not address the issue and the reinsertion of that unverified content, after the attribution was conformed to the statement in the cited source, is a disallowed BLP violation.[[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 16:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC) |
||
Do we ''really'' need to know <u>who</u> dropped it off? It was dropped off, enough said. For the time being, I don't see it as something for folks to obsess about. PS - I think we can agree, it wasn't [[teleported]] there. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC) |
Do we ''really'' need to know <u>who</u> dropped it off? It was dropped off, enough said. For the time being, I don't see it as something for folks to obsess about. PS - I think we can agree, it wasn't [[teleported]] there. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC) |
||
:Please read my comment immediately above. We do not know that it was "dropped off". And your [[WP:OR]] is not relevant to the discussion and is certainly no justification for [[WP:V|unverified]] BLP content. We do not know that it was "dropped off". For one counterexample, it could have been sourced in Ukraine or the US by Republican/Trump affiliates and placed with the sight-impaired man in the shop. Please read the cited source and refrain from deflections such as teleport in lieu of Reliable Source verification.[[User:SPECIFICO |<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b>]][[User_talk:SPECIFICO | ''talk'']] 16:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:40, 12 January 2023
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
seizure
If the circumstances of the FBI seizure are not specified in the lead, I submit the seizure should not be mentioned in the lead at all, especially not right up top soibangla (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- soibangla I think this article is in serious need of some tags in the meantime. Possibly POV and OR? DN (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Soibangla I see your point. The lead would read just fine without mention of the FBI seizure. IMO, the lead should be focused on the aspects of the article title: the controversy itself. So, the laptop, the reporting, etc. I went ahead and made a change in line with this. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- cool, thank you soibangla (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Soibangla Per friendly advice from SPECIFICO here, I self-reverted one of the edits I made, which took the article away from the version that we seemingly agreed on. Just wanted to let you know. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- cool, thank you soibangla (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
@Soibangla: Was it your view that the circumstances of the seizure should be removed from the lead? My impression was that, with the context included, you favored the mention that has now been reverted again. I favor the version with the circumstances farther down and think the removal should be undone. SPECIFICO talk 23:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- I also
favor the version with the circumstances farther down and think the removal should be undone
. soibangla (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
[{ping|PhotogenicScientist}} Apparently your removal of that detail did not have concsensus here. You are the only one favoring removal. Please restore the text by self-reverting. Your edit summary "per talk" to remove it was not correct. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- You asked him to undo one of the reverts as it was a potential DS violation. Slow down and relax - none of this is urgent. Read the comment 3 above yours for more context. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- I don't believe I've violated any policy in making that edit. I boldly made a change that I believed would not be contested, more than 24 hours after my last change. You may feel free to make an edit you deem appropriate, @SPECIFICO PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't mention policy. Just that you appeared to make your recent removal to implementing what you thought was a talk page consensus from this thread, per your edit summary. But it is now clear that there was not such consensus, so I asked you to undo. SPECIFICO talk 15:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- People make mistakes. And mistakes get undone by consensus in time. I appreciate you following up on the issue in this thread, but I'm not going to apologize for my edit. I invite anyone that disagrees with the current state of the article re: this topic to edit as they see fit. Knowing what I now know, I won't contest it. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- Nobody's asked you to apologize. SPECIFICO talk 17:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- Respectfully, I see no difference between that and asking someone to self-revert an edit that is otherwise policy-compliant PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- The problem was to claim that the edit was reflecting a settled talk page consensus (in your edit summary) when there was no such consensus. That misleads other editors who may skip over the edit on their watchlists or on perusing the article history. This is not an accusation of a crime. It's just a way to edit more collaboratively and to ensure that everyone can do their best to improve the article. SPECIFICO talk 18:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- I believe a cure to that could be any other editor making an edit with the summary "consensus still in dispute; see Talk page." It doesn't have to be me for it to make sense to these unidentified editors that peruse page histories. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- The problem was to claim that the edit was reflecting a settled talk page consensus (in your edit summary) when there was no such consensus. That misleads other editors who may skip over the edit on their watchlists or on perusing the article history. This is not an accusation of a crime. It's just a way to edit more collaboratively and to ensure that everyone can do their best to improve the article. SPECIFICO talk 18:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- Respectfully, I see no difference between that and asking someone to self-revert an edit that is otherwise policy-compliant PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- Nobody's asked you to apologize. SPECIFICO talk 17:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- People make mistakes. And mistakes get undone by consensus in time. I appreciate you following up on the issue in this thread, but I'm not going to apologize for my edit. I invite anyone that disagrees with the current state of the article re: this topic to edit as they see fit. Knowing what I now know, I won't contest it. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't mention policy. Just that you appeared to make your recent removal to implementing what you thought was a talk page consensus from this thread, per your edit summary. But it is now clear that there was not such consensus, so I asked you to undo. SPECIFICO talk 15:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
We have to fix that second sentence which leaves out the critical role the FBI initially played and sets up Mr. Mac Isaac as some kind of Roger Stone-esque, political dirty trickster caricature. Mr. Mac Isaac, as explained in the very source cited for this sentence, took the laptop to the FBI first. It was after the FBI seemingly did nothing with it for nearly a year that he decided it needed to be shared with the public before the 2020 election. Suggest the following edit "The laptop was abandoned at a Delaware computer shop in 2019 and the data was subsequently shared first with the FBI and approximately a year later with Republican operatives to ensure its disturbing contents would be seen by the public." 2603:8080:1502:7171:adb4:5395:9f2d:3a84 (talk) 16:53 17 December 2022 (UTC)
So many IFs about this story
There are so many effing IFs about this story:
- If not for BLP. This would all be so much simpler if there were no BLP issues that mainstream RS and Wikipedia editors (even more so) have to keep in mind. We have to be more cautious than news media, but we'll end up documenting this properly.
- If not for the source. The New York Post is so terrible a source that we have almost deprecated it and can't use it for any BLP topics. We only link to it as an External link, possibly in violation of WP:ELNO. It's an extremely partisan junk source that specializes in Trump-friendly political spin, making it the perfect vehicle to push the story.
- If not for the dubious chain of custody matter. This was shopped around for sale in Ukraine before reaching Delaware, and Giuliani was there at the same time trying to gin up a false counternarrative as a cover-up for Trump's misdeeds. How odd that he, of all people, ended up with it in the USA. There is evidence its contents were examined and tampered with before arriving in Delaware. How odd... The chain of custody issue cannot be ignored.
- If not for the political origins of the story. The story originated with Trump's bad actors who prepared, launched, and then controlled the narrative using the Trump favorable New York Post. Now they control the narrative using Musk and the dubious Taibbi (that's a sad story). This is a hotbed of political spin directly related to Trump's first impeachment and now his current attempts to reinstall himself, against the Constitution and will of the people, as president, fuck the vote. It is also a hotbed of potential espionage intriques because of the chain of custody issue. Russian intelligence was involved in shopping this around in Ukraine before Giuliani got it. That makes the whole matter stink.
We cannot resolve this with a simple "the laptop belonged to Hunter." That's too simplistic, naive, and ignores the many IFs. Yes, it likely belonged to him, but there are so many reasons to be suspicious. The actual laptop isn't really the issue. It is the contents. There is good reason to be suspicious about the contents, and especially the way the narrative has been controlled by Trump's agents. Even if the contents were never manipulated, they are taking a real laptop and using it for dishonest and nefarious purposes. Anything from that side cannot be trusted as they lie about everything and are using Hunter's tragic life to unfairly smear his loving father. The release of the laptop story has always been a hit job. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- I adamantly agree with the points you raise here. My previous attempts to address even just the possibility of a verification issue on the article page have been repeatedly and swiftly reverted, each with the same argument that the previous RfC close about the title had settled any and all debate about validity, reliability and NPOV. I believe Feoffer has also hit the nail on the head with regard to the issue of how sources are possibly being used out of context to make certain claims in wiki-voice. Perhaps the more efficient way to sort this out may be to utilize RSN on a claim by claim basis? My worry is that editors are starting to believe that just because a source mentions a subject, that is confirmation by the source in and of itself regardless of the context, which raises POV concerns. Cheers. DN (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- It's quite clear that there is no sufficient consensus to state that Biden owned the laptop in Wikivoice. Even at the RfC close review, several of the editors who sustained the close remarked that, on the substance of the question, they disagreed with the outcome. Only one editor in the current discussion above objected to modifying the "HB's laptop" text. It either should be amended now or a new RfC can be launched. This is taking up way too much editor time and attention on an issue that should not even have been raised in a BLP and on which a precipitous RfC should not have been conducted, per WP:RFCBEFORE, which currently has been amply satisfied. SPECIFICO talk 18:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with these points as well. I think the RfC close was well-meaning, but mistaken. Rather than try a new RfC that will rehash the same points, it's probably better to get WP:UNINVOLVED admins to consider the issue. We could debate the wording of sources at WP:RSN, or the nature of the implication at WP:BLPN, but I think this needs to go next to WP:DRN. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Some fresh eyes from highly objective and competent editors is always a good idea, I just hate to try to take up their time with something that is perceivably more of a content related issue rather than the more egregious violations they normally deal with in order to keep WP a civil and productive collaborative project. That said, DRN seems preferable IMO. DN (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- I just noticed something, as I went back to look at the RfC: it was a WP:Non-admin closure. I'm not going to name or ping the closer here because I see no evidence of bad faith or incompetence on their part. I only bring it up because one of the examples of "inappropriate closures" is
The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial
, which this clearly is. This isn't "egregious", but it's a significant problem especially given how much we're going to be hearing about this laptop in the new year. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)- There was already a close challenge of the close that was on the noticeboard for a while. Andre🚐 19:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yup, at this thread here, and the WP:NAC was discussed. Many users agreed that the close probably shouldn't have been done by a non-admin, but there ended up being no consensus that the close was bad enough to warrant overturning and re-closing. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu:, what would you think about [[this potential compromise that's under discussion? Ten editors are on board with the proposed change. Could you support it too? Feoffer (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- You're kinda bordering on WP:CANVASS, Feoffer. How many editors is that now, you've pinged to support an edit of yours.? GoodDay (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- There was already a close challenge of the close that was on the noticeboard for a while. Andre🚐 19:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- I just noticed something, as I went back to look at the RfC: it was a WP:Non-admin closure. I'm not going to name or ping the closer here because I see no evidence of bad faith or incompetence on their part. I only bring it up because one of the examples of "inappropriate closures" is
- Some fresh eyes from highly objective and competent editors is always a good idea, I just hate to try to take up their time with something that is perceivably more of a content related issue rather than the more egregious violations they normally deal with in order to keep WP a civil and productive collaborative project. That said, DRN seems preferable IMO. DN (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with these points as well. I think the RfC close was well-meaning, but mistaken. Rather than try a new RfC that will rehash the same points, it's probably better to get WP:UNINVOLVED admins to consider the issue. We could debate the wording of sources at WP:RSN, or the nature of the implication at WP:BLPN, but I think this needs to go next to WP:DRN. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- It's quite clear that there is no sufficient consensus to state that Biden owned the laptop in Wikivoice. Even at the RfC close review, several of the editors who sustained the close remarked that, on the substance of the question, they disagreed with the outcome. Only one editor in the current discussion above objected to modifying the "HB's laptop" text. It either should be amended now or a new RfC can be launched. This is taking up way too much editor time and attention on an issue that should not even have been raised in a BLP and on which a precipitous RfC should not have been conducted, per WP:RFCBEFORE, which currently has been amply satisfied. SPECIFICO talk 18:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
What is an accurate way to word this? "A laptop that may have once belonged to Hunter Biden was allegedly turned into a Delaware shop after it had previously been shopped around for sale in Ukraine at a time when Rudy Giuliani had been there. The appearance of the laptop at the shop and the resulting stories and spin were controlled by Trump associates using the Rupert Murdoch-owned and Trump-friendly newspaper New York Post. Uncertainties about the partially unknown previous chain of custody raised concerns in the intelligence community about the trustworthiness and accuracy of the claims made by Trump about the laptop, its contents, and its ownership as the claims were made as politicized attempts to smear Hunter Biden's father and Trump political opponent, Joe Biden." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- jacobolus (talk · contribs) above suggested "purportedly belonged" -- that would be a simple and easy fix. If others feel that's too weak, we could also do "believed to belong". Feoffer (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- I also prefer "purportedly" Andre🚐 19:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- For the nth time, current consensus is that no qualifier is needed. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- I know that. However, consensus can change. The RFC is 2 months old. The story is back in the headlines for some reason. I'm not aware of any material change to the circumstances, but if one does emerge, we should adjust accordingly. The last I saw is that CBS does indeed believe the contents of the laptop to have belonged to Hunter Biden. Andre🚐 20:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Doesn’t that then strengthen and affirm the RFC result? Mr Ernie (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not advocating that the RFC should be overturned or that new information has arisen. Consensus can change, I'm not saying that it has. As far as I can tell, the RS are saying that the files on the laptop belonged to HB. Nobody really seems to be questioning that. If the files were somehow hacked from the cloud and put on a laptop that was dropped off at a shop, that wouldn't really change the situation too much. So I kind of feel like we're wasting time discussing the wrong questions. Andre🚐 20:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Doesn’t that then strengthen and affirm the RFC result? Mr Ernie (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- I know that. However, consensus can change. The RFC is 2 months old. The story is back in the headlines for some reason. I'm not aware of any material change to the circumstances, but if one does emerge, we should adjust accordingly. The last I saw is that CBS does indeed believe the contents of the laptop to have belonged to Hunter Biden. Andre🚐 20:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- For the nth time, current consensus is that no qualifier is needed. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- I also prefer "purportedly" Andre🚐 19:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- A lot of text in this section so far, but no reliable sources. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- The Bidens have never even denied the laptop was there.. Show me any credible sources with evidence the laptop was shopped to the Russians or Ukrainians.. There is none..ScienceAdvisor (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
I recommend we just wait & see what happens (starting in January 2023) when the Republicans take over the US House of Representatives. If we're lucking? they'll not bother with Hunter Biden & his laptop or former laptap. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Uh, what? That's not one of the "if's" of this story. From yesterday, Comer wants Twitter employees to talk to Congress about Biden laptop story – Muboshgu (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- A majority of the sources being used in this article say allegedly or purportedly, but here are a some of the ones I was able to gather in only about 5 minutes of looking (in full context)
- 1 "The unverified emails were obtained by Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, purportedly from the laptop computer of Biden’s son Hunter, who was a paid board member of Burisma, a Ukrainian-owned private energy company, while his father was vice president in the Obama White House and oversaw U.S.-Ukrainian relations." VOAnews
- 2 "Trump allies obtained a laptop or copies of a laptop during the 2020 campaign that allegedly belonged to Hunter Biden, President Joe Biden’s son. Politifact
- 3 "Thousands of emails purportedly from the laptop computer of Hunter Biden, President Biden’s son, are authentic communications that can be verified through cryptographic signatures from Google and other technology companies, say two security experts who examined the data at the request of The Washington Post. Wapo
- 4 "We don’t know at this point how Giuliani obtained emails and documents that purportedly belong to Hunter Biden. But we do know that they don’t support Trump’s baseless accusations against Joe Biden." factcheck.org
- 5 "The story, which ran on the front page of the New York tabloid under the banner headline “Biden Secret E-mails,” accused the then-vice president of meeting Vadym Pozharskyi, a top adviser to Burisma, whose board Biden’s son had joined at the time. Allies of President Donald Trump seized on the purported revelation to argue that it proved Biden had abused his position to intervene with the Ukrainian government on his son’s behalf — and that he had lied when he insisted he had steered clear of his son’s business dealings." Politico
- 6 "The leaker in this case is President Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who provided a copy of a hard drive that contains photos and purported emails of Joe Biden’s son Hunter to the New York Post" Vox
- I will stop here in the interest of time and space, but I could very easily keep this up for the rest of the afternoon with the amount of sources already currently being used in the article...DN (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- These pieces are mostly older, though... I think a more productive tack would be to look at the most recent discussions and the latest evaluation of the veracity of the material. The main argument made by those at the RFC that wanted to uncritically cover the material was that over time, RS accepted the laptop versus some doubt at the beginning. So, we would need to address that in a meaningful way. Andre🚐 21:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- The best sourced characterization I've found is the Guardian's which says "almost no one disputes its authenticity". We could easily quote that in the lede and be done with the whole issue. Feoffer (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- CBS recently features the headline referencing "what's believed to be Hunter Biden's laptop". I suggest our characterization likes somewhere between the CBS's language and the Guardian's. Feoffer (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- These pieces are mostly older, though... I think a more productive tack would be to look at the most recent discussions and the latest evaluation of the veracity of the material. The main argument made by those at the RFC that wanted to uncritically cover the material was that over time, RS accepted the laptop versus some doubt at the beginning. So, we would need to address that in a meaningful way. Andre🚐 21:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
What was the point of having the RFC concerning Biden's ownership of the laptop, if the result wasn't going to be respected? Ever since its closure, some editors have seemed to continue to go against its decision. Would those editors be happy, if the decision went the other way & some editors went against that decision? If another RFC on this matter is held? I hope participants will -pledge- to respect the result. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- If editors do not respect the RFC - by continuing to insert the word "alleged" or substantially synonymous wording - they may be warned and sanctioned for not abiding by a consensus. That doesn't preclude continued discussion of possible improvements to the article. The reason why this is being discussed now is because the so-called "Twitter Files" are in the news due to the reporting by Taibbi which is quite controversial. It appears to have offered no new information, however, so I'm not sure any reopening of the RFC or change to the consensus is necessary or proper. Andre🚐 21:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- The dispute tag should be removed, then. It creates the impression of doubt in the opening. Having the dispute tag there, is basically the same as having "alleged" there. Also (again) the re-adding of the dispute tag appears to be a breach of 1RR/24hr. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't add the dispute tag, GoodDay. You may bring the editor who did to AE. Andre🚐 22:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- I know you didn't add/re-add the tag. But, I do wish you or the others would remove the tag. WP:AE? I don't like settling disputes that way, but I do see other editors taking that route. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't add the dispute tag, GoodDay. You may bring the editor who did to AE. Andre🚐 22:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- The dispute tag should be removed, then. It creates the impression of doubt in the opening. Having the dispute tag there, is basically the same as having "alleged" there. Also (again) the re-adding of the dispute tag appears to be a breach of 1RR/24hr. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- I agree the tag should be removed, since the dispute was settled by the RfC. There will always be truthers and deniers but its not our role to fact check reliable sources. And Democratic spin doctors are no longer casting doubt on the provenance of the laptop, so it's really a lost cause. TFD (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
RfC about ownership of the laptop
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.
Should the lead of the article say:
- (1)"The Hunter Biden laptop controversy involves a laptop computer that belonged to Hunter Biden," or
- (2)"The Hunter Biden laptop controversy involves a laptop computer, its contents, and the question of its ownership by Hunter Biden." TFD (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- (3) "The Hunter Biden laptop controversy involves a laptop computer and questions about its contents, provenance, and ownership by Hunter Biden." Proposed by Valjean
- (4) "Three weeks before the 2020 United States presidential election, the New York Post published a story about a laptop computer, stating that it showed corruption by then-presidential candidate Joe Biden. The story was used by supporters of Biden's opponent, incumbent president Donald Trump, to fuel controversy regarding the ownership of the computer, its contents, and the events surrounding its discovery. The owner of a Wilmington, Delaware, computer repair shop, John Paul Mac Isaac, said that the laptop had been brought to his shop in April 2019 by a person who said that he was Hunter Biden, son of the presidential candidate. Isaac said that the person never came back to retrieve the computer." Proposed by SPECIFICO SPECIFICO talk 18:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- (5) "The Hunter Biden laptop controversy involves laptop data that belonged to Hunter Biden, son of Joe Biden." proposed below by Feoffer GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
NOTE A discussion of this question at BLPN is archived here.
The BLPN-in-question discussion, came to 'no conclusion' or 'consensus'. GoodDay (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Survey
- 1 - As we should respect the previous RFC's result. GoodDay (talk) 07:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- @GoodDay:, can you think up any language that might satisfy both you while also satisfying ValJean, Specifico, DN, et al. Right now, you're telling people like that "I win, you lose" and obviously, that doesn't seem to be getting a lot of traction with them. Maybe you should look for way to tell them "Let's both win". I know you're not a fan of the compromise language I've put forward, but maybe if you tried to take part in crafting compromise language yourself that everyone could support, you would see a solution the rest of us missed. Feoffer (talk) 03:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Each editor may choose any of the 4 options in this RFC. I do wish you'd put your own proposed option in this RFC (see above) as OPTION 5. Write it out & place it under Specifico's proposal. GoodDay (talk) 03:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm easy, stop trying to obsfucate the fact that Hunter Biden forgot a laptop at a repair shop or provide credible sources GRU dropped it off. From there, I'm happy to work to inform the readers of the lies, shannigans, non stories and other details. Slywriter (talk) 03:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- @GoodDay:, can you think up any language that might satisfy both you while also satisfying ValJean, Specifico, DN, et al. Right now, you're telling people like that "I win, you lose" and obviously, that doesn't seem to be getting a lot of traction with them. Maybe you should look for way to tell them "Let's both win". I know you're not a fan of the compromise language I've put forward, but maybe if you tried to take part in crafting compromise language yourself that everyone could support, you would see a solution the rest of us missed. Feoffer (talk) 03:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- 1 Agree with GoodDay. TFD (talk) 07:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- @TFD:, I want again apologize for addressing you with a subset of your username -- I did some googling and educated myself about why contraction might be offensive and I really do apologize.
- So hey, this dispute has been going on for a lot of months, people arguing back and forth, for a long time before I got here. I wanna put an end to it.
- Endwise pointed out that the REAL STORY is about the data, which has been confirmed to belong to Biden. IF, and it's a big if, but IF it would finally resolve this dispute, could you support this potential compromise language that just straight up says the data belonged to Biden without muddying the waters by talking about something that hasn't (yet) had its forensic analysis published. Feoffer (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Neither because the lead sentence should not be a textbook example of WP:REDUNDANCY. Wikipedia can and should do better than circular definitions such as a Hunter Biden laptop controversy being a controversy about a laptop associated with Hunter Biden. Just throw out the repetition. Surtsicna (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
2. That covers more of the real issues. Version 1 is just restating the title of the article, so it isn't contributing anything of value. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)- Version 3 would be even better, as we should even add the question of "provenance" of the laptop since that is a serious issue: Version 3: "The Hunter Biden laptop controversy involves a laptop computer and questions about its contents, provenance, and ownership by Hunter Biden." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- Versions 3, 4, or 2 Andre🚐 18:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- 2 - The origin, New York Post, is currently listed as
Deprecatedgenerally unreliable. Most all the secondary RS used in the article use terms like purported, alleged, believed etc...The only thing that may seem verified so far are a portion of the emails. Maybe this will change in the future, until then we shouldn't make such a POV claim in Wikivoice without verification... DN (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC) (edit) I would also find this version [1] by SPECIFICO (located in the TP section below titled "Collection of current issues, and Attempt to resolve"), an acceptable compromise. DN (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)- NY Post is not depreciated. It is considered Generally Unreliable Anon0098 (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- Your view on the secondary sourcing to me seems both incorrect, and already rejected by the last RfC. Additionally, we are not using NYPost as a source. Endwise (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: My head is spinning after catching up on all the posts on this page, but as I've already said, I prefer SPECIFICO's version. If I were Hunter Biden, I would totally be participating in this discussion under my anonymous Wikimedia username. I'm pretty sure he would prefer the SPECIFICO iteration, too.;-) Carlstak (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- 1 no new information has come out to warrant another RfC on this. In fact, the new CBS forensic analysis only serves to strengthen the argument for the result of the previous RfC Anon0098 (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Other– the version provided by Valjean originally in another section summarizes the controversy very well. Valjean's original version:
- "
The Hunter Biden laptop controversy involves a laptop computer, its contents, and the question of its ownership by Hunter Biden, son of then-presidential candidate Joe Biden, and whether the data on the hard drive reveals unethical behavior by Hunter Biden or his father.
"
- "
- --Guest2625 (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- And then the lead should be trimmed to indicate in a clear fashion the history of the controversy and the current state of affairs (i.e. computer is owned by Hunter, content has been partially verified as genuine, and lastly that no unethical behaviour was revealed). --Guest2625 (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC) (Option 1: until a new lead is agreed on that concisely states the controversy, history, and state of affairs --Guest2625 (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC))
- Comment This is looking more and more like a straightforward re-hashing of the previous RFC, which closed a little over 2 months ago. That RFC, and a subsequent discussion at ANB, received significant participation from a wide variety of editors. Unless there has been a significant change in sourcing, or strong new opinions presented, or some policy-based reason to invalidate the previous result, I don't believe this current RFC should even hold weight, and the previous result should stand.
- I'll re-state my opinion from the previous RFC, which was ultimately supported by the closer: Enough RS report that the ownership of the laptop is not in dispute, that it should be written as such here. So, option 1 here. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- 3 > 2 >> 4 >>> 1: The two options I like the most (3 and 2) both make it clear what the actual controversy regarding the laptop is. That these things are controversial is undeniable even if evidence is mounting that the laptop really was Hunter Biden's. The previous RFC had plenty of people who were clear on this point despite voting we should say the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden: there were lots of people there who said that the ownership wasn't really the main point of controversy, but the provenance of it was. 4 is extremely neutral but also way too long. 1 is so short it's missing key information. Loki (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- I added options 3 and 4 to reflect the proposals of other editors. Despite their strong feelings about avoiding the article name in the first sentence, I don't like that format - certainly not when there's other information that needs to go in the first sentence. Anyway, #4 is that editor's entire opening paragraph, which is why it's so long vs. the others which are only the first sentence. I think I prefer 3 and 2 but I do not think we should be locking down specific wording when the disagreement here is solely about whether we have Verification that Biden did in fact own this physical laptop. SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Whether the laptop was actually Hunter's is not at all
what the actual controversy regarding the laptop is
. The actual controversy is regarding the emails (and their implications for Joe Biden), and other secondary things like the chain of custody and the responses by news orgs/social media orgs/etc to NYPost's story. Whether the laptop was really Hunter's is not something reliable sources get into much. Nowadays, they typically just say it's his and move on. Endwise (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)- @Endwise: and Specifico -- you two have been going back on forth since August trying to resolve this dispute; During that time, a dozen new editors have joined the dispute with no end in sight.
- Endwise, you may have inspired a potential compromise with your excellent insight that "
Whether the laptop was actually Hunter's is not at all what the actual controversy regarding the laptop is. The actual controversy is regarding the emails (and their implications for Joe Biden
" - IF (and it's a big if), but IF it would permanently end the dispute and result in a consensus everyone would defend -- is there any chance you could support this compromise which would explicty echo your insight that the controversy is about data that belonged to Hunter Biden.
- Specifico -- IF (and it's a big if), but IF Endwise could agree to that compromise, could you help him defend it if other people show up in the future trying to dispute it? Feoffer (talk) 03:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Option 1. Editors have not argued that sources have substantially changed from this view since the last RFC, and we should be writing in plain, concise English. In fact, from what I can see, if sources have changed recently, they now even *more* universally describe the laptop as Hunter's matter-of-factly. See the collapsed ramble below for my take on the view of recent sources:
Recent sources, ramble
|
---|
As a sanity check, mostly for myself really, here are the first news sources I found on Google, searching for "Hunter Biden laptop" for results in the last week, ignoring op-eds and unreliable sources (which were a lot of the results):
These all seem to matter-of-factly state it was Hunter's laptop. Presumably, there might be recent reliable sources which don't, though I didn't actually find any in my quick search. In terms of actual hard evidence, the only significant difference since the last RfC I guess would be the CBS News-commissioned forensic analysis published on November 21, in which the company they hired said:
|
- To discuss the other options: Options 2/3 are really bad. They present a dispute about the ownership of the laptop by Hunter as being a central part of this story, which it really isn't; reliable sources don't really find it important to discuss whether the laptop was really owned by Hunter (they more ask things like "Are the emails real? Do they show Joe Biden was corrupt? Did Twitter/media censor this?" etc.), and when they do mention it, they typically just say it was Hunter's laptop without belabouring the point and quickly move on to the actual relevant part of the story. Regarding Option 4: this reads like we are bending over backwards to create a world salad that allows us to avoid mentioning the issue of whether it's Hunter's laptop entirely. I could get writing like that if we needed to avoid the question, but we actually don't need to avoid it, so we can write in plain language. Endwise (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Endwise: Some of the data is confirmed. Most of the editors here agree that the data, not the device, is what matters. Yet the device is featured up right at the top of the lead.
- Instead of running a sanity check on "Hunter Biden laptop", which in Google will necessarily return the instances that use "Hunter Biden's laptop", what happens if you search on the actual lead text under discussion, "belonged to Hunter Biden". It turns out that relatively very few sources say that, and yet the article uses instances of "Hunter Biden's laptop" to conclude that it "belonged to HB, which few sources say. That's what's at issue, I think. SPECIFICO talk 00:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Either search means the same thing: "Hunter Biden's laptop"="belonged to Hunter Biden"="laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden". No matter, they mean the same thing. Few sources may use "belonged to Hunter Biden" rather than "Hunter Biden's laptop", but they still mean the same thing, ergo substantially all RS are telling us it was Hunter Biden's laptop, so our content is fine. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- We have sources in the lede saying the literal device may not have belonged to Biden! Some of the data is his, the drive may be his, but the device that was turned over to the FBI may or may not have been his.
- The Democratic People's Republic of Korea isn't democratic, the Holy Roman Empire wasn't Roman, the Shroud of Turin may not really be a shroud, and RSes say Hunter Biden's laptop may be a device that was never owned by Biden. Feoffer (talk) 05:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Valjean, my comment was addressing the way search engines map query words onto search results. Regardless of the (disputed) question of whether they mean the same thing in ordinary speech, the Google search algorithm treats them very differently -- as can be seen from the results returned by each of the two alternatives. The pertinent point this demonstrates is that searching on a given proposed phrase of article text will return sources that appear to support that text -- that's how search engines operate. On the other hand, a search query formulated to be more general will, in this case, produce quite a different set of results. SPECIFICO talk 20:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Either search means the same thing: "Hunter Biden's laptop"="belonged to Hunter Biden"="laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden". No matter, they mean the same thing. Few sources may use "belonged to Hunter Biden" rather than "Hunter Biden's laptop", but they still mean the same thing, ergo substantially all RS are telling us it was Hunter Biden's laptop, so our content is fine. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- 1 per sources listed by Endwise and others here and in the last RFC. I don't actually like this lead sentence and think editors should continue to workshop something better, but the other three options all say there are questions about the ownership, which I don't think is an accurate summary of the RS anymore. Levivich (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- 1 per the last RfC. I am at a loss for how we can't go from its HB laptop, then to say it belonged to him? I am not married to "belong to" but we shouldn't be using "claimed" or "allegedly", ect at this point. --Malerooster (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- It is NOT lede, its LEAD. They are different and we are encourage NOT to write using the lede style. --Malerooster (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- If you are referring to WP:MOSLEAD, where does it say to use LEAD and not LEDE exactly? "A lead paragraph (sometimes shortened to lead; in the United States sometimes spelled lede)" DN (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- It is NOT lede, its LEAD. They are different and we are encourage NOT to write using the lede style. --Malerooster (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- 1 It doesn't do a good job of summarizing but all the others are an attempt to obscure the origins of the laptop, which at this point is in direct defiance of the sources. Slywriter (talk) 04:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- No, it's not an attempt to obscure the origins of the laptop. It's about bad laptop data, as CBS News says, laptop
versions that were widely circulated by Republican operatives to attack then-candidate Joe Biden before the 2020 presidential election [...] appeared to have had data added after April 2019, a sign they could have been tampered with, according to reports in other media outlets, including The Washington Post.
starship.paint (exalt) 09:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)- You talk about data, but don't address ownership. No one has provided a source that GRU or the Easter Bunny dropped off three laptops, signed for them, picked up two and left one behind. CBS = unaltered copy of data left behind by HB, Rep = altered data does not change that HB dropped off the laptops. Slywriter (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- No, it's not an attempt to obscure the origins of the laptop. It's about bad laptop data, as CBS News says, laptop
- 1 Per no change since the previous RFC and the following sources:
"The existence of emails about getting Buckley Carlson into Georgetown has been known for some time, thanks to a laptop once owned by Hunter Biden that was obtained by Donald Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and pushed to media in 2020."
from the Guardian."Further details about those activities were found in documents obtained from a hard drive in a laptop Hunter once owned.
from the Financial Times.Republican lawmakers and their staff for the past year have been analyzing messages and financial transactions found on a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden.
from PBS. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)- And another today from The Guardian which says
Republicans are also fixated on a laptop computer once owned by Hunter Biden, the contents of which were shopped to news outlets by Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s attorney, shortly before the 2020 election.
Mr Ernie (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- And another today from The Guardian which says
- 1 per the last RfC. The sourcing, which already supported this at the time, has become stronger with the addition of CBS.[3] Adoring nanny (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- 3 is the most descriptive and NPOV of the choices. 2 is also acceptable. 4 is too long and doesn't get to the point sufficiently succinctly, and 1 is simply at odds with the rest of the article (and a fair number of sources too). I did not participate in the previous RfC, but this seems qualitatively different. Simply inserting "allegedly" is the kind journalese that I try to avoid so I understand the resistance to using that phrasing. I'll also observe that the "ownership" question is a fairly insignificant part of the story in the greater scheme of things, so we probably shouldn't give it too much prominence in the article. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Still too soon to determine best lede sentence -- a lot of interesting possible consensus wordings are under active discussion. Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feoffer (talk • contribs)
Polling is not a substitute for discussion.
Not sure why you think this is relevant. RFCs are more than simple polls. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- 3 or 4. The "Respect the last rfc" option is irrelevant, it was a bad close by a user completely unsuited to do the job, and an even worse close review. I don't care what the exact wording as, as long as it reflects the reality, borne by sources, that that laptop ownership and the contents therein are separate issues with separate ownership attribution. Also, please stop saying "laptop computer". It's downright boomerish. Just "laptop" is fine. Zaathras (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- 2 seems simple and neutral. ValarianB (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Malformed, or option 1 if this is closed,Strong support 5 with slight alternations; or, if 5 lacks consensus, support 1, oppose 2; strongly oppose 3, 4see below, changed 06:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC). First, this RFC is really about the laptop's ownership, but passes itself as an RFC on wording; I agree with SPECIFICO on this RFC's merits. Second, equally-importantly, other options blur a crucial distinction: the "clean" laptop itself was fully authenticated; but the copies circulated by Republican operatives — which the NYPost's story was based on — were found to have been tampered with. That's a key element of the story, and blurring these lines unduly legitimises the controversy, and the NYPost's reporting.
- Keep in mind the mark of a truly good encyclopaedic article: our writing should be good enough that it's able to change the minds of people who think were was a "coverup". That means highlighting facts that were ignored by partisan reports, but remaining strictly factual, precise, and nuanced. Being too dismissive from the outset, or picking the wrong hills to die on (the laptop's authenticity, as opposed to the authenticity of partisan copies), will do a disservice to our readers, the subject (Hunter), and Wikipedia's mission. DFlhb (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC); edited 09:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm talking to myself now, but one way to resolve this would be to slightly restructure this article and add a top-level [laptop] §Contents section about the clean & fully authenticated copy, and the reporting by WP:RS on the contents of that, and cover the partisan mudslinging (including any NYPost claims that aren't shared by WP:RS) in one separate section. The article should make it clearer what the "clean" laptop supports/doesn't support, so we can establish some ground truth. DFlhb (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- What you say makes sense to me. I'm not sure how we get there, but there's a lot of room for improvement here along the lines you suggest.
picking the wrong hills to die on, the laptop's authenticity
Do you think this would be a step in the right direction? I know it doesn't solve all your concerns, but it would focus us on the data rather than devices, and it's gotten a fair amount of support as a potential next step. Alternatively, any language you might suggest would be welcome. Feoffer (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- What you say makes sense to me. I'm not sure how we get there, but there's a lot of room for improvement here along the lines you suggest.
- I'm talking to myself now, but one way to resolve this would be to slightly restructure this article and add a top-level [laptop] §Contents section about the clean & fully authenticated copy, and the reporting by WP:RS on the contents of that, and cover the partisan mudslinging (including any NYPost claims that aren't shared by WP:RS) in one separate section. The article should make it clearer what the "clean" laptop supports/doesn't support, so we can establish some ground truth. DFlhb (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- I finished reading the BLPN discussion and doing my own survey of sources (should have done that before, huh?) It's now clear to me that based on WP:RS: the laptop possession is unproven; its contents are fully authentic, and the NYPost's reporting was not based on the laptop's contents, but on material provided by Republican operatives. IMO, all the articles editors bring up to support laptop ownership are passing mentions, while articles that address the question in-depth note that the ownership is still in question. I still oppose the RFC, but, in case it gets closed, I'll state my !vote here clearly: strongly support 5, but phrased as:
The Hunter Biden laptop controversy involves laptop data that belonged to Hunter Biden, son of then-presidential candidate Joe Biden.
(with the bold, and the detail on Joe's status at the time). If option 5 doesn't win out, I strongly prefer option 1 over the others. Option 1 adopts the same suboptimal shorthand as some WP:RS (that use "Hunter's laptop" as metonymy for the data on it). But option 2 hangs the data's authenticity on the laptop's ownership, so by putting the latter in question, it also implies doubts about the former; it's far from ideal. Options 3 and 4 directly imply that there are still questions over the data, which is no longer tenable after the CBS report. DFlhb (talk) 09:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC); edited to clarify my vote 00:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- I finished reading the BLPN discussion and doing my own survey of sources (should have done that before, huh?) It's now clear to me that based on WP:RS: the laptop possession is unproven; its contents are fully authentic, and the NYPost's reporting was not based on the laptop's contents, but on material provided by Republican operatives. IMO, all the articles editors bring up to support laptop ownership are passing mentions, while articles that address the question in-depth note that the ownership is still in question. I still oppose the RFC, but, in case it gets closed, I'll state my !vote here clearly: strongly support 5, but phrased as:
- 3 - we have a laptop with bad information mixed in with original information, and option 3 best conveys this idea, while option 1 utterly fails to do so. As Zaathras said:
laptop ownership and the contents therein are separate issues with separate ownership attribution
starship.paint (exalt) 08:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- 1 Nothing has changed since previous RFC. Arkon (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment for closer -- The potential compromise language ("option 5") has extensive support from all sides. No one disputes that the compromise language meets WP:V. Feoffer (talk) 14:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- To closer. The above comment, seems to be attempting to obtain the propser's desired outcome. Best to ignore & reach your own conclusions. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- I also have serious concerns about this survey response. See my comment in the discussion below. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- 5 or, failing that, 3. 2 and 4 are also acceptable; only 1 is unacceptable, since it grossly distorts the relevant coverage. Coverage both at the time and from mainstream sources today emphasizes the questionable nature of the laptop's data overall. See eg. [4]:
(The New York Post declined to share the laptop material with other news sources, stymieing efforts to validate what was included. When The Washington Post did eventually receive a copy of the drive, we were able to validate a number of the emails it included, though it was obvious that files had been added or altered. Even the computer repair-shop owner who was Giuliani’s original source for the material noted that files had apparently been added to the collection.)
Version 1 remains unacceptable because it acts as though the key question was and is always just the ownership of the physical laptop, which has never been the case and which the sources do not support. Also, as pointed out repeatedly, the previous RFC was not over this question, so the arguments of "respect the previous RFC" is invalid - the previous RFC was just over whether we can cast doubt on whether the laptop belonged to Biden in the article voice, not over whether that ownership should be a major focus of the lead. Arguments above that only discuss the previous RFC and which make no argument as to why we should prominently discuss only the physical ownership of the laptop should be disregarded. --Aquillion (talk) 11:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)- @Aquillion, a little while ago you made comments saying that, generally speaking, three sources is sufficient to say something in Wikivoice, unless other sources dispute it. Here are 4 sources that say the laptop belonged to Biden.
"The existence of emails about getting Buckley Carlson into Georgetown has been known for some time, thanks to a laptop once owned by Hunter Biden that was obtained by Donald Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and pushed to media in 2020."
from the Guardian."Further details about those activities were found in documents obtained from a hard drive in a laptop Hunter once owned.
from the Financial Times.Republican lawmakers and their staff for the past year have been analyzing messages and financial transactions found on a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden.
from PBS.- From The Guardian
Republicans are also fixated on a laptop computer once owned by Hunter Biden, the contents of which were shopped to news outlets by Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s attorney, shortly before the 2020 election.
- There's another handful of sources that just say "Hunter Biden's laptop." Now we can argue about whether or not the ownership should be the major focus of the lead (in fact I proposed a complete rewrite of the lead to avoid this issue altogether), but we have to move past this misinformation that the laptop was a plant or a Russian operation in order to make significant progress on this article. The FBI has had the laptop since December 2019, and if they'd found a single shred of anything that resembled a whiff of evidence that the Russians were involved it would have leaked a thousand times over by now. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- Again, you're repeating arguments from the previous RFC which are inapplicable to this one; this RFC is not about whether the physical laptop belongs to Hunter Biden or not, and all arguments that focus on that point are irrelevant. This RFC is asking whether we should emphasize the ownership of the physical laptop in the lead as if that is key to the story, which is not and has never been the case (since the beginning, the key issue raised by most of the highest-quality sources has been the providence of the laptop and the data-dumps presented from it - their chain of custody and who had access to or tampered with its contents at which points.) Also, the rest of your post shows just why the dispute is important - it is completely inaccurate to say that
but we have to move past this misinformation that the laptop was a plant or a Russian operation
(to the point of being a WP:BLP violation, since you are implying that it is established that all of the contents of the laptop, much of it BLP-sensitive and used to push BLP-sensitive accusations, is confirmed, which directly contradicts the sources.) None of your sources support your assertion that the laptop's overall content or the narrative it was used to push were clearly not misinformation; in fact, quite the contrary, the sources that go into detail on the laptop unambiguously state that the contents that were presented were tampered with and additional material was added, which means it would be more accurate to say that it has been confirmed that aspects of it were a plant, just one that was done by placing both real and false data on laptop (obtained thorough unknown means) that once belonged to Hunter Biden. The fact that you glibly make the leap from sources stating "the physical laptop belonged to Hunter Biden" to "therefore its contents, which were tampered with and contain many unverified emails, must be accurate and could not possibly be a plant" - a WP:SYNTH violation that goes wildly beyond what any reputable source says - illustrates why option one remains unacceptable. You are stating outright, here, that you want to use that sentence to encourage the reader to reach a conclusion that none of your sources support. --Aquillion (talk) 01:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)- One part is incorrect. The laptop has never been shown to be tampered with. In fact, it is in an unusable state. The laptop data was recovered onto an external hard drive. That drive has had several copies made and circulated. FBI has one, CBS has another, Republicans have a third. CBS is unaltered, Republican is altered, FBI is unknown. The actual WP:SYNTH is equating the Republican hard drive with the laptop itself. The laptop belonging to HB doesn't suddenly validate the Rep data. In fact, CBS having a clean copy from the original laptop shows the Rep data was falsified. Slywriter (talk) 02:40, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- Again, you're repeating arguments from the previous RFC which are inapplicable to this one; this RFC is not about whether the physical laptop belongs to Hunter Biden or not, and all arguments that focus on that point are irrelevant. This RFC is asking whether we should emphasize the ownership of the physical laptop in the lead as if that is key to the story, which is not and has never been the case (since the beginning, the key issue raised by most of the highest-quality sources has been the providence of the laptop and the data-dumps presented from it - their chain of custody and who had access to or tampered with its contents at which points.) Also, the rest of your post shows just why the dispute is important - it is completely inaccurate to say that
- @Aquillion, a little while ago you made comments saying that, generally speaking, three sources is sufficient to say something in Wikivoice, unless other sources dispute it. Here are 4 sources that say the laptop belonged to Biden.
- 5 doesn't derail the reader by devoting UNDUE weight to device ownership. Per Endwise: "whether the laptop was actually Hunter's is not at all what the actual controversy regarding the laptop is.". Strong oppose the controversial option 1 as failing WP:V per Mr. Swordfish . The suggestion that 'we should be able to say the laptop belonged to Hunter based on a review of many RS' is SYNTH. Feoffer (talk) 01:57, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
- 1 Multiple reliable and perennial sources, such as those listed by Endwise, have confirmed that the laptop was owned by Hunter Biden. Additionally, in my opinion the previous RfC covers this issue. Grahaml35 (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Mr.Ernie has already reverted to their preferred version on 12/9
[5] We haven't even wrapped up the current attempt at an RfC. What's the rush? DN (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Discussion
Since the last RfC at RfC about ownership of the laptop there has been discussion about whether "his" laptop meant the laptop belonged to Hunter.
As I pointed out at the last RfC, "Although early news reports could not confirm ownership, there is now no question the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. The only question is the authenticity of the emails found on it."[2:09, 28 August 2022]
TFD (talk) 07:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- Badly formed RFC. Until we can find a source to support version 1, no amount of local consensus on talk can protect it. Per BLP: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". See the discussion at BLPN. Recommend withdraw. Feoffer (talk) 07:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- Shouldn't you support a version that discusses a version that discusses the authenticity of the emails, then? Version 1 doesn't do that (and that wasn't a question raised at or settled by the previous RFC, which focused solely on whether we should express doubt about whether the computer itself belonged to Biden.) --Aquillion (talk) 11:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
I found a source that said the FBI is investigating and trying to find encrypt keys etc. to help determine whether or not the Russian FSB was involved and was this a plot by Putin (and others) to undermine the DMC and support the former president, they believe (i.e. not 100%, no fingerprint data etc.) the HB did have custody of the laptop earlier in the piece but it was probably lost in late 2018. The current contents are really the meat of the matter and what is genuine and incriminating and any that are both from RNC POV, although that is not the focus of the FBI efforts, so we must view this as an open matter and reflect the same in the article, despite any personal wishes to incriminate or exonerate.2404:4408:638C:5E00:4D2B:42FE:7355:8C5C (talk) 08:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
The current consensus, whether editors like it / agree with it or not, settled by RFC, is that we do not need a qualifier about the ownership of the laptop. There was an attempt yesterday at a local consensus to find a new wording to avoid this topic, but once challenged local consensus doesn't override a recently settled RFC. Maybe we can rephrase this one to have option 1 as written, and option 2 could simply be "Should the first sentence be rephrased to avoid mentioning the ownership?" Mr Ernie (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
This is a bit nuts, after all the discussion here and at BLPN to repeat the same RfC. Please withdraw and let discussion and editing continue. Participants in the September RfC have been pinged. What tends to happen in cases like this is that editors lose interest and the participation dwindles to a dysfunctionally small corps who dig in their heels. Please withdraw this RfC for now, forget about locking down the article or discussion, and continue ordinary-course editing and talk page engagement. SPECIFICO talk 13:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- Why would you ping editors from the previous RfC if you think that saying "purportedly" and "allegedly" are distinct? Why would you oppose an RfC, which by its nature attracts new editors, if you think that editors have lost interest? TFD (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't ping them, somebody else did. I sympathize with your view however. I don't think the little go-round yesterday really had the weight to toss out an RfC in a few hours. However the current thread at BLPN, not to mention the substantial concerns at the close review and the non-admin close that (contrary to recent assertions) was not settled at the AN review, do suggest that a fresh approach was needed. Actually, I bungled the close review request. I thought that it would lead to a second closure by an Admin, not to a typically diffuse thread among editors at the sitewide noticeboard. The outcome of the RfC was not to use "alleged". The current version doesn't use alleged. And I think the current wording of the first paragraph gives a better overview of what's to follow in the article text. I think there is agreement on that point. The article text deals with ownership in detail. Anyway I do hope you'll withdraw this for the time being and help with the incremental change that tends to build better articles. SPECIFICO talk 15:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- Well, now the initial, poorly-written "non-redundancy" version 1.0 is back, so you have the worst of both worlds. I took some time and effort to rewrite that version in comprehensible English, but it's now been reverted without explanation. I'd ask editors to compare the two non-redundancy versions and see which they prefer. SPECIFICO talk 15:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- It's back to the RFC consensus version now. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- It is atrocious now. Sorry to be blunt, but it makes a mockery of Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Surtsicna: What did you think of my copyedits to your non-redundancy version that is now reverted? SPECIFICO talk 16:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- I love how yours gets straight to the point. Normally, when I first excise the superfluous bolding, I try to keep the sentence as similar as possible to the previous, circular definition, just to prove that it does not need to be that silly. Surtsicna (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- Surtsicna PLEASE, bring up your bolding argument 'after' this RFC runs its course. All you're doing is creating confusion. Figuratively speaking, we're arguing over whether to have a house or a barn. Where's you're arguing over what colour it should be. Let's take care of one item, at a time. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- I love how yours gets straight to the point. Normally, when I first excise the superfluous bolding, I try to keep the sentence as similar as possible to the previous, circular definition, just to prove that it does not need to be that silly. Surtsicna (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Surtsicna: What did you think of my copyedits to your non-redundancy version that is now reverted? SPECIFICO talk 16:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- It is atrocious now. Sorry to be blunt, but it makes a mockery of Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- It's back to the RFC consensus version now. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- Well, now the initial, poorly-written "non-redundancy" version 1.0 is back, so you have the worst of both worlds. I took some time and effort to rewrite that version in comprehensible English, but it's now been reverted without explanation. I'd ask editors to compare the two non-redundancy versions and see which they prefer. SPECIFICO talk 15:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't ping them, somebody else did. I sympathize with your view however. I don't think the little go-round yesterday really had the weight to toss out an RfC in a few hours. However the current thread at BLPN, not to mention the substantial concerns at the close review and the non-admin close that (contrary to recent assertions) was not settled at the AN review, do suggest that a fresh approach was needed. Actually, I bungled the close review request. I thought that it would lead to a second closure by an Admin, not to a typically diffuse thread among editors at the sitewide noticeboard. The outcome of the RfC was not to use "alleged". The current version doesn't use alleged. And I think the current wording of the first paragraph gives a better overview of what's to follow in the article text. I think there is agreement on that point. The article text deals with ownership in detail. Anyway I do hope you'll withdraw this for the time being and help with the incremental change that tends to build better articles. SPECIFICO talk 15:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- Version 1 just restates the title of this article, so it isn't contributing anything of value. We also need to mention "provenance":
- Version 3: "The Hunter Biden laptop controversy involves a laptop computer and questions about its contents, provenance, and ownership by Hunter Biden."
- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Can we please get away from the 'bolding' argument & concentrate on the 'ownership' argument? That is what the two options are in this RFC? Make a choice, 1 or 2. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
I did make a choice above. I chose number 2. This is the discussion section. This is where other options can be discussed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)- Didn't mean you Valjean. Just asking that we collectively, worry about the 'bolding' stuff, later. :) Do wish though, you would withdraw the '3' option. This RFC began with '2' & if editors start adding more options along the way? There'll be no consensus for anything. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- Don't mean to confuse matters. I prefer version 2 or 3. Andre🚐 18:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- Another editor has basically added two more options, which is only going to muddy the waters further. The more options there are? The less likely they'll be a consensus for anything. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with adding options that garner support from discussion during the RfC. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- Apparently, we disagree. GoodDay (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- @FormalDude:, we have a nascent compromise brewing below, with ten editors so far in support. You haven't actually weighed in on the actual issue, so I have no idea where you stand. Do you think this would be an improvement you could support? Feoffer (talk) 02:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with adding options that garner support from discussion during the RfC. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- Another editor has basically added two more options, which is only going to muddy the waters further. The more options there are? The less likely they'll be a consensus for anything. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Version 3 is an option. It covers all the bases for a first sentence. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- Question is, will the results of this RFC be respected? GoodDay (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- So let's see, current sources say the Laptop is Hunter Biden's. Recent sources have in-depth analysis including forensics that at least some of the data is Hunter Biden's, but instead an RfC exists to use wishy-washy language to describe the events and completely ignore the sourcing available. Orwell would be proud. Slywriter (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
@Mr swordfish: & @Feoffer: please sign their posts, in the 'survey' section. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks for the reminder. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Currently, the cite for the first sentence is an article titled ""Copy of what's believed to be Hunter Biden's laptop data turned over by repair shop to FBI showed no tampering, analysis says" (emphasis mine). How do we get from there to flatly stating it "belonged to" HB?
The only other cite in the lead paragraph is titled "What We Know and Don’t About Hunter Biden and a Laptop" and does not say it "belonged to" HB, instead casting doubt on the story of how it came into the possession of the Delaware shop owner.
At the very least, we would need to provide better cites if we want to say "belonged to", although that would be ignoring the large number of articles that use phrases like "what's believed to be".
Wikipedia policy is quite clear on this:
- Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.
How is it that "belonged to" is still part of the article when its inclusion clearly violates the policy on verifiability? We can do better than this. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- The short answer: That ref was added less than a week ago, and has support from only one other editor. I tried removing it because it didn't seem like a good use of an inline citation, for pretty much the same reason you described - the ownership question has been discussed by MANY more sources than just this one. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, the cite has only been up for a week or so, but that doesn't answer the question about why we have an assertion in the first sentence which is not supported by an inline cite, as per policy.
- Agree that the ownership question has been discussed by many more sources than the CBS one, with varying degrees of certitude. I'm sure it's possible to cherry-pick a source for the assertion; I'm surprised that hasn't happened already. Of course, that might resolve this immediate issue, but not the more general problem. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Inline citations in leads are a gray area. They are certainly helpful at providing sourcing for possibly challenged statemments; however, adding too many citations clutters the lead, which is meant to summarize the body, where plenty of sources are already inline cited. The relevant guideline is WP:CITELEAD, which ultimately says: "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article."
- In this case, the attribution of ownership is done by reference to a multitude of sources. We COULD cite them all, but it would look bad imo. In any case, the editorial consensus at present was that we should be able to say the laptop belonged to Hunter, based on a review of many RS (some of which were compiled here). PhotogenicScientist (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Because it takes consensus reached at an RfC to overturn previous consensus reached at an RfC. You can't just hand-wave away the numerous sources that use "Hunter Biden's Laptop" and are listed above. Slywriter (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
I left neutrally worded messages at the talkpages of WP:USG, WP:POLITICS & WP:LAW, to garner more input. Seeing as the 'survey' bit is slowing down. PS - That's better then adding a dispute tag which only creates frustration among us, as it comes across as being a replacement for the word "allegedly". GoodDay (talk) 07:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces:, @Anon0098:, @PhotogenicScientist:, @Malerooster:, @Levivich:, @Mr Ernie:, @Guest2625:, @Arkon: & @Adoring nanny:, a fifth option (by Feoffer) has been added to the RFC options. GoodDay (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
@Soibangla: my apologies. I thought Feoffer, had already made you aware of this RFC. GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC) NOTE - This is not a BLP issue. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Potential compromise language
- @Mr swordfish:, would this resolve your concerns over how we summarize the 11/22/22 source? Feoffer (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Zaathras, Darknipples, Andrevan, and JzG:, would you consider that summary an improvement? Feoffer (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think it's an improvement Andre🚐 22:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. DN (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Somewhat. That there is some data (emails, images, etc...) that belongs to H. Biden is true, but there is disinfo mixed in, as the laptop changed hands and was accessed remotely. It is difficult to capture the full nuance of the situation in this article prose, it seems. Zaathras (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yup, that will do nicely. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Carlstak: -- I want to apologize for not consulting you before I made an earlier bold change a few weeks ago without waiting for your feedback. It's important for me to not move forward until I've heard what you had to say -- up or down. If we can get a consensus for a compromise based on CBS's language, would it have your support? Feoffer (talk) 12:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Valjean, LokiTheLiar, and ValarianB: -- you have all expressed concerns about the old versions -- if we could get support for the compromise, could you support it? Feoffer (talk) 12:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- This appears like a form of canvassing. You're pinging editors & asking them to support something that you support. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Jesus. No worries, Feoffer. It looks fine to me. Thanks for remembering me, whether or not this is canvassing.;-) I'm consumed with an offline project and an article translation I've been working on for a while, so I've got no appetite or spare mental energy to participate in the general discussion. I'm expecting to see a WP article about all the controversy on this "Hunter Biden laptop controversy" talk page some day, and can only shudder to think what its talk page will look like.;-) Carlstak (talk) 14:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, that compromise is better. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- I also agree that compromise is better. Loki (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Not much time to be around during the holidays. Looks fine. ValarianB (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- This appears like a form of canvassing. You're pinging editors & asking them to support something that you support. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Valjean, LokiTheLiar, and ValarianB: -- you have all expressed concerns about the old versions -- if we could get support for the compromise, could you support it? Feoffer (talk) 12:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
I restored the "..belonged..." bit. PS - TBH, I wish the intro would've been left alone, once the current RFC was started. Constantly changing it during the RFC, is chaotic. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Definition for "Of" - used to show possession, belonging, or origin.
- It makes zero change to the meaning of the phrase while simplifying the sentence. And these debates are running in circles focused on a very narrow issue, WP:BOLD is sometimes the way to find language everyone can live with. Slywriter (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- The intro should be as it was, when the current RFC began. Constantly tinkering with it, while the RFC is ongoing, doesn't help. As I've repeated before, the entire intro in a matter of weeks, may well end up be entirely different. We don't know 'yet', what may or may not be dug up, once the Republicans take over the House & begin their own investigations. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- WP:CRYSTALBALL so I don't care about January. The closed RfC only concerns use of alleged, which the language change does not introduce and the above RfC well I have no idea what it will try and accomplish or change because it looks to muddy the language not clarify. Slywriter (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- The intro should be as it was, when the current RFC began. Constantly tinkering with it, while the RFC is ongoing, doesn't help. As I've repeated before, the entire intro in a matter of weeks, may well end up be entirely different. We don't know 'yet', what may or may not be dug up, once the Republicans take over the House & begin their own investigations. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with this compromise (though see my slight copy edit of it in the survey section) DFlhb (talk) 09:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't see this until now, but for the record I'm fine with it. Endwise (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Procedural advice?
Thirteen editors from all sides of the discussion have now signed on to potential compromise language that refocuses the lead specifically on data, much of which has been forensically verified. If this language is supported by consensus, what is the appropriate way to demonstrate that consensus? Some have advised the creation of a new RFC focused just on this compromise proposal, while others have suggested the proposed compromise be folded into the current RFC as "option 5". A third school of thought holds the existing discussion is sufficient and we don't need anything especially formal.
While I welcome feedback from anyone, @Awilley: seems to be the local admin monitoring this article most closely and that's whose advice on how to proceed woudl have the most weight. Feoffer (talk) 09:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Much of what I might write here by way of advice I already wrote on TFD's talk page. The RfC above is a mess and I'm surprised it's still running. An RfC should be a simple yes-no vote that strikes at the heart of the disagreement.
"Should the lead state without qualification that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden? Yes or no?"
Find a clear consensus on that, and then you can start hammering out how to best word that. I hate RfCs that offer multiple choice wordings because 1, they're messy, 2, they rarely start with the best wording (that will be found by collaborative editing later), and 3, once the RfC ends the poor wording is set in stone, so instead of being improved by collaborative editing it can only be changed by another RfC. A problem with the first RfC is that it only asked if the word "alleged" should be used but it's being interpreted as imposing the specific sequence of words: "The Hunter Biden Laptop controversy involves a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden" which I suspect is blocking collaborative editing that could lead to better wordings that would be acceptable to a wider range of editors. - On your potential compromise, IMO, for it to be worth anything you would have to bring on board at least one of the hard-line "option 1" folks. If it's just a bunch of anything-but-option-1 people saying "yeah that works too" then it's not really a meaningful compromise.
- I don't know if you'll find this advice helpful. My ideal is far from the reality that currently exists here. ~Awilley (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- There's 11 editors who've (in the survey) opted for option #1. Indeed, peddling a proposal to only/mostly editors who were already against option 1, is rather, problematic. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- I was a "hard-line option 1" who now prefers the compromise proposal, though that's because I changed my mind on the "belonging to" question.
- I agree on this RFC being flawed, but disagree on why. I strongly oppose the idea that the laptop was proven to belong to Hunter, but it's clear to me that the previous RFC did come to a consensus that it was. A new RFC (which would, in theory, be in 'my' interest) can't sneakily override that, without being explicitly framed as such. There should have been consensus to start a new RFC, and it should have been framed as: "the past RFC was an incomplete review of sources, let's ask the same question but do it more thoroughly".
- (I'll note that a major circumstance has changed since the previous RFC: many !voters said the laptop ownership was proven, but its contents were in doubt. The ownership was based on a misreading of sources, but the second part, the laptop's contents, have since been authenticated in their entirety by CBS. The current state of affairs is that the laptop origin is unproven; its contents are fully authentic, and the NYPost's reporting was not based on the laptop's contents, but on material provided by Republican operatives. The fact that the article does not make this correct but subtle distinction is a great shame, and IMO a BLPvio). DFlhb (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- With the Republicans taking over the House in January 2023 & opening up investigations into Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, etc. It's possible, that 'more' changes are to come. I highly doubt that the intro will look the same by (for example) next summer. When this whole thing is over (one way or the other), I'm sure we all will be relieved. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Well unfortunately, and much to their likely chagrin, Republicans will not be taking over mainstream media outlets in tandem with the House. So if you are expecting a sea change in how this topic is reported on, and hence in the source material we will be able to use in this article, prepare to be disappointed. Zaathras (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think my proposal (at the bottom of this page) will make it easier to fit in any future Republican allegations (as long as they're due, of course). No way it fits anywhere in the current structure. DFlhb (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- With the Republicans taking over the House in January 2023 & opening up investigations into Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, etc. It's possible, that 'more' changes are to come. I highly doubt that the intro will look the same by (for example) next summer. When this whole thing is over (one way or the other), I'm sure we all will be relieved. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
When the RFC tag expires, I'll request that 'only an administrator should close it & render a decision. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
On your potential compromise, IMO, for it to be worth anything you would have to bring on board at least one of the hard-line "option 1" folks.
@Awilley:, I should have clarified -- I only asked for procedural advice because we already had the support of some hard-line "option 1" folks. DFlhb had signed on, and indeed, the entire compromise language was based on a suggestion by Endwise, another hard-line option 1 person who has also signed on to the compromise. Feoffer (talk) 03:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- It appears that there is more support for Feoffer's text than for any of the alternatives listed in the RfC. Somehow that support needs to be registered within the RfC so that when it's closed we don't replay the last 3 months' stalemate. I'd suggest you add it as option 5, ping everyone who's responded or participated over the term of the current RfC, and perfect the record for the closer. My own view is that this is good enough language to resolve the primary point in contention, but that better approaches will evolve through normal editing process once the belonged to matter is put to rest. SPECIFICO talk 12:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
I'd suggest you add it as option 5, ping everyone who's responded or participated over the term of the current RfC
We can if Awilley thinks it necessary, but we're not a bureaucracy -- we likely don't have to re-ping people who've already expressed support. Feoffer (talk) 13:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)- Not all option 1 hardliners have agreed to your compromise proposal. The chances that they might, would be enhanced if you moved that proposal (you don't need Awilley's permission) into the RFC as option 5. But simply write out what the option is & don't brag it up. GoodDay (talk) 13:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- 🦹🏻♀️ The fact that we're not a bureaucracy is the reason I wouldn't suggest going back to Awilley again unless something new comes up. The closer is going to look at the !vote section as the record of editors' views, so the file there should be complete and stand on its own. Expressing support in a separate section or without reference to the other options is likely to extend the controversy, IMO. SPECIFICO talk 14:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- I was bold & added your proposal to the RFC. I have pinged the rest of the so-called hardliners. Having someone (me) ping editors about your proposal (I don't support it), will remove canvassing concerns. GoodDay (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- The point of adding it to the RfC options was to record all views there. So please also ping the editors who have commented on Feoffer's version or who may have commented in the RfC without recording a !vote. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- AFAIK, Feoffer has already pinged everybody else. But, if you know of others, within the RFC? By all means ping them. That way, no one can claim canvassing by anyone. GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- No, it's quite the opposite. You need to ping everyone at once even if some of them are redundant, because the reason for the ping is to let them know that it's been added as "option 5" to the RfC and they need to state their !votes within the RfC, not within the discussions Freoffer has initiated to try to find support for his suggestion. Please make a supplemental ping list that fills out the pings to everyone who's commented on the matter, or if you prefer everyone who's edited this talk page over the course of the RfC (regardless of wether they recorded a !vote.} Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Point out these other editors & I'll ping them. This entire talkpage, has become a virtual maze. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Nah -- we're not a bureaucracy. An admin closer will know that comments in favor of the compromise count, nobody has to use the magic words 'option 5' for their opinion to count. By the same token, the remaining option 1 voters who don't support the compromise don't have to show up to state their opposition to the compromise.
- There's a reason we use admins instead of bots to close. Feoffer (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- I still disagree - anyone now preferring option 5 on the RFC should say so in the survey section, in their own words. I don't think an uninvolved admin will want to wade through this ludicrously lengthy discussion section to verify all editors' opinions. The survey section is placed at the top, and I'm pretty sure it's what reviewing admins will consider most strongly when looking to close. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- No, it's quite the opposite. You need to ping everyone at once even if some of them are redundant, because the reason for the ping is to let them know that it's been added as "option 5" to the RfC and they need to state their !votes within the RfC, not within the discussions Freoffer has initiated to try to find support for his suggestion. Please make a supplemental ping list that fills out the pings to everyone who's commented on the matter, or if you prefer everyone who's edited this talk page over the course of the RfC (regardless of wether they recorded a !vote.} Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- AFAIK, Feoffer has already pinged everybody else. But, if you know of others, within the RFC? By all means ping them. That way, no one can claim canvassing by anyone. GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- The point of adding it to the RfC options was to record all views there. So please also ping the editors who have commented on Feoffer's version or who may have commented in the RfC without recording a !vote. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- I was bold & added your proposal to the RFC. I have pinged the rest of the so-called hardliners. Having someone (me) ping editors about your proposal (I don't support it), will remove canvassing concerns. GoodDay (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Feoffer, you're not suppose to attempt to influence the closer. Therefore I reverted your obvious campaigning above the 'survey' section. All 5 options should be presented equally. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
@Awilley: Feoffer appears to be attempting to unduly influence the RFC closer (in the 'survey' section), in favour of his proposal & so I've counter-posted, with advice that the closer ignore his post. All 5 options, should be presented equally. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Awilley, I found this & this to be attempts to influence the closer, due to the wording & more importantly placement, above other listed options. I reverted both attempts. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Feoffer's comment above in the RFC survey is wildly inappropriate. This "compromise" was built through blatant WP:VOTESTACKING [6] [7]. Slywriter pointed this out right away, and their comment was removed. GoodDay also pointed this out fairly quickly. I also noticed this and thought it was inappropriate, but I don't suppose there's anything wrong with discussing something with select editors. Where Feoffer crossed the line is trying to act on it by unduly influencing the RFC.PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Additionally, Feoffer claims this has extensive support from all sides, since 2 "hard line option 1" folks have signed on, which misrepresents the strength of this compromsie. It seems they're referring to DFlhb and Endwise; neither of those editors had expressed what I would describe as hard-line opinions. DFlhb's opinion seemed more to be that the RFC was malformed as there were other issues at hand, and Endwise's contributions have always been from a seemingly data-centric viewpoint. There were plenty of editors with stronger opinions Feoffer could've pinged, but never did. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
There were plenty of editors with stronger opinions Feoffer could've pinged, but never did
I still would have pinged them, given the chance. -- GoodDay is the one who added option 5, not me! I still wanted to get more feedback from people with stronger opinions before finalizing potential compromise language. Feoffer (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)- Thankfully it 'was' me, who placed your option into the RFC. Why? because I did it the proper (i.e. neutral) way. Just curious, is this the 'first' time you've been involved with an RFC, Feoffer? GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- After checking the timestamps, you did offer that comment only after GoodDay added the new option. So I'll strike my language about HOW inappropriate the comment was. However, my concern about WP:VOTESTACKING still stands. I think it's admirable to try and build compromise on such a contentious article. I also respect your trying to find a creative solution to build one on such a chaotic talk page. If you can truly get most of the people on this talk page on board through good-faith means, then that's a net benefit as far as I'm concerned.
- However, I still think your comment directly to the RFC closer is an inappropriate addition to the Survey section. If the editors in this discussion have signed on to the new option, the best way to express that would be for them to modify or add their votes to the survey section. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
I think it's admirable to try and build compromise on such a contentious article. I also respect your trying to find a creative solution to build one on such a chaotic talk page. If you can truly get most of the people on this talk page on board through good-faith means, then that's a net benefit as far as I'm concerned.
- I really appreciate this, PhotogenicScientist!! I very rarely act in this fashion, but my 'superpower' on this article is that I truly couldn't care less! I didn't know anything about the topic until Musk mentioned it, and I came to the article as a reader and found I couldn't make heads or tails of it. Later, when all sides agreed CBS was a great source, it became even more obvious that some compromise could be reached, because after CBS, it doesn't really matter HOW people got the data, the 'clean copy' was confirmed. Anyway thanks for the kind words, I don't always know if i'm on the path to a good consensus compromise or not, but I am doing my best with no particular preconceived designs on the outcome. Feoffer (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- You claim you couldn't care less, yet you've been showing clear opposition to Option 1. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Only because I can't source it, and I tried. If CBS had a straightforward confirmation of Biden's ownership of the physical device, I'd have been completely happy to move on. It's really not that big a fix -- the 'clean copy' data was Biden's, why muddy the waters with debates of devices that can't be proved to belong to him? Feoffer (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Ditto. DN (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- There is not a single source that presents a credible alternative to how the laptops got to the shop. Lending credit to the Easter Bunny dropped it off is the equivalent of accepting the clean data could be falsified, which we know is untrue. If it was not his laptop dropped off with his data, with his family foundation sticker,and his initials on the receipt then where is the RS that even attempts to explain how the laptop got there? Slywriter (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Ditto. DN (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Only because I can't source it, and I tried. If CBS had a straightforward confirmation of Biden's ownership of the physical device, I'd have been completely happy to move on. It's really not that big a fix -- the 'clean copy' data was Biden's, why muddy the waters with debates of devices that can't be proved to belong to him? Feoffer (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- You claim you couldn't care less, yet you've been showing clear opposition to Option 1. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- However, I still think your comment directly to the RFC closer is an inappropriate addition to the Survey section. If the editors in this discussion have signed on to the new option, the best way to express that would be for them to modify or add their votes to the survey section. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Seems like this could be easily addressed by pinging every participant, and asking them to express an explicit choice for or against option 5; that way, no vote-stacking. DFlhb (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Can we all agree on one thing? Only an administrator should close the 'current' RFC, when the tag expires. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- You think an Admins is like a kind of Superhero? Wonder Woman? Batgirl Closer?? SPECIFICO talk 21:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Sources and rebuttals
This isn't complicated. Here are sources from last few months that say it's Hunter Biden's laptop. CBS even includes a timeline that makes it crystal-clear that the data was saved in a manner consistent with everyday use and stopped shortly before it was brought in for repairs. So instead of saying "but GRU", "but Republicans", "but the data was altered", please address how Wikipedia can ignore these sources and say anything other than the Laptop is Hunter Biden's?
Skynews coverage of Podcast by Sam Harris saying Hunter Biden Laptop [8]
Economist: [9]
WaPo Fact Checker: [10]
Politico: [11]
Salon: [12]
PBS [13]
NYTimes: [14]
Newsday: [15]
AP: [16]
Toronto Sun: [17]
Variety: [18]
Yahoo: [19]
KHQA Fact Check: [20]
CBS News (Lanterman statement specifically): [21] Slywriter (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- I find it incongruous that WaPo analysts and others found the contents a mess that suggested tampering while the CBS analyst found it pristine, especially since the WaPo analysts cited specific examples while the CBS analyst made a broad statement without indicating specifically what he examined and verified. Did he authenticate the crypto signatures of all the emails? We don't know. The CBS piece is pretty weak. soibangla (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Soibangla You misunderstood both. the WaPo didn't claim evidence of tampering, only that they couldn't rule out tampering because of the mess their copy of the drive was in, with the implication that they could authenticate it if they had a clean copy. CBS did have a clean copy without the WaPo issues. The 2 sources are consistent. Amthisguy (talk) 05:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the links. This is exactly the way the conversation or dispute should be handled - look at the reliable sources and see what they have to say.
- My criteria, and feel free to disagree with it, is that an article that is mostly about some other aspect of the story and uses the phrase "Hunter Biden's laptop" is not enough to justify the usage of "belonged to" in the article. As others have said, "Hunter Biden's laptop" is simply journalistic shorthand for the item in question. So, taking the articles one by one:
- Skynews coverage of Podcast by Sam Harris saying Hunter Biden Laptop [22] I don't tend to get my news from YouTube, so I didn't watch. Is there a transcript?
- Economist: [23]
- States flatly: "The laptop belonged to Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden." Also says that the mainstream press was "unable to confirm that the hard drive came from Hunter’s laptop..."
- WaPo Fact Checker: [24] Refers to "...materials found on a hard-drive copy of the laptop Hunter Biden supposedly left behind for repair in a Delaware shop in April 2019." I don't see anything in the article that supports "belonged to". Perhaps someone could point that out?
- Politico:[h ttps://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/08/twitter-files-hunter-biden-laptop-00072919] Article is mostly about something else. Uses the phrase "Hunter Biden's laptop" but doesn't go into any further detail.
- Salon: [25] Opinion piece from Digby. Uses the phrase, "Hunter Biden's laptop" but is mostly a rant about a bunch of other related things.
- PBS: [26] Article is not primarily about the progeny of the physical device, but it does say "Republican lawmakers and their staff for the past year have been analyzing messages and financial transactions found on a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden."
- NYTimes: [27] Carefully refers to it as "...a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop." Does not say it "belonged to" HB.
- Newsday: [28] Describes "...a laptop the junior Biden, a troubled man with drug issues, allegedly abandoned at a repair shop."
- AP: [29] Repeat of the PBS story.
- Toronto Sun: [30] Article primarily about something else. Headline refers to the "Hunter Biden laptop saga" which is hardly dispositive. It does use the phrase "Hunter Biden's laptop"
- Variety: [31] States "Other news outlets, including the New York Times, have since reported that the laptop did in fact belong to Hunter Biden." But the Times article linked to says no such thing (see above). Perhaps there are others? Variety is not saying.
- Yahoo: [32] Headline refers to "Hunter Biden Laptop Story". Agree that there is a Hunter Biden Laptop Story, but that doesn't merit the use of "belonged to".
- KHQA Fact Check: [33] Article is mostly about something else, but it does refer to "...the contents of Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop..."
- CBS News (Lanterman statement specifically): [34] Headline is "Copy of what's believed to be Hunter Biden's laptop..."
- Lanterman's statement: "I have no doubt in my mind that this data was created by Hunter Biden, and that it came from a computer under Mr. Biden's control,"
- Note that Langerman does not say that the physical device that the shop owner came to own was the same physical device as the "computer under Mr. Biden's control" and that the authors of the article are careful to couch the ownership issue in unsettled terms i.e. using the phrase "believed to be".
- So, what to make of it all? I think a good faith reading of some of these sources would justify usage of the phrase "belonged to". Reading the totality of these sources, I'm unconvinced that we're on solid ground using "belonged to" in the article. If we're going to accurately reflect the current state of reporting we'd need to be more circumspect.YMMV.
- And with that I'm bowing out of this discussion. I'm reminded of the saying that "In academia, the battles are so fierce because the stakes are so small." Good luck with reaching consensus. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Beginning in January 2023, it's quite possible that this page will go through massive changes. GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Swordfish, thanks for that summary. I too reviewed the sources and did not find that they support the statement "belonged to..." One additional point, the KHQA fact check is certainly not RS for this content. KHQA is a Sinclair Broadcast Group outlet, not highly regarded for its fact checking. SPECIFICO talk 23:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- You looked at the PBS source which states “Republican lawmakers and their staff for the past year have been analyzing messages and financial transactions found on a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden,” and concluded it does not “support the statement ‘belonged to…’?” I think I might have found the disconnect here. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
"The existence of emails about getting Buckley Carlson into Georgetown has been known for some time, thanks to a laptop once owned by Hunter Biden that was obtained by Donald Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and pushed to media in 2020."
from the Guardian."Further details about those activities were found in documents obtained from a hard drive in a laptop Hunter once owned.
from the Financial Times.
- Here’s two more. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- The guardian article isn't about the HBL, it's about Tucker Carlson's "attacks" on HB that include independent verification of some of the data, so I doubt very much it would pass the smell test at RSN. The FT article is pay-walled. DN (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Here’s another from The Guardian which says
Republicans are also fixated on a laptop computer once owned by Hunter Biden, the contents of which were shopped to news outlets by Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s attorney, shortly before the 2020 election.
Mr Ernie (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Citing links to what look like random google search results queried to confirm pre-existing bias cannot help us to establish NPOV or V or to comply with BLP regarding this narrative. And without specific discussion of the sources and their suitability, we cannot expect the closer to make the arguments or inferences in that are being asserted but not justified by this link list. SPECIFICO talk 15:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Follow the logic here- a laptop that does contain HBs data is dropped off (CBS clean copy of the recovered hard drive that was transferred to an external hard drive and subsequently shared with CBS) along with two other laptops that needed repair. A signature similar to HB is on the receipt. Two laptops that can be easily repaired are picked up. The third never gets picked up. No credible source has ever explained why GRU/Easter Bunny/Tooth Fairy would drop off three devices to pick up two and leave a third behind. The simplest answer is HB did forget a device there, FBI and CBS got unaltered duplicates from the recovered hard drive and Republicans got an unaltered copy that they then manipulated. CBS vs Rep copies shows the original recovered data did not have the more "incriminating" and likely falsified data. CBS analysts says the data was added to the laptop (subsequently transferred to an external hard drive as part of the recovery) was incremental and consistent with daily use and not loaded at once. This is my last word on it, but it takes a lot of squinting to blame the Tooth Fairy instead of a forgetful Hunter Biden. Slywriter (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Basically agree, which is why option 1 is my second choice after option 5: on this issue, the media doesn't know anything we don't. The only two people who will ever know the truth about the laptop itself, are Hunter (who says he doesn't know) and the repairman (who is legally blind). Regardless of how the media words it, they'll never know for 100% certain if it's his, and neither will we, regardless of the fact that (I agree) it's overwhelmingly likely at this point.
- I just think we have a perfect solution:
- option 5 neatly sidesteps this
- then the lead can briefly give the facts (the signature & laptop stickers were Hunter's, but he can't recall dropping it off), and readers can make their own conclusion
- then cover the CBS report
- mention the NYPost, then mention their data showed signs of tampering, then mention the October surprise aspect, Giuliani, Bannon.
- then mention the allegations being debunked (the FBI had the fully-clean laptop data, and found no evidence of money laundering)
- Tadaaa! Lead fixed. With five puny bullet points. DFlhb (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
One more before I go, from today's WaPo. Fact-checker Glen Kessler, who takes great pains to get things correct, describes it thus:
- "...a hard drive copy of the laptop Hunter Biden supposedly left behind for repair in a Delaware shop in April 2019." [35]
Note the carefully worded, precise language. We really should be this careful. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Each side has their sources & the arguments over which ones are reliable will likely continue. Just another day, on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Most are more or less reliable, with the exception of blatant misfits like Sinclair Broadcasting. The issue is more WP:V weight and WP:BLP. We have tools and standards by which to judge those. SPECIFICO talk 20:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- A lot may change in the coming weeks. Attempts to delete/merge this page, won't change the likelihood that both the Joe Biden, Hunter Biden & related pages, will be getting more attention. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- User:SPECIFICO, what is the BLP issue? TFD (talk) 05:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- @The Four Deuces: There's no BLP issue. PS - Not sure why Specifico is linking to an archived BLPN discussion (which resulted in 'no consensus' or 'conclusion') at the top of the RFC. GoodDay (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Collection of current issues, and Attempt to resolve
Ownership, and controversy, and redundancy, oh my....
There are clearly a lot of concerns being raised here, and I'm seeing some issues bleeding into what should've been focused discussions of other issues. Any progress made this way will continue to be either glacially slow, or nonexistent. In trying to sort it all out, it seems to me that the discussion here should be broadened in some way.
Collection of concerns
Let me try to distill some of the concerns here (both old and new), without commenting on if they're right or wrong. May anyone feel free to add items to this list in an effective manner:
Common issues
Concerns shared by more than 1-2 editors:
- Saying that Hunter owned the laptop should not be done. It is a BLP violation, it is not fully accepted by all RS, and we don't definitively know it to be true
- Qualifying Hunter's ownership of the laptop, or saying that it's in doubt, should not be done. Various RS report it as his, all of which were reviewed and discussed in the recent RFC.
- The redundancy in the lead (a la "The Hunter Biden laptop controversy involves a laptop and Hunter Biden...") is terrible. We should write it better than that.
Proposed issues
Concerns brought up by at least 1 editor. We don't have to discuss these unless more people agree. If you share a concern here, make it known in a list below it, and it'll be considered a common issue:
- This isn't even a real controversy. This article should be trimmed, or just deleted.
- The article should call the laptop as Hunter Biden's. No sidestepping, no creative wording around it.
Discussion II
Please discuss anything about this thread below this section. I think the issues should remain clear and visible until they can be "settled." Even then, linking to a discussion would be better than removing them from the list, or cluttering the list with summaries or closes.
Common issue #1
Why is it a BLP violation to say that Hunter Biden owned the laptop? BLP says that material must be verifiable, which you admit it is. In fact, it violates BLP to suggest the laptop may not have belonged to him, since it is an unsourced claim. TFD (talk) 04:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Common issue #3
finally, my point in all of this...
Surtsicna makes a good point - the redundancy isn't great. In reviewing other articles about similar controversies - also in AmPol, generally sparked by 1 event/report - it seems that most leads of these articles function as a summary of (in order) what happened, and why it was controversial. Articles I looked at here here here here and here.
In that regard, I'd support a similarly-structured lead. This version by SPECIFICO starts off well, I think. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't mean to screw things up. I really thought you had used the wrong URL, as your link isn't a diff. Your link has no informational value as it doesn't show what change SPECIFICO made, only the final result. One cannot compare the new version with the old version using that link. In this case that is important. My real diff gave that information. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Your link has no informational value
is wrong.it doesn't show what change SPECIFICO made, only the final result
is right. My aim was to compare that revision of the lead to the existing articles I linked, to note the similarity of starting off with a dated event. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- User:PhotogenicScientist, what is the BLP issue? TFD (talk) 05:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- I wasn't expressing that concern in my voice - only listing it in my attempt to collect concerns PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Miscellaneous
Another 'kinda new' discussion? As if things on this talkpage isn't already spinning into chaos. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- Procedural Question so what do we do about the status of the lead until this RFC ends? Currently there's a new version in there that hasn't been discussed anywhere before. I think process wise the correct thing to do is revert back to the current consensus version (the one from the RFC a few weeks ago). Thoughts? Mr Ernie (talk) 20:52, December 7, 2022 (UTC)
- @Mr Ernie: IMHO, restore the consensus lead, that was established by the last RFC. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Mr Ernie Seconded to reverting to a post-RFC version, for now. Which anyone is within rights to do, even per the 1RR restriction: "Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions."
- I think this version would be the closest fit. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- An admin at BLPN has clarified that the old text was a BLP violation. Reinsertion at this point would absolutely constitute a behavior problem. Feoffer (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- An administrator 'here', seems to have said it's alright to restore the status quo ante. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- You are mistaken. No admin has the authority to authorize you to commit a BLP violation, as will be discovered if the text is readded. What was said in no way is meant to encourage you to disregard BLPN. Feoffer (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- If enough editors want the status quo ante restored, it will be restored & there'll be nothing you can do about it. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if you've been misinformed about Wikipedia policy, but I can promise you, the admins and the foundation and the courts will not allow us to publish unsourced contentious claims about living people. I understand how you've been led to believe that we all vote on reality, publish our best guess on reality, and ever-after abide by the vote, but that's just not how we work -- you can't publish unsourced contentious claims about living people in the United States. It's not up to me, it's not up to the admins, it's not even up to the foundation. I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just telling you reality. Feoffer (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- If enough editors want the status quo ante restored, it will be restored & there'll be nothing you can do about it. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- You are mistaken. No admin has the authority to authorize you to commit a BLP violation, as will be discovered if the text is readded. What was said in no way is meant to encourage you to disregard BLPN. Feoffer (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- An administrator 'here', seems to have said it's alright to restore the status quo ante. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- An admin at BLPN has clarified that the old text was a BLP violation. Reinsertion at this point would absolutely constitute a behavior problem. Feoffer (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- If you're referring to Masem's comment in this thread, I have seen them refer to this discussion as BLP matter, and I have seen them opine that it would be "inappropriate" to present the ownership as fact (yet admit that there is no policy-based reason for this). What I haven't seen is a clear labeling of this as a BLP violation, or a guarantee of action/enforcement against the content.
- Masem, if I've misunderstood anything, or if there is an actionable rule against referring to the laptop as belonging to Hunter, please clarify. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- It is a BLP matter as some weak sources (like Fox News) want to assert the laptop belonged to Hunter and that its content showed possibly illegal or at least politically inappropriate actions that Hunter, and via relation, Joe Biden have done to interfere with the 2020 election. No, there is no evidence of such but that a parody the whole story is the believe that BLPs have done something wrong make it a clear BLP issue, as we cannot make it appear they have done anything illegL per BLPCRIME, despite the table thumping Fox does. Masem (t) 22:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- What Fox News sources? The issue has nothing to do with the contents of the laptop, only that it belonged to Biden. The sources are presented in the RFC - no Fox News. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm saying in broad terms, that Fox News and the farther-right sources all are thumping on their believe that the laptop - both ownership and contents - are a smoking gun related election interference. Obviously we are not using those sources, but we should be aware that that is a significant part of why this story is anything, hence why we have to be careful around the BLP implications until we have a complete, verified picture of the whole situation. Masem (t) 20:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- That doesn't answer my question. Let me be more clear: Would it be a BLP violation to state in this article that the laptop in question belonged to Hunter Biden? (keep in mind, a fairly comprehensive list of RS and what they say about it was compiled here during the RFC).
- I'm not concerned at the moment with any alleged crimes or unethical behavior (none of that is really under discussion right now, mainly for reasons you mentioned). PhotogenicScientist (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- When I look at those sources in the RFC, I get a mixed message, that some sources think it is the case, some others of similar reputation think it is not, but are less skeptical that it could have been Hunter's. Because part of the story is that material on the laptop is purported to be incriminating, we should be taking cautionary steps as to the ownership since this is not yet a fully-agreed on stance in the RSes. Thus, saying the laptop was Hunter's in Wikivoice is wrong and a BLP problem. Masem (t) 21:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
since this is not yet a fully-agreed on stance in the RSes
This is where you lose me. By all readings of policy, I'm not sure from where you draw this conclusion. WP:DUE, from the policy on neutrality, requires that "articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." On the converse, WP:PUBLICFIGURE, from WP:BLP itself, states "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."- THAT is the criteria for blocking potentially libelous claims or allegations from being included - that it should be attested to my a multitude of RS. Which we have.
- Honestly, I wish you would back up your reading of WP policy with links to actual policy. I want to understand here. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think you are exactly correct - and the change to "data" fixes that problem, IMO. We have plenty of time to get into the implausible origin story and the mixing of unauthenticated and known-bogus data later. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- When I look at those sources in the RFC, I get a mixed message, that some sources think it is the case, some others of similar reputation think it is not, but are less skeptical that it could have been Hunter's. Because part of the story is that material on the laptop is purported to be incriminating, we should be taking cautionary steps as to the ownership since this is not yet a fully-agreed on stance in the RSes. Thus, saying the laptop was Hunter's in Wikivoice is wrong and a BLP problem. Masem (t) 21:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Masem requesting further clarification aboveprovided PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)- User:Masem, saying Hunter Biden owned the laptop is not a BLP issue because owning a laptop is not an offense under the U.S. Code or under the statutes of Deleware. And no evidence has been provided that any crimes might have been committed by what was found on the laptop. And even if there were, prosecutors would still have to proof that the evidence was not planted. The mainstream news media have attorneys who check what they publish and they have decided that they can say the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden without fear of action for defamation. TFD (talk) 05:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- It is 100% a BLP issue because around the story it is claimed there have been activities related to BLP (including Hunter Biden) that may or may not be illegal. Just because no crimes have been determined yet, it is the attitude of those news orgs and politicians fighting on the story (eg NY Post, Fox News, many GOP, Elon Musk, etc.) that keeps it fully in the BLP realm. Until there is a crystal clear picture of the laptop, who had owned it, why it ended up there, and that there is nothing incriminating around the laptop's contents and the events around it, it should be treated as a BLP. It is in the same manner that while Pizzagate is fully a fabrication of the right-wing news media, it still involved the lives of the people claimed to be in it, and thus was a BLP issue at the start. Masem (t) 14:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- TFD, that's a facile denial of the issue that's the core of this "controversy". Similarly, it's not illegal to own bear spray, but it's illegal to discharge it in the face of a police officer. It's not illegal to own a lace doily, but it is a crime to use one to suffocate the neighbor's pet cat. SPECIFICO talk 16:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- What Fox News sources? The issue has nothing to do with the contents of the laptop, only that it belonged to Biden. The sources are presented in the RFC - no Fox News. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- It is a BLP matter as some weak sources (like Fox News) want to assert the laptop belonged to Hunter and that its content showed possibly illegal or at least politically inappropriate actions that Hunter, and via relation, Joe Biden have done to interfere with the 2020 election. No, there is no evidence of such but that a parody the whole story is the believe that BLPs have done something wrong make it a clear BLP issue, as we cannot make it appear they have done anything illegL per BLPCRIME, despite the table thumping Fox does. Masem (t) 22:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- IMHO, leave it as is, as it's more accurate. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
@El C: & @Awilley: it appears that Feoffer is suggesting that the status quo ante can't be restored 'nor' option 1 (if chosen by TFD's RFC) can't be adopted, because of BLPN. What's exactly going on? GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- I have restored the RFC version until a new consensus emerges. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- The RFC did not endorse any one version. Your rationale for reverting is inappropriate. (This isn't a minor point; it's important that RFCs only establish exactly what they conclude or we risk running into Motte-and-bailey problems where the answer to a simpler question is used as if it answers a more difficult one.) The RFC only justifies removing "alleged" or phrasing that fundamentally means the same thing. --Aquillion (talk) 07:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- Myself & a lot of other editors disagree with your assessment, Aquillion. Mr. Ernie's restoration was the correct move. GoodDay (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Aquillion:, it looks like we may have a potential Win-Win compromise taking shape, with at least ten editors signed on. Could you also support this as an improvement? Feoffer (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- The RFC did not endorse any one version. Your rationale for reverting is inappropriate. (This isn't a minor point; it's important that RFCs only establish exactly what they conclude or we risk running into Motte-and-bailey problems where the answer to a simpler question is used as if it answers a more difficult one.) The RFC only justifies removing "alleged" or phrasing that fundamentally means the same thing. --Aquillion (talk) 07:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
EBRD simplified to 1RR only
It looks like a non-admin has created the edit notice (which they should not have done) with the more arcane and counterintuitive Enforced BRD restriction over the more conventional WP:1RR one. A restriction (EBRD) which almost everyone seem to have ignored (i.e. failing to wait the required 24 hours between reverts). As for the mandatory accompanying discussions, I don't know, I haven't checked. Doesn't matter, I've simplified things by converting it to 1RR only, so no need to worry about those other components.
Since there is an WP:RfC currently running, I'll note that the status quo ante version is usually the version that gets displayed until that procedure is concluded. So I'll leave it at that. Note that I encountered this in passing at WP:RFPP/I (permalink)—well, kinda a second time—but am unlikely to be available to further assist with this (because WP:AP2 is a drag!). So, if there are violations, please report em to WP:AE or WP:AN/WP:ANI, you know how it glows. Giving the violating party a chance to self-revert before reporting is customary (unless habitual). Thanks all! El_C 06:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- @El C: Would I be allowed to restore the status quo ante? GoodDay (talk) 06:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- Possibly. Again, WP:1RR-only (or as I sometimes call it, naked 1RR) rather than EBRD is currently in effect, so that's the limit. As mentioned, when there's an RfC over competing versions, usually the longstanding one is the one that gets displayed over the contending one until the RfC process is done. But, like WP:ONUS and WP:BRD (the original BRD, not the weird E-one), that's only a recommendation. If it was enforced, it'd just be Consensus required, which I don't think is, well, required at this time. El_C 06:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- Wish folks would've waited until 'after' the Republicans took control of the House (in January 2023) before changing or attempting to change the intro or putting in a 'dispute tag', etc. Likely best that I not restore the status quo ante, as past experience at this page, tells me it'll likely be reverted 'or' changed. GoodDay (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- Possibly. Again, WP:1RR-only (or as I sometimes call it, naked 1RR) rather than EBRD is currently in effect, so that's the limit. As mentioned, when there's an RfC over competing versions, usually the longstanding one is the one that gets displayed over the contending one until the RfC process is done. But, like WP:ONUS and WP:BRD (the original BRD, not the weird E-one), that's only a recommendation. If it was enforced, it'd just be Consensus required, which I don't think is, well, required at this time. El_C 06:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- @El C, Awilley, and Doug Weller: El C, I was surprised to see this change. The template was adjusted recently, but the page restriction itself was placed by Doug Weller in July, 2022. The 24-BRD page restriction was invented (but not patented👧🏻} by Awilley during his tenure as an active DS Admin. 24-BRD was a very valuable innovation, because it targets incipient edit-war adjacent behavior without unduly restricting active editors. Among the benefits of this is that it enables active editors to revert unconstructive edits, by either inexperienced or drive-by POV editors, who tend to come and go on DS pages with some regularity. At the same time, it prevents these active editors from using a free allowance of 3RR to insist on their own edits, without due collaboration.
- I don't believe it's the case that the 24-BRD has recently been widely ignored. I've seen what appear to be weaponized allegations of that without diffs, but I don't see widespread recent reverts of the same material by a single editor without discussion.
- I believe that the RFPP was an overreaction to some ongoing silly behavior concerning content that's under active discussion. It is inconsequential, and it doesn't matter which version is in the article for the next several weeks. But changing the page restriction will have a lasting detrimental effect, in my opinion. The 24-BRD is in effect on many of the most active pages in the American Politics area, and it has worked very well with minimal confusion and without needing much editor or Admin time and attention.
- I request that you restore the 24-BRD restriction placed by Doug Weller. Thanks, and thanks for your prior period of active volunteer activity in this area. SPECIFICO talk 13:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- El C, I request that you not restore the 24-BRD restriction & keep the current 1RR rule in place. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- It's okay, GoodDay, I will not. But I get it, SPECIFICO, you like EBRD (←no project page btw) because it is arcane and confusing but you yourself have a good grasp of it, and WP:AP2 is an area where, let's be honest, you should have been banned from multiple times over. But regardless, there's long been a consensus among admins going back years to streamline and simplify all the beyond-1RR restrictions (well, there's two, the other is CR, which does have a project page).
- Like myself, it took Awilley a few years to realize that imposing his own custom sanctions, EBRD being the pinnacle of these, tend to work poorly. I don't think Doug was too aware of all of that (i.e. operating with old info), but at the event, I looked at the article edit notice (here), added by a non-admin.
- So, it's done, SPECIFICO, irrespectively. A revert from now on is just a regular revert, no more exotic definitions. To quote the policy:
whether involving the same or different material
. You get one revert a day. Not one for this and one for that and one for the other thing. The normal rules of engagement are creeping back into the American politics topic area, though it might take a while and the path may not be fully linear. El_C 17:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)- @El C The bit about EBRD not having a project page is a good one, and it actually really sucks. As a new user, who's been informed that I violated this page sanction twice now (which I made good faith efforts to correct after being warned), I had ZERO resource to inform myself on this supposed sanction policy. And I looked everywhere. No information at WP:BRD, or WP:EW, or WP:1RR, or WP:AP2. I was left wondering where the actual policy I violated was.
- And when I asked SPECIFICO to point me to it, their answer was simply "ask the Teahouse or Village pump."
- In my opinion, this restriction is just not well-documented enough to be implemented, or reasonably enforced. It's incredibly editor-unfriendly. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- PhotogenicScientist, I doubt WP:TEAHOUSE regulars would have been able to clearly explain EBRD to you, so it was rather underhanded of SPECIFICO to have sent you there. Again, it's a custom WP:ACDS page restriction created by a single admin, who then went on to add it to multiple AP2 pages without ArbCom's consent. So, its bad legacy persists. It should be streamlined to the simplified ruleset of WP:1RR, or in extreme cases, WP:CRP (both having project pages). Which was agreed upon years ago. That means removing it rather than continuing to add it. The point is that the rules for the American politics topic area should not be made even more impenetrable and byzantine than they already are. El_C 17:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- Man, no kidding. Thanks for the background. Reading WP:CRP, there seems to be a large amount of overlap with 24hr BRD. I don't see a reason for 24hr BRD to exist considering CRP is better-documented anyway.
- And yeah, Teahouse wasn't much help. And by the time I came back the next day and saw Good Day's question there, the thread was already archived, so I gave up...PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- Highly agree with this as someone who is regularly confused by different page sanctions Anon0098 (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- And rather than face this universal opposition to EBRD here head on, SPECIFICO is now trying to get it restored away from the public eye, at User talk:FormalDude/Archive/ 9#Edit notices and restrictions, pinging the creator of EBRD to that user talk page and so on. SPECIFICO, you need to stop with these underhanded tactics. Light is the best disinfectant — maybe try living up to that maxim. El_C 18:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- You've twice called me "underhanded" without basis. I'm surprised to see an Admin do that, or to publish any behavrioral opinions about other editors on an article talk page. My understanding is that we are expected to notify editors when mentioning them in locations they may not be following. SPECIFICO talk 19:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't call you, yourself, underhanded, I called your conduct that. El_C 19:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- You've twice called me "underhanded" without basis. I'm surprised to see an Admin do that, or to publish any behavrioral opinions about other editors on an article talk page. My understanding is that we are expected to notify editors when mentioning them in locations they may not be following. SPECIFICO talk 19:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- And rather than face this universal opposition to EBRD here head on, SPECIFICO is now trying to get it restored away from the public eye, at User talk:FormalDude/Archive/ 9#Edit notices and restrictions, pinging the creator of EBRD to that user talk page and so on. SPECIFICO, you need to stop with these underhanded tactics. Light is the best disinfectant — maybe try living up to that maxim. El_C 18:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- PhotogenicScientist, I doubt WP:TEAHOUSE regulars would have been able to clearly explain EBRD to you, so it was rather underhanded of SPECIFICO to have sent you there. Again, it's a custom WP:ACDS page restriction created by a single admin, who then went on to add it to multiple AP2 pages without ArbCom's consent. So, its bad legacy persists. It should be streamlined to the simplified ruleset of WP:1RR, or in extreme cases, WP:CRP (both having project pages). Which was agreed upon years ago. That means removing it rather than continuing to add it. The point is that the rules for the American politics topic area should not be made even more impenetrable and byzantine than they already are. El_C 17:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
|
I'm reluctant (perhaps afraid) to restore the status quo ante intro. This shows that a stronger DS over this page was required. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- I just read all this on my siesta, and now I have to smoke a big spliff to recover. Why not just declare a general amnesty and start all over with a clean slate for everybody?;-) Carlstak (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- Start all over again, would be cool. But a 'few' editors seem determined to oppose the sentence "...belonged to Hunter Biden". GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- RE: "declare a general amnesty". I'd be in favor of some kind of "reset" if editors here think it would be helpful. Revert to some older version that isn't too objectionable; full-protect the article for 24-hours to reset everybody's revert counters, declare that there is no status quo (so people's initial edits simply count as Bold edits rather than reverts to some earlier revision), and then encourage people to edit carefully and try to find a consensus. I'm not familiar enough with the history of this article to know if that would be helpful or if it would just disenfranchise one side because there is no status quo. ~Awilley (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, that would disenfranchise one side, as the current status quo gained consensus by a long and painful RFC 2 month ago. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- Here is the history, briefly, since the RFC was closed (the closing statement contained this quote - "editors opposing the adjective produced a plethora of recent RS that did not doubt the connection.") SPECIFICO almost immediately substituted "believed to have" in place of "alleged." The discussion was clear this was not in line with the RFC, and the closer clarified that no qualifier is necessary. A bit later SPECIFICO opened a review at AN, which closed as no consensus to modify the RFC. Now Feoffer, who didn't participate in the RFC, has opened a thread at the BLP Noticeboard. I want to note that nobody in the original RFC used their !vote to object on BLP grounds. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- RE: "declare a general amnesty". I'd be in favor of some kind of "reset" if editors here think it would be helpful. Revert to some older version that isn't too objectionable; full-protect the article for 24-hours to reset everybody's revert counters, declare that there is no status quo (so people's initial edits simply count as Bold edits rather than reverts to some earlier revision), and then encourage people to edit carefully and try to find a consensus. I'm not familiar enough with the history of this article to know if that would be helpful or if it would just disenfranchise one side because there is no status quo. ~Awilley (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- Start all over again, would be cool. But a 'few' editors seem determined to oppose the sentence "...belonged to Hunter Biden". GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- Well, if it was WP:CRP, then the longstanding version would be fixed until there would be consensus for the contending one. In this case, until the WP:RFC process is formally closed. But EBRD tries to do a bit of CR and a bit of 1RR, and largely fails in both.
- I think it's been at least a year since I added CR to a page (it used to be a much more common practice), and I'm one of the most active AE admins on the project in all areas (I mean, just glance at the log). As mentioned, there's just been an understanding for years now that beyond-1RR DS need to be used very sparingly, if at all.
- Another thing that was decided at the admin discussion I allude to (2019, I believe) is that, similar to seeing if WP:SEMI works before going a step higher to WP:ECP, WP:1RR needs to be tried first before going heavier. But this was not the case here. Rather than trying 1RR first, what happened was that beyond-1RR (EBRD) was imposed in the first instance. Which is problematic all on its own. El_C 20:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe @Doug Weller has an opinion as to the value or priority of the EBRD restriction existing as its own subtype versus being part of the clearer-bright-line 1RR. Frankly, all this arcana about the different restrictions is beyond me, and I don't care which one is used. What I don't understand is. If everyone agrees that a user wasn't following the restriction, and they were warned, isn't there reason therefore to go to AE? And if editors are opting to "give that a pass" and omit the AE case, is it the confusing restriction that was the problem, or the lack of enforcement more generally? If something is wanted to be enforced one should file the appropriate report or at least tap someone on the shoulder, and if every admin had declined to enforce it sans case, maybe that means the violation was not so clear rather than the restriction. Andre🚐 22:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- I’ve only opened 2 AE cases - both about violations of 1RR in this topic area. In both cases reviewing admins thought the alleged violations were trivial, and in one of them an editor I don’t know called for me to be sanctioned for hounding. So you’ll have to excuse the utter lack of desire to go back there. I think all sanctions should be lifted and we can all go at it royal rumble style until there’s only one editor left standing to write all the content. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe @Doug Weller has an opinion as to the value or priority of the EBRD restriction existing as its own subtype versus being part of the clearer-bright-line 1RR. Frankly, all this arcana about the different restrictions is beyond me, and I don't care which one is used. What I don't understand is. If everyone agrees that a user wasn't following the restriction, and they were warned, isn't there reason therefore to go to AE? And if editors are opting to "give that a pass" and omit the AE case, is it the confusing restriction that was the problem, or the lack of enforcement more generally? If something is wanted to be enforced one should file the appropriate report or at least tap someone on the shoulder, and if every admin had declined to enforce it sans case, maybe that means the violation was not so clear rather than the restriction. Andre🚐 22:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- I came within an hour (yesterday) of reporting an editor to WP:AE, for twice breaching the 1RR/24Hr DS. But another editor came along & totally changed the intro to this page, while there was an ongoing RFC concerning the intro, happening & so I got fed up. Thankfully, the DS has been strengthened to now just be 1RR. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- This is all a bit hard to follow, but I'm happy with 1RR. Doug Weller talk 10:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- I came within an hour (yesterday) of reporting an editor to WP:AE, for twice breaching the 1RR/24Hr DS. But another editor came along & totally changed the intro to this page, while there was an ongoing RFC concerning the intro, happening & so I got fed up. Thankfully, the DS has been strengthened to now just be 1RR. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Full protection
With all the reverting activity that happened earlier today and the switch to 1RR, I've full-protected the article for 24 hours. In addition to "resetting" everybody's 1RR timers, I hope you all will use it as an opportunity to "reset" your approach to the conflict. After the protection expires I recommend cautious editing with an aim to find compromise and consensus rather than enforcing any particular revision. ~Awilley (talk) 07:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Recommend reinstating the status quo ante, then protect the page for a month. GoodDay (talk) 07:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Obligatory link to m:The Wrong Version (humorous). On a more serious note, if I knew which version that was I'd be tempted, but doing so would be overstepping my authority. ~Awilley (talk) 08:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- As GoodDay has mentioned, we have consensus. We have an RFC from a few weeks ago that needs to be reinstated. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- You're right. And after this imposed cooling-off period, we have reason to revert the page to that version, until such a time that a new consensus is established. That's explicitly allowed under the 1RR restriction: "Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions." PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Just to reiterate -- reinsertion of BLP violation is unacceptable. Feel free to use "almost no one disputes", but if you're greedy and go for stating ownership as undisputed fact, when you know it's disputed, you're gonna have a bad time, trust me. Feoffer (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- But "almost no one doubts" is dubious, because it's an editorial conclusion, which we regard as Original Research. Also, if we estimate that public opinion is split 50/50, then more than almost nobody may doubt it. Have there been scientific public opinion surveys? That would be helpful. Possibly, as I once proposed, we could say "widely believed to have belonged..." we know that is true and verified by reporting that describes Republican and Repbulican-leaning media statements. SPECIFICO talk 20:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- The point is "almost no one disputes" is sourced and would NOT be a BLPvio. It's not my place to get into the weeds of whether it would be UNDUE but it would be sourced. Feoffer (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, fair enough, Feoffer. But Guardian is a single mediocre source. Really, the WEIGHT of the entire narrative about this matter is that the physical device itself has not been scrutinized and was only significant in that it was the vessel for files that the Post linked to the Biden-Ukraine stories. The press has devoted resources to forensic examination of the files, which are available to it. The device itself is in the possession of the FBI and we do not know what they have determined about the provenance of the machine. It will someday be reported, but not likely soon. SPECIFICO talk 22:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- The point is "almost no one disputes" is sourced and would NOT be a BLPvio. It's not my place to get into the weeds of whether it would be UNDUE but it would be sourced. Feoffer (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- If the consensus turns out in a way that you don't like. Then you go right ahead & try to stop its implementation. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- I recommend you strike the "you're gonna have a bad time, trust me" part of your comment, because it sounds like a threat of some kind. Andre🚐 20:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Well, it's meant to be. There are consequences for repeatedly inserting unsourced controversial material into BLPs. Now, do those consequences come from me? No. I'm no admin and they know that. But when you see somebody about to get bit by a snake, you oughta give a hollar and say "ya know, you really don't wanna be doing that". Feoffer (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with you but there is no issue in restoring consensus text sourced from many reliable sources that was closely scrutinized in an RFC. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Warnings are allowed but this is not a clear-cut case, so you shouldn't use such a warning tone. Instead, let's engage constructively on the merits of the article topic. Not make threats. Please and thank you from another user giving a hollar ya really don't wanna do that. Andre🚐 20:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Well, it's meant to be. There are consequences for repeatedly inserting unsourced controversial material into BLPs. Now, do those consequences come from me? No. I'm no admin and they know that. But when you see somebody about to get bit by a snake, you oughta give a hollar and say "ya know, you really don't wanna be doing that". Feoffer (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- I've yet to see a definitive statement that attributing ownership of the laptop would be a BLP violation. Moreover, that addition would in NO way be "unsourced," as has been REPEATEDLY pointed out. There are plenty of RS that make the same attribution. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- But "almost no one doubts" is dubious, because it's an editorial conclusion, which we regard as Original Research. Also, if we estimate that public opinion is split 50/50, then more than almost nobody may doubt it. Have there been scientific public opinion surveys? That would be helpful. Possibly, as I once proposed, we could say "widely believed to have belonged..." we know that is true and verified by reporting that describes Republican and Repbulican-leaning media statements. SPECIFICO talk 20:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Just to reiterate -- reinsertion of BLP violation is unacceptable. Feel free to use "almost no one disputes", but if you're greedy and go for stating ownership as undisputed fact, when you know it's disputed, you're gonna have a bad time, trust me. Feoffer (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- You're right. And after this imposed cooling-off period, we have reason to revert the page to that version, until such a time that a new consensus is established. That's explicitly allowed under the 1RR restriction: "Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions." PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm concerned about Feoffer's 3:59 post today, under the "Miscellaneous" subsection. He said "...you can't publish unsourced contentious claims about living people in the United States". That seems to suggest that Wikipedia might face legal action. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- That's not something you should be concerned about, it just explains the spirit and origin of BLP -- it's larger just another wikipedia policy, BLP-compliance is a moral and legal duty. Don't, like, worry about being sued by Hunter Biden or anything -- just hold yourself to the journalistic standards expected by the Foundation. Feoffer (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I didn't think it was a legal threat. I think this is a key issue that should be discussed though. PhotogenicScientist says that the sources clearly say it was Hunter Biden's laptop. And indeed many sources refer to it as his laptop, though they don't clear up the problematic provenance of the laptop. But the recent CBS reporting is that "Copy of what's believed to be Hunter Biden's laptop data turned over by repair shop to FBI showed no tampering." Does that mean the laptop itself from the shop was confirmed? I don't think it does. It says that the copy of a laptop's data is legit. Andre🚐 20:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
To help clarify, my objection comes from the fact that I have asked repeatedly for RS that explicitly confirms the laptop has been confirmed as belonging to HB, to no avail. Just because a source uses the phrase "Hunter Biden's laptop" is not in and of itself confirmation. Context matters, that's how sources are deemed reliable and determined to be neutral or POV. It's not a high bar to get past if the consensus of RS exists. Once reliable sources explicitly confirm that and stop using the terms alleged, purported, believed etc...my concerns will be quelled. In other words, if/when sources stop casting doubt I will no longer see an issue here and happily take this article off my checklist. Until then, I suggest everyone WP:AGF...DN (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- The issue is that you get to set the criteria of "explicitly confirm" here - your personal level of assurance must be satisfied, apparently, to get you on board.
- Plenty of RS have already been provided. But let's take a look at the reporting of the Washington Post.
- Oct 14, 2020: "emails purportedly obtained from a laptop that Hunter Biden, the son of former vice president Joe Biden, had supposedly left behind for repair." The story was newly breaking, and they did not attribute ownership.
- Mar 18, 2022: "Hunter Biden allegedly showed up at a computer repair shop with three water-damaged laptop computers" along with "When the Post first reported on its possession of material from Hunter Biden’s laptop." They pointedly describe the dropping off of the laptop as alleged, yet do not call the ownership of the laptop into question.
- Mar 30, 2022: "HEADLINE: Here’s how The Post analyzed Hunter Biden’s laptop." The article we're all familiar with. Also, again with "Thousands of emails purportedly from the laptop computer of Hunter Biden" they pointedly still cast doubt on where the data came from, yet do not cast doubt on the ownership of the laptop on which the data was found.
- Apr 12, 2022: "When the New York Post first reported in October 2020 that it had obtained the contents of a laptop computer allegedly owned by Joe Biden’s son Hunter." Using alleged when reporting the history. "material that’s alleged to have been on Hunter Biden’s laptop" Using alleged with describing the material. NOT using alleged to call it Hunter Biden's laptop.
- Most recently, Nov 23, 2022: "the laptop Hunter Biden supposedly left behind for repair". Again, the only doubt they still express is how the laptop got where it did. Not 1 use of "allegedly" to describe the ownership in this article.
- Now the question: Do you believe the Washington Post is a good enough Reliable Source? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree with your evidence showing what you claim it shows. In fact, all of this evidence is evidence for the usage of "purportedly" or "allegedly" type-language. Your argument that these sources
do not call the ownership of the laptop into question
is flawed. They do not endorse the laptop's ownership. WP:HEADLINEs are not reliable. Andre🚐 22:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)- Don't take my word for it, then. Read the articles yourself. That's why I provided links.
- Context matters. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Your sources offer evidence against your argument. The sources are all from the Washington Post and every single one uses supposed/purported/alleged-type language to carefully couch their assertions. None of them confirms the ownership of the laptop or comprehensively vets the data. The entire argument made seems to hinge against simply the construction "Hunter Biden's laptop" existing. That this is sufficient to imply a full acceptance of the chain of ownership of the laptop is not a claim supported here.
- [37]:
materials found on a hard-drive copy of the laptop Hunter Biden supposedly left behind
- [38]
aptop computer allegedly owned by Joe Biden’s son Hunter
- [39]
only the limited revelation that some of the data on the portable drive appears to be authentic.
- [40]
he laptops were dropped off at Mac Isaac’s repair shop. Mac Isaac is legally blind and was not able to identify Hunter Biden by sight. One of the laptops, though, bore a sticker for the Beau Biden Foundation, an organization dedicated to Hunter’s late brother.
- [41]
equests to make the laptop hard drive available for inspection have not been granted... The FBI supposedly obtained the hard drive...
- [37]:
- Andre🚐 14:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
The sources are all from the Washington Post and every single one uses supposed/purported/alleged-type language to carefully couch their assertions.
You're right - they do. I pointed out as much in my breakdown. When there is an assertion they don't know for sure, they use that language. That's because WaPo is a reliable source - they choose their words carefully, they report the facts, and they issue retractions if they get something wrong.- And in carefully choosing their words, they repeatedly say "Hunter Biden's laptop."
Possession by grammar
may not be enough for you personally, but it apparently is for the Washington Post. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Your sources offer evidence against your argument. The sources are all from the Washington Post and every single one uses supposed/purported/alleged-type language to carefully couch their assertions. None of them confirms the ownership of the laptop or comprehensively vets the data. The entire argument made seems to hinge against simply the construction "Hunter Biden's laptop" existing. That this is sufficient to imply a full acceptance of the chain of ownership of the laptop is not a claim supported here.
- I disagree with your evidence showing what you claim it shows. In fact, all of this evidence is evidence for the usage of "purportedly" or "allegedly" type-language. Your argument that these sources
- DarkNipples, what does “Hunter Biden’s laptop” mean? To me it could not be more clear or unambiguous so I personally don’t understand why we have such a disconnect. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- "Possession by grammar and adjacency in sentence construction" isn't an acceptable standard of proof in my view Andre🚐 14:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- The apostrophe-s can also indicate association without connoting ownership. It is widely used as a naming convention. So, Finian's Rainbow, Ménière's disease, Pike's Peak, Montezuma's Revenge, etc. Using "HB's laptop" is not the same as saying, and does not entail "laptop that belonged to HB". Searching "belonged to Hunter Biden" demonstrates this. From what I see in the top search results, only PBS makes that statement. SPECIFICO talk 15:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Of all the grasps at all the straws... one of two primary function of "apostrophe s" in the English language is to denote possession of the following noun. You're intuitively aware of this, like every other English speaker. Your edge cases simply aren't compatible with this laptop.
- Here are some top results from Google about using "apostrope s" in English. Please familiarize yourself. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- We're obviously all aware of apostrophes indicating possession, but they may also indicate simple association. Grammatical possession isn't the same as legal possession. For example, "Lincoln's enemy" doesn't imply that Lincoln owned the enemy and it was in his possession physically. "Jeff's ex" is an ex that associates or relates to Jeff, but not physically owned by Jeff. Andre🚐 15:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Your example is the cat's meow. The King's Speech. SPECIFICO talk 15:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Both examples involve another person or being. Can you come up with any involving a mundane object, where 's denotes mere association rather than ownership? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Pascal's triangle, Pascal's wager, Boyle's law, Gaucher's disease Andre🚐 15:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- These are not mundane objects - they are officially-named concepts or conditions.PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
"Use an apostrophe to show possession, but be aware that “possession” may not always mean “ownership”: it may simply suggest an association"
[42] For example, the "student's test" Andre🚐 15:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)- That's one writing guide from a minor college - not exactly an authoritative source. Here's a source of similar standing that makes no mention of the association use case. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- This is the same kind of flawed logic. A source not making a mention of something isn't a rebuttal of that thing. For example, [43]
Something associated with a thing
Andre🚐 16:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)- Ah, a dictionary source. Here's another dictionary that also does not consider the association use case.
- You know why the overwhelming majority of sources talking about apostrophe s don't mention association, and you're having to look specifically for ones that do? Because it's an edge case that is rarely used. The common usage in English is to denote plain possession. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- That's really not the case. There are several examples given in the Free Dictionary, and I can come up with many more common examples of a relationship or association indicated through the usage of an apostrophe, which just means "of or relating to". A "children's hospital" for example, is not a hospital owned by children, it's a hospital for children. A "man's suit" could be a suit owned by a man, but it could also be a suit for a man that is still not yet owned by said man but being tried on at a store. Seattle's best coffee is coffee that is the best in Seattle, but not owned by Seattle municipal gov't. The car's location' is a location of a car, but not an ownership relationship. Andre🚐 16:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yet in none of the examples you've provided do we find the combination of (1st) a specified person and (2nd) an object. Because wherever you see an example like that, it's describing ownership. I.e. John's car. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- No, there are still many examples with a person and an object that are not indicative of ownership. For example, let's say the suit was designed by a fashion designer or a work of art that was painted by someone. It would be that designer's suit or that person's painting, even if owned by someone else. Andre🚐 16:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- In the first case, "suit" wouldn't be a single suit but rather that design of suit. Unless you're arguing that "Hunter Biden's laptop" doesn't refer to one laptop, but to a type of laptop designed by him?
- In the second case, a phrase like "DaVinci's painting" correctly contains the information that the painting at one time belonged to DaVinci. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- In the first case, it is totally possible for a fashion designer to design and tailor a single, one-of-a-kind suit, and it would be that person's suit in perpetuity even if they never owned it at all, like if it were produced on commission for a company or buyer. They designed the suit and are associated with it, but not through owning it or possessing it. They could design the suit and never touch the physical suit, because someone else was in possession of the actual unit. It would also be that company's suit even if they didn't ever own it, but simply branded it. Even wearing the suit could associate you with the suit. For example, John Travolta wore a suit in 1977 in the film Saturday Night Fever. It will forever be his suit, John Travolta's famous white suit, even though he never owned it whatsoever, he just wore it in a movie. It was owned by the production or the wardrobe department, but it's more his suit than wardrobe's suit due to his enduring association to it.
- In the second case, DaVinci could also have produced the portrait on commission of a person. Let's say Lorenzo de Medici gives da Vinci a commission to paint a portrait of him. It's Lorenzo's portrait by ownership, it's also Lorenzo's portrait based on his likeness being depicted, and it's da Vinci's portrait because he was the painter. If we reverse the ownership, all the apostrophe constructions are still valid. It's Lorenzo's portrait because he is depicted, even if da Vinci did it for fun and owns it. Andre🚐 17:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- PLEASE end this academic discussion. It's becoming an abuse of this talk page. Keep it simple. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- As Valjean has said, these examples are academically interesting, but have little relevancy to the use case with this laptop. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Well, look, I will agree to disagree if we tire of this, but let the record show that the John Travolta example IS a very close analogue to the Hunter example: the Hunter Biden's laptop construction may simply refer to Hunter's infamous laptop, the laptop infamously associated with him. I do think it's material to the question and not an unproductive tangent. I will note that I have previously stated that we have to abide by the RFC consensus. If there is a topic under discussion and open, I wish to discuss it. If it is a closed topic, I have not flouted that. Andre🚐 17:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- No, there are still many examples with a person and an object that are not indicative of ownership. For example, let's say the suit was designed by a fashion designer or a work of art that was painted by someone. It would be that designer's suit or that person's painting, even if owned by someone else. Andre🚐 16:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yet in none of the examples you've provided do we find the combination of (1st) a specified person and (2nd) an object. Because wherever you see an example like that, it's describing ownership. I.e. John's car. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- That's really not the case. There are several examples given in the Free Dictionary, and I can come up with many more common examples of a relationship or association indicated through the usage of an apostrophe, which just means "of or relating to". A "children's hospital" for example, is not a hospital owned by children, it's a hospital for children. A "man's suit" could be a suit owned by a man, but it could also be a suit for a man that is still not yet owned by said man but being tried on at a store. Seattle's best coffee is coffee that is the best in Seattle, but not owned by Seattle municipal gov't. The car's location' is a location of a car, but not an ownership relationship. Andre🚐 16:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- This is the same kind of flawed logic. A source not making a mention of something isn't a rebuttal of that thing. For example, [43]
- That's one writing guide from a minor college - not exactly an authoritative source. Here's a source of similar standing that makes no mention of the association use case. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- These are not mundane objects - they are officially-named concepts or conditions.PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Pascal's triangle, Pascal's wager, Boyle's law, Gaucher's disease Andre🚐 15:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- We're obviously all aware of apostrophes indicating possession, but they may also indicate simple association. Grammatical possession isn't the same as legal possession. For example, "Lincoln's enemy" doesn't imply that Lincoln owned the enemy and it was in his possession physically. "Jeff's ex" is an ex that associates or relates to Jeff, but not physically owned by Jeff. Andre🚐 15:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Jeez, what kind of wordfuckery is all this I wake up to find here? At an academic level, it's interesting, but I don't see it getting anywhere. How about applying Occam's Razor? The simplest and most common meaning is usually the most obviously intended meaning. If an object was owned and used nearly exclusively by one person, then it is usually described as theirs. The laptop was owned and used by Hunter, ergo it is natural to describe it as his laptop, IOW "Hunter's laptop", and that says nothing about whether it is in his possession anymore or about its provenance after it left his possession. Those are other matters that must also be mentioned and dealt with here. Hunter's laptop was used by him for some time and contains a digital record of much of his life during the time it was in his possession. (Hence the description of this event as "The most invasive data breach imaginable.") Then it left his possession when he apparently took it to a repair shop. (Even if it was a different person impersonating him who took it to the shop, it was still Hunter's laptop they took there.) It can still be described as his laptop. It will forever be "Hunter Biden's laptop". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Well, there's no doubt that it's "Hunter Biden's data" inasmuch as said data was confirmed. Andre🚐 16:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- My thoughts exactly regarding these last 3 hours of discussion. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Very well stated, thank you. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- The problem is that people want to use the construction "Hunter Biden's laptop" to assert that all these reliable sources are saying specifically that
The laptop was owned and used by Hunter
. But it's also perfectly natural to, for example, call it his laptop if he only used it but never owned it ("John Travolta's suit", even though the film company owned the suit), or if he was somehow otherwise responsible for the data being on it ("Doordash's servers" even though the actual physical servers are most likely owned and operated by AWS), or, especially relevant for constructions likethe validity of the material that’s alleged to have been on Hunter Biden’s laptop
, the laptop that's alleged to have been owned by Hunter Biden. - It's notable in this case that all the reliable sources shy away from specifying the exact type of possession when they have to clarify. So we shouldn't use the possessive to insinuate that they mean things they're clearly avoiding saying they mean. That'd be WP:SYNTH. Loki (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- H. Biden did own the laptop, though. Who did what with it afterwards, should be the conversation. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed with Loki. There doesn't seem to be a current editor consensus here, or among available RS, that ownership is undeniable. RS have been inconsistent at best. Thankfully there is consensus, here and among recent sources, that some of the data was independently verified, and there's nothing wrong with using that. You don't see anyone here claiming WP:RECENT as an issue, at least not yet, but we do see editors that want this article to be WP:CAREFUL. There's no apparent reason to continue to risk possible POV or SYNTH in Wikivoice...Accuracy>Acceleration.DN (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
@Awilley: if only you had followed my advice & 1-month protected this page. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
"no evidence of illegal or unethical activity by Joe Biden or Hunter Biden was found"
Does anyone else see something glaringly wrong with this sentence fragment? As I recall, the laptop contains graphic content showing illegal and unethical actions by Hunter Biden (unrelated to Burisma). The sentence should not mention Hunter Biden. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- We will need a source other than your recollection. 331dot (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Do you mean his illicit drug use? Best to be specific and rephrase that there is no evidence of any quid pro quos or Burisma-related corruption, or whatever they're being accused of. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- I am referring to the illicit drug use and prostitutes. That is unethical and illegal in most countries. Therefore, we should remove his name from that sentence.
- We should also rephrase it to include exactly what (about Joe Biden) is not found:
- "After extensive scrutiny of the laptop contents by multiple parties, no evidence of illegal or unethical activity related to Ukraine or Burisma by Joe Biden was found."
- Is that better? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'd support this wording. Thanks for starting this discussion as it is something I've wondered about to. But this also seems to say that the laptop has been subjected to extensive scrutiny, and nothing bogus has turned up. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Is that not the case? My understanding was that while many of the emails weren't demonstrably his, they also weren't demonstrably not his. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Valjean, what's the reason for including "related to Ukraine or Burisma" in your proposal? There was no evidence of any misconduct by Joe. SPECIFICO talk 23:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- That's not better; see below. Endwise (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think you could safely say that the laptop provided no evidence of any unethical or illegal activity within the US government (and not only related to Ukraine). However, there do appear to be indications of illegal behavior by Hunter Biden himself, relating to tax payments. And apparently the purchase of a gun. It's probably important to make that distinction, since the main reason people care about this story is that they're concerned about US government corruption, but crimes by Hunter Biden do not imply that there was US government corruption. 20WattSphere (talk) 05:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'd support this wording. Thanks for starting this discussion as it is something I've wondered about to. But this also seems to say that the laptop has been subjected to extensive scrutiny, and nothing bogus has turned up. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm guessing this page (along with Joe Biden's & Hunter Biden's & other related pages) will likely go through some changes, after January 3, 2023. The House Republicans appear to be sharpening their knives. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- I've just raised a change request for this too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_21_December_2022 as it's clearly deliberately included false information - we all know why. I have no doubt they will ignore our requests for political reasons.
- Documents showing possible illegal activities were found on that laptop, the FBI have since forwarded these to the Attourney General to prosecute. Whether or not a prosecution is forthcoming is not relevant to this change request:
- We are simply saying you cannot claim "No evidence of "
- There are sources confirming evidence of possible illegality, so much so the FBI have passed these documents to the Attourney General to prosecute.
- Whether or not they prosecute is irrelevant to our requests: we can no longer claim "No evidence of illegality" since the opposite is now true.
- Sources:
- https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/06/politics/hunter-biden-investigation-federal-prosecutors-weighing-charges/index.html
- https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/06/hunter-biden-case-feds-believe-evidence-supports-tax-and-gun-charges.html
- https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/07/hunter-biden-reports-say-fbi-has-enough-evidence-for-prosecution
- https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-63166809 86.10.181.189 (talk) 16:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I'd much prefer we just say no evidence of corruption by Joe Biden. Whether anyone is acting unethically here is a matter of opinion, and actually one that sources don't agree with us about. Plenty of sources put forth the opinion that Hunter apparently trading/profiting off his father's name in Ukraine is unethical (e.g. WaPo, Vox, The Guardian, WSJ), and in fact the WaPo editorial board even argued that Joe Biden was unethical for "tacitly condoning" Hunter doing that, which we actually quote in this article. The point is that the emails didn't substantiate corruption, not inherently opinionated questions of ethics. Endwise (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Whatever we do, my only concern with this thread was the inclusion of both names. Since the controversy involves both men, we do need to name both of them, but not in the same sentence, as their degree of guilt or innocence is ultimately for different things. We can only deal with that properly in at least two sentences, and those sentences should reflect more detailed coverate in the body of the article. Does that all make sense? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- I cannot find in the source where it says no evidence of wrongdoing was found. Also, mainstream media widely reported on Oct. 7, 2022, that the FBI believed there was sufficient evidence to charge Hunter Biden with tax evasion and lying on a gun application. Do we know if any evidence was contained in the laptop? And isn't it premature to say that no evidence was found when we don't even know if the FBI has verified and seen all the files?
- Also, I agree also that Hunter Biden's alleged peccadillos might be considered unethical and/or illegal.
- TFD (talk) 02:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Valjean, with the Republicans preparing to take over the US House of Representatives. I suspect there's going to be a lot of investigations of the president & his son. Washington DC, is rarely politically calm. GoodDay (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- You keep saying that. It's true but should not be mentioned as a factor here. We will continue to document what happens. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Don't forget WP:BLPCRIME. We can certainly say HB is under investigation, but we have to be careful about implying he's guilty of anything he's been accused of unless that's got substantive evidence in RS. So far, it's a lot of smoke and no fire. Andre🚐 02:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- How about there is no evidence Joe Biden profited/benefitted from his son's business dealings/activities or partook in any illegal activities which is basically what NY Mag Intelligencer says. Andre🚐 02:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- That sounds like too crafty wording to hide something bad he did. I think something simpler is better. Any detail can come after the simple establishing sentence, as was being discussed earlier in the thread. Hunter was in hot water before the laptop, so I would be careful not to suggest his future depends on the laptop in any way. SPECIFICO talk 03:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- I always agree simpler is better, but it has to be as simple as possible and no more so. I'm certainly open and I agree that we need to be careful not to imply the laptop contains anything incriminating. But I also think the article needs to properly provide context the allegations made by NYPost and others that haven't been confirmed and are likely hot air, viz the Ukraine and Burisma situation and the alleged business dealings. Andre🚐 14:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- It says, "There is little else on the laptop to suggest that Joe Biden profited from, or was even fully aware of, his son’s business activities. In 2017, the former vice-president was a private citizen, so partaking in the deal wouldn’t have been illegal." Is that what you were referring to? TFD (talk) 05:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- That sounds like too crafty wording to hide something bad he did. I think something simpler is better. Any detail can come after the simple establishing sentence, as was being discussed earlier in the thread. Hunter was in hot water before the laptop, so I would be careful not to suggest his future depends on the laptop in any way. SPECIFICO talk 03:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
What does or doesn't happen with Hunter Biden, will (IMHO) have little to no effect on President Biden 'or' his chances for re-election. Yes, I'm sure Republicans will try their best to connect the two men. But it's very difficult to take the Republicans seriously, when you think of Sidney Powell for example. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Joe Biden and Hunter Biden shared a bank account. This is confirmed. Joe Biden said he never met with Hunter's business associates. The laptop (pictures, emails, and voicemail) proves this was a lie. They either committed FARA violations or income tax fraud (failure to report gifts larger than $12K). It's one or the other. LemonPumpkin (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Unless you have reliable sources to support these claims, we don't care. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Article title and laptop contents
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.
Now that the conspiracy theory that the laptop and its contents did not belong to Hunter Biden and were Russian disinformation has been debunked on multiple levels, this articles requires several updates: - the title should change from "controversy" to "scandal" - a section should be added that discusses evidence supporting Joe Biden's potential involvement ("10% for the big guy", "give half my income to Pop") - a section should be added the fully describes the non-FARA violation content of the laptop specific to Hunter Biden, such as illegal drug, prostitution, and gun crimes. LemonPumpkin (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- What reliable sources provide this information? Andre🚐 16:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- You need to do basic research on this topic before demanding that people on this site make the case for you. There are numerous news articles, op-eds, and direct sources that spell all of this out in incontrovertible terms To claim otherwise is disingenuous at this point. Twitter Files #7 provides direct evidence that the FBI used the fake Russia collusion hoax to justify policing speech on Twitter in the name of foreign interference. They worked with Twitter to hide derogatory Biden evidence to influence an election. The FBI new the hunter laptop story was real and was going to get out, so they planted disinformation inside tech companies of time to condition them to think the story was fake and/or hacked (which we now know is false). It was a preemptive, fake debunk designed to get tech and media to censor a legit story. Shame on all of you trying to continue this cover up. But the truth has been revealed and there is nothing you can do in the long run to make this go away. You're caught.
- https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/12/13/the_fbi_files_are_even_more_dangerous_148597.html#!
- https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1604871630613753856 LemonPumpkin (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- There is much that can be improved, but that area is still conjecture and opinion. The laptop being real and the censorship being improper do not validate all other claims and conspiracies surrounding the laptop. Slywriter (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- We don't know the laptop is real. All we know is that some of the contents of the hard drive appears to be his. All the sources are working from copies of the hard drive cloned by an unreliable source and usually having passed through the hands of numerous bad-faith actors on the way. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- How many different ways shall we ignore the RfC and copious amounts of sources that do indeed declare it his laptop while hiding behind earlier (and suspect) reporting that hedged on ownership? Is there current sourcing that says it is NOT his laptop? And again, the RfC was concluded to remove 'alleged', all of this is an attempt to relitigate a settled matter without providing any new sourcing. Slywriter (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Earlier this year, the NYT, WAPO, and CBS news verified the laptop. Other third party cyber experts have also independently verified the laptop belonged to Hunter. And now we documentary evidence that Hunter dropped off the laptop (his signature is on the receipt), the FBI acknowledged it belonged to him when they took possession of it in Dec 2019, and Hunter's own layer admitted it belonged to him when he requested it back (in writing). Separate from all of this, we have third party witnesses who have come forward to verify the information about the business allegations. On the contrary, there is ZERO evidence that that any of the laptop contents is false or Russian disinformation. There are no credible parties claiming so.
- Any editors on this site who are trying to suppress real information, or trying to spin real information, are in violation of Wikipedia terms of service and need to have their editing privileges' removed.
- Please take a moment and think about who you want to be in this life? Do you really want to be agents of disinformation and push lies upon the society you live in? If so, you don't belong on this site. LemonPumpkin (talk) 21:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- Again what reliable sources support your statements? Andre🚐 21:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1604871630613753856
- https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/12/13/the_fbi_files_are_even_more_dangerous_148597.html#!
- More importantly, what reliable source do you have that proves this information is not true? Stop being a cover-up artist. It's against this site's terms of service. LemonPumpkin (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- Again what reliable sources support your statements? Andre🚐 21:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- We don't know the laptop is real. All we know is that some of the contents of the hard drive appears to be his. All the sources are working from copies of the hard drive cloned by an unreliable source and usually having passed through the hands of numerous bad-faith actors on the way. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- In what way is this a "scandal"? Was there any corruption uncovered? It was already known that Hunter was a drug addict with a ton of problems, that's old news. 20WattSphere (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
"Belonged to"
I do not think we can state, in Wikipedia's voice, as a matter of fact, that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. In fact we make it clear within the article that this is still open to doubt. It is equally possible that, rather than stealing his laptop, which would likely be noticed, the GRU instead cloned his hard drive. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- So ignore the RfC and ignore the sources and cover a theory with scant support or evidence of truth? That is not an equally possible conclusion. Slywriter (talk) 13:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia routinely reports information regarded as true in reliable sources in Wikivoice. For example, Apollo 11 begins by saying it "was the American spaceflight that first landed humans on the Moon." Maybe it was faked, but we just repeat what reliable sources say. TFD (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- JzG, you do realise you just breached this page's 1RR DS & should be reported to WP:AE. GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Got any sources backing up what you're saying? Levivich (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
In fact we make it clear within the article that this is still open to doubt.
If you would prefer, for the cohesiveness of the article, we could edit it to remove all mentions of doubt. Though I imagine some editors would have issues with any removal of any material that is backed up by even 1 RS. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)"The existence of emails about getting Buckley Carlson into Georgetown has been known for some time, thanks to a laptop once owned by Hunter Biden that was obtained by Donald Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and pushed to media in 2020."
from the Guardian."Further details about those activities were found in documents obtained from a hard drive in a laptop Hunter once owned.
from the Financial Times.Republican lawmakers and their staff for the past year have been analyzing messages and financial transactions found on a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden.
from PBS.- Mr Ernie (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
I do not think we can state, in Wikipedia's voice, as a matter of fact, that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden
This was also the conclusion that was reached by Masem at BLP. Feoffer (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)- Feoffer. You're repeating yourself. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Well, Guy's new to the discussion and I don't know if Guy was aware of that or not. :) . It had a big impact on my thinking. Feoffer (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Guy also breached the 1RR DS of this page. As for BLPN? Using the 'because Masem said so' argument, isn't going to work here. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- You can't keep personally attacking every person who shows up here and telling us we're the problem. You don't like DN, you don't like me, you don't like Masem, now you don't like Guy???? You need to respect the closer's ruling that the RFC doesn't represent consensus. Feoffer (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- I've no malice towards anyone, so I'm not attacking anyone. But, if an editor breaches 1RR again, to undo the status quo ante, while the content dispute is ongoing? I will have to make a report to WP:AE. If I didn't like JzG? I would've reported his breach, earlier today. If I didn't like you? I would've reported your two breaches, last week. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Feoffer, it's truly astounding that you're still holding onto "Masem said so" as your defense for calling this edit a BLP violation, even after you've heard from another admin and a majority of editors over at the ANI thread you started, that my edit was not in fact a BLP violation. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- You can't keep personally attacking every person who shows up here and telling us we're the problem. You don't like DN, you don't like me, you don't like Masem, now you don't like Guy???? You need to respect the closer's ruling that the RFC doesn't represent consensus. Feoffer (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Guy also breached the 1RR DS of this page. As for BLPN? Using the 'because Masem said so' argument, isn't going to work here. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Well, Guy's new to the discussion and I don't know if Guy was aware of that or not. :) . It had a big impact on my thinking. Feoffer (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Feoffer. You're repeating yourself. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- >In fact we make it clear within the article that this is still open to doubt...
- Yes, that is very clear from reading the body of the article. I'm new to this article (but not to Wikipedia) and the disconnect between the opening sentence and the rest of the article sticks out like a sore thumb.
- A bare minimum for a Wikipedia article is that it be internally consistent and not self-contradictory. The lede sentence seems to fail on that criteria. My $.02. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Good point. I’ve removed the older Politifact piece which hadn’t kept up with the other sources presented above. After all, now almost nobody disputes the authenticity (per The Guardian). Mr Ernie (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- My reading is that the Politifact piece was used in successive paragraphs to push both sides of the controversy by selectively quoting it. Agree that this is self-contradictory. But simply removing one possibly tendentious excerpt while leaving the other may help resolve the problem of self contradiction, but seems to violate NPOV.
- My advice would be to write around the "ownership" question in the lede, since it's not really the crux of the issue, and tread the provinance of the physical laptop in a subsection, reporting on the controversy. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- I proposed an alternate lead which you can read above. But one editor told me to withdraw it or table it, and a bold addition of the first sentence was challenged, so we fall back on the last stable consensus which is from the RFC. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Mr. Ernie's new lead would do everything Mr. Swordfish recommends and resolve all concerns that newer voices have raised. First time I read it, I wrote: " I think MrErnie has presented the solution to us on a silver platter." Still stand by that. Feoffer (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- I've looked for that language, but can't seem to find it. Could you or Mr Ernie re-post it here? Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Mr. Ernie's new lead would do everything Mr. Swordfish recommends and resolve all concerns that newer voices have raised. First time I read it, I wrote: " I think MrErnie has presented the solution to us on a silver platter." Still stand by that. Feoffer (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- I proposed an alternate lead which you can read above. But one editor told me to withdraw it or table it, and a bold addition of the first sentence was challenged, so we fall back on the last stable consensus which is from the RFC. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Absolutely not true. Most sources agree that the contents of the hard drive are probably authentic, but nothing else. Again, chain of custody. It's much easier to clone a drive than to steal a laptop without it being noticed. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed, and why I previously tagged this article for POV violation which was swiftly removed without discussion despite saying "the laptop belonged to HB" in Wikivoice, which is still POV and unacceptable IMO. DN (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Part of the problem is lead is bad. It's too much background detail about how we got somewhere and doesn't do a good job of describing the controversy. 2 facts should be prominent that Hunter Biden owned a laptop that came into possession of a Delaware shop and that the data, including/especially what the NYPost used, has verifiability issues notwithstanding that some of the data has been found to be real. I'd say a third issue is the decisions of Social Media and MSM to censor as without that, this would be even less of a story. What's not needed is arguing about ownership of the laptop to try and better frame the data issues. Slywriter (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Agree on all points. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Agree that the lead goes into too much background detail about the "ownership" issue. I would support removing that from the lead; it seems to be adequately covered later in the article.
- Agree that 2 facts should be prominent: that some of Hunter Biden's computer files came into possession of a Delaware shop and that the data, including/especially what the NYPost used, has verifiability issues notwithstanding that some of the data has been found to be real.
- Also agree that "What's not needed is arguing about ownership of the laptop..." in the lead. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Obviously I take issue with files over laptop. It strays into fringe because what that is saying is a "Russian agent of similar build and likeness to Hunter Biden entered a computer shop with the identical make and model of HB's laptop that included both real and manufactured data." There's nothing wrong with it being his laptop and that the files were tampered with after he dropped it off at the shop. One does not invalidate the other. Just need to put that up front, rather than focus on solely ownership in the opening. Slywriter (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Sly, the owner is blind. It could have been one of millions of people who walked into the shop. What sources do you have stating that Biden himself walked into the shop? SPECIFICO talk 22:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- My suggestion, as below, is that we focus on the one thing that is not contended across all media: there are documents which were Hunter's property, on copies of the drive supplied to various media. Much of the content could not be authenticated, and there is no chain of custody, but it is accurate to say these are documents belonging to Hunter Biden taken from a MacBook deposited at a Delaware computer repair shop Guy (help! - typo?) 22:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Sly, the owner is blind. It could have been one of millions of people who walked into the shop. What sources do you have stating that Biden himself walked into the shop? SPECIFICO talk 22:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Obviously I take issue with files over laptop. It strays into fringe because what that is saying is a "Russian agent of similar build and likeness to Hunter Biden entered a computer shop with the identical make and model of HB's laptop that included both real and manufactured data." There's nothing wrong with it being his laptop and that the files were tampered with after he dropped it off at the shop. One does not invalidate the other. Just need to put that up front, rather than focus on solely ownership in the opening. Slywriter (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Agree on all points. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- POV tag was rightfully removed as no source has shown the laptop is not Hunter Biden's and more importantly an RfC has settled the matter, which must be respected. Slywriter (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- So not taking into account a majority of the sources saying alleged, purported, believed etc..AND avoiding any encouragement of discussion (hence the tag) on the subject to reach some consensus. Does that sound accurate? DN (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- I can understand your confusion but others are responsible for it, not me, as this matter was previously settled with an RfC, which others have taken pains to ignore and create another RfC about that is likely headed to the same conclusion since no new information has been provided to dispute the findings of that RfC. Slywriter (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
RfC has settled the matter, which must be respected
Jeez, Sly, ya wanna own the article a little harder there? Mr. Swordfish is like the sixth new editor this week to point out a problem -- seven if you count the closer. Feoffer (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)- I wouldn't call it confusion as much as noticeable lack of current consensus. Some see this as a possible POVpush in Wikivoice, but apparently the previous RfC was written in stone on Mount Sinai, just kidding of course. I will continue to AGF, I just wish others would do the same. DN (talk) 01:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- So not taking into account a majority of the sources saying alleged, purported, believed etc..AND avoiding any encouragement of discussion (hence the tag) on the subject to reach some consensus. Does that sound accurate? DN (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Part of the problem is lead is bad. It's too much background detail about how we got somewhere and doesn't do a good job of describing the controversy. 2 facts should be prominent that Hunter Biden owned a laptop that came into possession of a Delaware shop and that the data, including/especially what the NYPost used, has verifiability issues notwithstanding that some of the data has been found to be real. I'd say a third issue is the decisions of Social Media and MSM to censor as without that, this would be even less of a story. What's not needed is arguing about ownership of the laptop to try and better frame the data issues. Slywriter (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Good point. I’ve removed the older Politifact piece which hadn’t kept up with the other sources presented above. After all, now almost nobody disputes the authenticity (per The Guardian). Mr Ernie (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- >...no source has shown the laptop is not Hunter Biden's...
- Two words: Russell's Teapot. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Ahh yes, asking people to respect the processes that keep the place going while endless text is written without providing any sources to dispute the close of the RfC is definitely owning the article and not setting the record straight of how we got here or pointing out that tags are an inappropriate response to disagreeing with an RfC. Also wasn't some little RfC, it was well attended and AN saw no reason to overturn, so it's not a little issue that editors keep seeking to overturn it without going through the processes. Slywriter (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- If you're tired of people coming to complain, you need to inline-source sentence 1. Until then, new editors will keep showing up to ask for a source. Stop telling them its none of their business. It would be simple to cite CBS, the Guardian, etc, so readers can inspect the source for themselves. Feoffer (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Feel free to add either CBS, the Guardian, or any of these:
"The existence of emails about getting Buckley Carlson into Georgetown has been known for some time, thanks to a laptop once owned by Hunter Biden that was obtained by Donald Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and pushed to media in 2020."
from the Guardian."Further details about those activities were found in documents obtained from a hard drive in a laptop Hunter once owned.
from the Financial Times.Republican lawmakers and their staff for the past year have been analyzing messages and financial transactions found on a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden.
from PBS.
- Or even all 5 if it would resolve this. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- The latest CBS article would be the best to cite, as it features a detailed explanation of the latest evidence leading experts to conclude the data came from a laptop belonging to Biden. I can't speak for others, but gun to my head, yeah, I think adding one of the 2022 sources you mention would be an improvement to having none of them. In terms of triaging, I think I'd rather have a lede with a weak in-line source than no source at all. (Similarly, I think I'd rather have mildly-non-NPOV lede than a overtly self-contradictory one, vis-à-vis Politifact 2021 ). Feoffer (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- You mean the one titled..."Copy of what's believed to be Hunter Biden's laptop"? DN (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Nipples, what does "what's believed to be on Hunter Biden's laptop showed no tampering" mean to you? What do the sources linked above stating unequivocally that the laptop belonged to Biden mean to you? What does "Now, however, almost no one disputes its authenticity" mean to you? Why have you re-added this out of date Politifact piece that contradicts the rest of the lead? My good faith is all but exhausted about this point. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- The RS you are presenting here does not seem to contradict or "update" the Politifact citation, and FWIW I'm exhausted by your exhaustion...(From the RS you just posted)..."For Trump, it backfired, when efforts to uncover information about the Bidens and Ukraine helped to trigger his first impeachment. Then came the surfacing of Hunter Biden’s missing laptop, with its library of decadent pictures and business email chains, mysteriously left at a Wilmington repair shop, which found its way to Republican political operatives including Rudy Giuliani and Steve Bannon, plus the rightwing press and the FBI. On the political flip-side, House intelligence committee chair Adam Schiff said the laptop was a “smear” from Russian intelligence, and 50 former intelligence officials said it was probably Russian disinformation. Now, however, almost no one disputes its authenticity."DN (talk) 02:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- [44] I have removed the citation from the lede and placed it in a more appropriate section. Will that be more acceptable? (edit) Corrected as it already appears in the body and i had moved the wrong politifact citation. That's all for me tonight. Cheers. DN (talk) 03:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- It's true that, by itself, that wouldn't bring sentence 1 fully in line with WP:V, but I think it would still be an improvement to just leaving it completely unsourced. Feoffer (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how it is an improvement. A POV tag would be a proper way to encourage discussion but I believe it will just be reverted again. Compromise isn't always necessarily progress and at the risk of sounding stubborn I feel this will continue to be an issue that some editors seem to just want to ignore by pointing to an old RfC that wasn't clear or well executed. Am I wrong? DN (talk) 02:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think it's an improvement because it allows readers to directly "check our work". If our summary is suboptimal, the fastest way to correct any misimpressions is to send them directly to the latest and best source to get them up to speed.
Am I wrong?
Oh, I wouldn't feel pessimistic. We'll get this sorted out as more and eyeballs find their way to the page. Nobody's showing up on talk to say "Hey, I love the way your article contradicts itself". Feoffer (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think it's an improvement because it allows readers to directly "check our work". If our summary is suboptimal, the fastest way to correct any misimpressions is to send them directly to the latest and best source to get them up to speed.
- I'm not sure how it is an improvement. A POV tag would be a proper way to encourage discussion but I believe it will just be reverted again. Compromise isn't always necessarily progress and at the risk of sounding stubborn I feel this will continue to be an issue that some editors seem to just want to ignore by pointing to an old RfC that wasn't clear or well executed. Am I wrong? DN (talk) 02:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Nipples, what does "what's believed to be on Hunter Biden's laptop showed no tampering" mean to you? What do the sources linked above stating unequivocally that the laptop belonged to Biden mean to you? What does "Now, however, almost no one disputes its authenticity" mean to you? Why have you re-added this out of date Politifact piece that contradicts the rest of the lead? My good faith is all but exhausted about this point. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- You mean the one titled..."Copy of what's believed to be Hunter Biden's laptop"? DN (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Another RS, also from The Guardian, which states
House Republicans and their staff have been studying messages and financial transactions found on a now notorious laptop that belonged to Hunter.
Mr Ernie (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- The latest CBS article would be the best to cite, as it features a detailed explanation of the latest evidence leading experts to conclude the data came from a laptop belonging to Biden. I can't speak for others, but gun to my head, yeah, I think adding one of the 2022 sources you mention would be an improvement to having none of them. In terms of triaging, I think I'd rather have a lede with a weak in-line source than no source at all. (Similarly, I think I'd rather have mildly-non-NPOV lede than a overtly self-contradictory one, vis-à-vis Politifact 2021 ). Feoffer (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Feel free to add either CBS, the Guardian, or any of these:
- If you're tired of people coming to complain, you need to inline-source sentence 1. Until then, new editors will keep showing up to ask for a source. Stop telling them its none of their business. It would be simple to cite CBS, the Guardian, etc, so readers can inspect the source for themselves. Feoffer (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Ahh yes, asking people to respect the processes that keep the place going while endless text is written without providing any sources to dispute the close of the RfC is definitely owning the article and not setting the record straight of how we got here or pointing out that tags are an inappropriate response to disagreeing with an RfC. Also wasn't some little RfC, it was well attended and AN saw no reason to overturn, so it's not a little issue that editors keep seeking to overturn it without going through the processes. Slywriter (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Seeing as there's a RFC in progress. We'll have to wait & see which option is chosen. GoodDay (talk) 03:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, another RS that has nothing to do with the authenticity of the laptop, and only goes on to say that "There are no indications that this involves the president, who insists that he has never spoken to Hunter about his foreign business arrangements.". Not that I give a shit about HB, but this is only more context as to how the GOP seems willing to use the spoiled children of their political adversaries to whip up their base and seemingly create red herrings. Kudos. DN (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- That is if an option is chosen. Honestly it would be better just to try and come to consensus instead of crossing fingers that another RfC will somehow fix it better than last time, but that cat is already let out of the bag. DN (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- We'll have to just be patient & wait. As I mentioned before, Hunter Biden & related pages 'might' go under quite a few changes, during the 118th US Congress. GoodDay (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- What and why are you implying so cryptically and vaguely to? Being patient and waiting is one thing, but Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL, and editors that try to treat it as such usually don't edit objectively or rationally IMO. The GOP controlling just one branch of government
won'tdoesn't magically make every Biden-hater's dreams come true AFAIK. DN (talk) 04:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC) - I never know what you mean by that, by the way. I don't follow American politics that closely -- how might a change in the congress lead to a change in this article? Feoffer (talk) 03:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- What and why are you implying so cryptically and vaguely to? Being patient and waiting is one thing, but Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL, and editors that try to treat it as such usually don't edit objectively or rationally IMO. The GOP controlling just one branch of government
- We'll have to just be patient & wait. As I mentioned before, Hunter Biden & related pages 'might' go under quite a few changes, during the 118th US Congress. GoodDay (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Mr swordfish, Russell's Teapot is irrelevant because content is not based on what is true, but what is WP:Verifiable. It's alright to say that man landed on the moon, even if you personally cannot prove it, because it is a generally accepted fact with no informed people questioning it. Russell might call that the argument from authority, but that is exactly how tertiary sources are written. They do not include original information, but merely summarize what reliable secondary sources say. TFD (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Can anyone point to any sources that say the laptop may have belonged to someone else? I am particularly interested in how they went about creating it. TFD (talk) 07:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- I mean, I'm open to the argument that it might be deprecated, but Politifact is pretty clear that it could be a post-databreach copy. Feoffer (talk) 07:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- It doesn't have to have belonged to someone else. My issue is that we characterise "the laptop" as being Hunters. None of the claimed proofs of authenticity actually addresses the device itself. The correct statement would be that the controversy centres on a hard drive containing Hunter Biden's data. That's not contended, as far as I can tell. Until a qualified person has done a forensic examination of the device itself, it's not possible to state with finality whether it was a stolen laptop that was planted, or a cloned drive from a laptop. It's also clear that some of the "copies" in circulation had other files deliberately designed to feed a narrative. As WaPo says: "some of the data on the portable drive appears to be authentic". But the origin story is a very obvious crock. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- "None of the claimed proofs of authenticity actually addresses the device itself. The correct statement would be that the controversy centres on a hard drive containing Hunter Biden's data. That's not contended, as far as I can tell." - Agreed, and there is likely a consensus there. DN (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Also agree! "hard drive containing Hunter Biden's data" is a likely consensus. Feoffer (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- "a laptop computer containing Hunter Biden's data" is probably more accurate and more understandable to the lay reader. Nobody is asserting that someone dropped off a hard drive at the repair shop (and nothing else). Mr. Swordfish (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Also agree! "hard drive containing Hunter Biden's data" is a likely consensus. Feoffer (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- So you think it's possible that someone bought the same make and model as one of Hunter Biden's laptops and copied his hard drive onto it and then as far as we know did not add any incriminating evidence? And Hunter Biden doesn't know what happened to his original laptop? I think Occam's razor is more relevant than Russell's teapot. TFD (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- I would agree. @Guy, enough with the conspiracy theories and calling things obvious crock, its not a good look. You saying it makes me think it must be true. Have we learning nothing over the past 3-4 years, yet alone a life time? --Malerooster (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
conspiracy theories
we have reliable sources explicitly including the possibility of a copied-device. Feoffer (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)- Feoffer, can you provide any sources that say that? TFD (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Deuce, our _lede_ says that. (And it's well-sourced) Feoffer (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- User:Feoffer, please avoid derogatory terms when addressing other editors. All I can see is that originally the validity of the story was unknown. Are there any courageous Democrats still calling it a forgery? TFD (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not a Democrat, but I don't accede to the loudest voices in the room hollering in unison that the laptop is proven totally real and it wasn't a Russian or pro-Russia Ukrainian op. There remain holes in this tale through which a Mack truck could be driven. soibangla (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Soibangla: I wonder if you could Talk:Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy#Potential_compromise_language take a look at potential compromise language. Here's the proposed change. Ten editors have signed on, would you be open to being the eleventh? Feoffer (talk) 02:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry! I had no idea it would be so perceived , I was going for friendly jocularity, not derrogation at all! btw, i've never heard 'Duece' used negatively but i'm no expert on US slang. I think you have one of the coolest usernames on the project Feoffer (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not a Democrat, but I don't accede to the loudest voices in the room hollering in unison that the laptop is proven totally real and it wasn't a Russian or pro-Russia Ukrainian op. There remain holes in this tale through which a Mack truck could be driven. soibangla (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- User:Feoffer, please avoid derogatory terms when addressing other editors. All I can see is that originally the validity of the story was unknown. Are there any courageous Democrats still calling it a forgery? TFD (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Deuce, our _lede_ says that. (And it's well-sourced) Feoffer (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Feoffer, can you provide any sources that say that? TFD (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- I would agree. @Guy, enough with the conspiracy theories and calling things obvious crock, its not a good look. You saying it makes me think it must be true. Have we learning nothing over the past 3-4 years, yet alone a life time? --Malerooster (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- "None of the claimed proofs of authenticity actually addresses the device itself. The correct statement would be that the controversy centres on a hard drive containing Hunter Biden's data. That's not contended, as far as I can tell." - Agreed, and there is likely a consensus there. DN (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
New lead paragraph
Here's a stab at more informative opening paragraph:
The Hunter Biden laptop controversy involves a laptop computer that belonged to Hunter Biden, son of Joe Biden. The laptop was abandoned at a Delaware computer shop in April 2019 and the data was subsequently shared with Republican operatives. Forensic nalysis of the data shows that only some of the data can be verified and in particular, data used by the NYPost in the initial reporting can not be verified. No evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden has been shown by the verified data.
(Continue rest of lead from "Three weeks before...) Slywriter (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- +1, that's a better lead paragraph than the current one, and I've added a section header to this, hope you don't mind. Levivich (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- My only concern is that we have "...belonged to Hunter Biden..." in the intro, as it's established that the laptop belonged to him. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Add it in. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'd call it an improvement -- the current sentence 2 has way more details than necessary Feoffer (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- The proposed text doesn't address the issue at hand, i.e. "belonged to". Agree with Feoffer that it's an improvement, so no objection to making this change pending the result of the RfC.
- BTW, "nalysis" is not a word. "analysis" is. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- This is an attempt to have the lead match the content, comply with the RfC,settle issues about the verified/unverified data not being upfront in the lead and remove the bloat that buries pertinent details. It is not another thread to litigate the ownership of the laptop. Slywriter (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
The way to resolve the disagreements, as somebody said in a previous thread, is to frame the top of the lead in terms of the verified emails and other files... etc. The device, which most of us have said is of far less importance, is covered in the remaining lead and the article text and can be updated as more information is release, as is anticipated with both the FBI and House investigations. SPECIFICO talk 03:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- But we are in agreement that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. GoodDay (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- WP:BOLD revision has been done as no complaints above have actually addressed an issue with the improved lead and instead wish to continue to litigate the ownership. Slywriter (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Zaathras is correct. There is currently an ongoing RfC on this exact dispute. There is no "current" consensus, and the more it is ignored the more concerning it becomes. DN (talk) 03:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- If only the previous RFC had been respected. GoodDay (talk) 04:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- You may feel old RfCs are more important than maintaining consensus, WP:V and WP:NPOV. That's your opinion. DN (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- We can only hope that a bad precedent hasn't already been established, in ignoring & overturning RFC decisions. GoodDay (talk) 04:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- You may feel old RfCs are more important than maintaining consensus, WP:V and WP:NPOV. That's your opinion. DN (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- If only the previous RFC had been respected. GoodDay (talk) 04:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Saying that "only some of the data can be verified" is misleading because later forensic CBS forensic examination showed "no evidence" of tampering. Also, what the WaPo report found was that emails sent to Biden could not be verified because the senders' email accounts may have been hacked. But that's always true. The most recent email in my spam folder is from "Costco," and says, "2nd attempt for WholesaleReward." I don't think it's really from Costco, but that doesn't mean a court of law would decide my laptop is a fake. TFD (talk) 01:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- We just follow what RS say - so we should say that some data hasn't been verified, if that is indeed still true, which I could indeed be out-of-date on if the rest was verified more recently. Andre🚐 01:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- You are right. The sources say some data has not been verified, but the implication of the text is that there are serious doubts as to its genuineness. TFD (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Looking at CBS, it's claim is the shop gave them a copy of the original before Republican operatives got their hands on it. CBS found no tampering with that data. However that's a long way from saying all the data is good because we know NYPost and others relied on the Republican data to write their stories and only some of that data was verified by the two forensic analysis. More pointedly, neither forensic analysis verified the most controversial parts of the data.Slywriter (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- You are right. The sources say some data has not been verified, but the implication of the text is that there are serious doubts as to its genuineness. TFD (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- We just follow what RS say - so we should say that some data hasn't been verified, if that is indeed still true, which I could indeed be out-of-date on if the rest was verified more recently. Andre🚐 01:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Zaathras is correct. There is currently an ongoing RfC on this exact dispute. There is no "current" consensus, and the more it is ignored the more concerning it becomes. DN (talk) 03:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Proposed change to 1st sentence in the lead to alleviate ownership POV issue
[45] "The Hunter Biden laptop controversy involves a laptop computer that may have belonged to Hunter Biden, son of Joe Biden." IMO this would solve the issue in the first sentence that continues to draw criticism from editors. DN (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- In my humble opinion, "may have belonged" and "alleged to belong" and "purported to belong" are all wayyy too weak. (For all the talk about "disrespecting the RFC", I completely agree that "alleged" is inappropriate.)
- I suspect ultimately we'll either land on "believed to belong" that's used by RSes or more likely, some stronger wording, or else write around the currently-unverifiable device ownership as UNDUE in lede and instead keep the lede focused on the data itself, which is the important part of the story. Feoffer (talk) 04:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- This isn’t in line with current sourcing and runs afoul of the current RFC consensus.
"The existence of emails about getting Buckley Carlson into Georgetown has been known for some time, thanks to a laptop once owned by Hunter Biden that was obtained by Donald Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and pushed to media in 2020."
from the Guardian."Further details about those activities were found in documents obtained from a hard drive in a laptop Hunter once owned.
from the Financial Times.Republican lawmakers and their staff for the past year have been analyzing messages and financial transactions found on a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden.
from PBS.
- Mr Ernie (talk) 04:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Suggested compromise: are documents belonging to Hunter Biden taken from a MacBook deposited at a Delaware computer repair shop. This is 100% consistent with all reporting. The only things that have been authenticated are documents, and it's quite likely they are the only things that ever will be, given the collection of bad-faith actors who have handled it. It's unclear whether the GRU stole Hunter's laptop, cloned the drive, or stole an old laptop and then resynchronized, or some mixture of these. The only thing that anybody has actually authenticated are a subset of documents on copies of copies of the drive.
- We need to be consistently clear on the complete absence of credibility to any part of the narrative - consensus in the media is that this was planted, and every single part of the story from the day it arrived in Delaware stinks of month-dead fish. Especially the involvement of Giuliani, who is besties with Derkach. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- "Belonged to Hunter Biden" is accurate. I won't agree to anything that appears to be a euphemism of "allegedly". GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- In my (now revised) proposal there is no need to use allegedly. Documents belonging to Hunter Biden taken from a MacBook deposited at a Delaware computer repair shop is consistent with both responsible reporting and the right wing media bubble. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Enough with the GRU conspiracy theories. GRU GRU GRU, thats all we keep hearing and there is ZERO evidence of GRU involvement, just speculation, period. --Malerooster (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- If you don't know that that is a part of this story, then that is on you. Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say. Zaathras (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- That story makes it clear that the assertion isn’t supported by any actual evidence. It’s long since been debunked by multiple reliable sources. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Also the article is over two years old and WP:AGEMATTERS. Levivich (talk) 23:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- That story makes it clear that the assertion isn’t supported by any actual evidence. It’s long since been debunked by multiple reliable sources. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed, it will be nice when the USA gets through this latest 'red underneath your bed' phase. Was kinda hoping it would've been over with, once Trump left office. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Zaathras, if you are that clueless, I can't help you and you should NOT be editing this article. You are being dishonest with what you saying. They did NOT say it was disinformation, they said it had the LOOKS of. Your bias and agenda are being revealed with that response. --Malerooster (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Now now, let's be civil please Andre🚐 23:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Editors that lie about what sources say need to be called out not defended. Do you defend editors that lie in here? --Malerooster (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Now now, let's be civil please Andre🚐 23:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Zaathras, if you are that clueless, I can't help you and you should NOT be editing this article. You are being dishonest with what you saying. They did NOT say it was disinformation, they said it had the LOOKS of. Your bias and agenda are being revealed with that response. --Malerooster (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- If you don't know that that is a part of this story, then that is on you. Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say. Zaathras (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- "Belonged to Hunter Biden" is accurate. I won't agree to anything that appears to be a euphemism of "allegedly". GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
More than 50 former senior intelligence officials have signed on to a letter outlining their belief that the recent disclosure of emails allegedly belonging to Joe Biden’s son “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”
per Politico. Yes, it is an older source, and possibly superceded, so maybe there's an argument it should not get as much weight as newer material. However that doesn't suspend WP:AGF. You are on the other side of a behavioral line, so I invite you again to strike the personal attacks. Andre🚐 00:04, 15 December 2022 (UTC)- It’s been flat out debunked. Please stop wasting editor’s time. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Do you have a source that this was specifically debunked? Andre🚐 00:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- The sources have been presented many times now, so you are either ignoring them or not reading them. First of all, the Politico piece itself points out that the assertion has no evidence -
While the letter’s signatories presented no new evidence, they said their national security experience had made them “deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case” and cited several elements of the story that suggested the Kremlin’s hand at work.
The article also quotes the DNI stating it is untrue -Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said on Monday that the information on Biden’s laptop “is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign,” though the FBI is reportedly conducting an ongoing investigation into whether Russia was involved.
But assuming good faith, here are other sources, again:Twitter briefly blocked links to the story for potentially containing hacked material and Facebook briefly restricted it as possible “misinformation” — but it may have been neither. And no evidence has emerged to back up suspicions from former intelligence officials, backed by Biden himself, that the laptop’s leak was a Russian plot.
from Vox, which later statesSome commentators did go too far in asserting that this was part of a Russian plot, when the evidence hasn’t emerged to back that up.
- Then we have the famous Guardian piece
On the political flip-side, House intelligence committee chair Adam Schiff said the laptop was a “smear” from Russian intelligence, and 50 former intelligence officials said it was probably Russian disinformation. Now, however, almost no one disputes its authenticity.
- And finally a couple sources that just straight up say the laptop was Biden's.
"The existence of emails about getting Buckley Carlson into Georgetown has been known for some time, thanks to a laptop once owned by Hunter Biden that was obtained by Donald Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and pushed to media in 2020."
from the Guardian."Further details about those activities were found in documents obtained from a hard drive in a laptop Hunter once owned.
from the Financial Times.Republican lawmakers and their staff for the past year have been analyzing messages and financial transactions found on a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden.
from PBS.
- Do you have any other sources in the 2+ years since that Politico piece was published that have a shred of evidence the Russian disinformation narrative was true? Hunter Biden and this laptop have been continuously and thoroughly investigated by multiple agencies since this sorry affair began. If a single whiff of Russian involvement was found, don't you think it would have been leaked to the high heavens by now? Mr Ernie (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with the sources you presented, which are consistent with my statement that over time the story evolved, and per Zaathras' statement
that is a part of this story
. Here are a few more that are relevant. [46] concernsThe hacking attempts against Burisma
,In March 2021, U.S. intelligence services declassified a report detailing their consensus view that Kilimnik and others associated with Russian intelligence had used various Americans — among them, it strongly suggested, Giuliani — to promote the idea of the Bidens’ corruption in Ukraine to influence the 2020 campaign. The report assessed that Russian leaders viewed Biden’s potential election as “disadvantageous to Russian interests” — especially as it pertained to Ukraine.
[47] Andre🚐 00:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC) - The files have been investigated and many have been verified. But it is not correct to say that, Hunter Biden and this laptop have been continuously and thoroughly investigated by multiple agencies since this sorry affair began.. The only agency that's had the laptop is the FBI, and they have not disclosed any assessment they may have made as to any of the issues relating to the device itself. The outcome of their investigation(s) of Biden himself are not addressed in the lead section. SPECIFICO talk 01:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with the sources you presented, which are consistent with my statement that over time the story evolved, and per Zaathras' statement
- The sources have been presented many times now, so you are either ignoring them or not reading them. First of all, the Politico piece itself points out that the assertion has no evidence -
- Do you have a source that this was specifically debunked? Andre🚐 00:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- It’s been flat out debunked. Please stop wasting editor’s time. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- That is a massive text wall to really say very little about what we're talking about here. That there is disinformation and fabricated text on this laptop is not a point of contention. It is disinformation. Who created it and put it there is largely academic, but someone did go to a lot of effort to do so. Zaathras (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hopeless. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Do you understand that no "agency has thoroughly investigated the laptop" and released its finding? SPECIFICO talk 03:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Who said any findings were released? Mr Ernie (talk) 14:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Mr Ernie said that, and it is incorrect. No agency's investigation has been released either through official channels or leaks. I highlighted the erroneous assertion in orange for anyone who missed it the first time. Ernie's conclusions are based on a false premise. SPECIFICO talk 14:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Who said any findings were released? Mr Ernie (talk) 14:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Do you understand that no "agency has thoroughly investigated the laptop" and released its finding? SPECIFICO talk 03:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Zaathras source for disinformation / fabricated text on the laptop? Ones I can find say the opposite - "no evidence has emerged to back up suspicions from former intelligence officials, backed by Biden himself, that the laptop’s leak was a Russian plot." Mr Ernie (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- You're studiously ignoring the involvement of GRU asset Andrii Derkach, and the existence on the copies of documents that are not original (all this is in the article). Of course it's possible that Giuliani coordinated it himself, but given his documented inability to book a hotel for a press conference, it's much more likely to have been someone competent like the GRU. I will certainly agree there is uncertainty, there are plenty of foreign state actors with links to the people who had custody of the device, and it's not something we need to get into if we go with my form of words which acknowledges that at least soime of the documents are Hunter's - one thing not in dispute. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:34, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hopeless. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- That is a massive text wall to really say very little about what we're talking about here. That there is disinformation and fabricated text on this laptop is not a point of contention. It is disinformation. Who created it and put it there is largely academic, but someone did go to a lot of effort to do so. Zaathras (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- The "Biden laptop" story has close parallels to a 2017 GRU disinformation operation against Emmanuel Macron.
Key Judgment 2: We assess that Russian President Putin authorized, and a range of Russian government organizations conducted, influence operations aimed at denigrating President Biden’s candidacy and the Democratic Party, supporting former President Trump, undermining public confidence in the electoral process, and exacerbating sociopolitical divisions in the US
- So we have:
The Washington Post’s forensic findings are unlikely to resolve that debate, offering instead only the limited revelation that some of the data on the portable drive appears to be authentic.
- I've traced the confident assertion of no GRU influence, it starts in RT, goes through to Fox, and is taken up by the Daily Mail and others. I see the Daily Wire pushing the confident claim that it's not Russian disinformation, but even then the focus is solely on the contents. Nobody at this point seriously contends that some of the documents on some of the "copies" in circulation are genuine, equally, we know that some of the "copies" have unverified, and in some cases verifiably fake, documents. Was that the GRU, or was it GOP operatives? The Russians would love us to fight about that forever.
- Once again, the entire story stinks. It is clearly a political operation by someone, and the GRU are the leading suspects because they do this kind of thing all the time, and because the GOP operatives involved are very often unserious people. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Sources for GRU influence? What do you think of this quote from Vox
no evidence has emerged to back up suspicions from former intelligence officials, backed by Biden himself, that the laptop’s leak was a Russian plot.
?Mr Ernie (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)- Every heard of Andrii Derkach? Guy (help! - typo?) 16:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- That makes as much sense as QAnon. TFD (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- That is an offensive and rather silly statement. The idea that the GRU would steal or clone a laptop and plant it is not in the least bit far-fetched. They tried a similar tactic against Macron in 2017, and Andrii Derkach, who spoke of having a second computer, and met Giuliani in December 2019 to talk about targeting Hunter Biden, was a GRU asset, according to Ukrainian security services. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Sources for GRU influence? What do you think of this quote from Vox
Asked this before & I'll ask it again. PLEASE wait until after the Republicans have taken over the House & completed their investigations of Hunter Biden, President Joe Biden & whoever else. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- That's not a thing, we're a wiki. Feoffer (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. That may be the silliest comment I've seen in my years of editing Wikipedia. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- I admire your faith in the intellectual honesty of Gym Jordan and Marge Greene, but I do not share it. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- I've no faith in the intellectual honesty of any Democratic or Republican politician. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- These two things are not the same. Democrats are normal politicians doing normal politician things - spinning the facts, and so on. Republican politicians include a sizeable minority who are QAnon supporters. This article is contentious right now because they are trying to pretend that Joe Biden is somehow corrupt, while killing off investigations into the attempted coup staged by Donald Trump and completely ignoring the $2bn that Jared Kushner was given by the Saudis as a result of the White House role to which he was illegally appointed. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- I've no faith in the intellectual honesty of any Democratic or Republican politician. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- If Hunter Biden testifies it was his laptop, the FBI produces the receipts, and photographic and eye-witness testimony confirm his ownership, it will not be persuasive to people who believe that it is all a GRU plot. All that will change is that the arguments Hunter Biden did not own the laptop will become more convoluted. TFD (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- If Hunter Biden says he dropped it at MacIsaac's shop then that will be entirely persuasive. But any story that involves the assumption that Steve Bannon and Rudy Giuliani are honest brokers is not going to fly, for obvious reasons. Not least because Giuliani was reportedly told about it before Paul "Concerned" MacIsaac claimed he had looked on the device. It's rather clear that this was supposed to dovetail with the investigation for which Trump attempted to extort Zelenskyy.
- I have yet to see a credible source that gives any credence at all to the supposed origin story, but - just as we in the reality-based community accept that at least some of the files on the various disk copies in circulation are authentic, so, too, we would accept credible evidence that Hunter Biden did indeed drop a laptop full of compromising data at a random computer shop and completely forget to retrieve it. In the absence of such a statement I think we're never going to know the full story, because it's unlikely that Derkach is going to end up in US custody. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Not necessarily, just like now they may tailor their arguments to explain the new evidence. Maybe the Russians forced Hunter to say that, some will claim. TFD (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- I am talking about normal, sensible people here. Normal, sensible people do not believe a word of the yarn spun by Steve Bannon and Rudy Giuliani, for very obvious reasons. But normal, sensible people accept that some of the documents are attested genuine by independent reviewers, at the same time noting the same reviewers' comments about the majority of documents that can't be authenticated, and others that appear conclusively non-authentic. Of course it's murky. It's supposed to be. Bannon, in particular, is an absolute master of sustaining controversy long after any real doubt remains. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Not necessarily, just like now they may tailor their arguments to explain the new evidence. Maybe the Russians forced Hunter to say that, some will claim. TFD (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- If any of these things come to pass, then sure, belonged to is appropriate and I will be persuaded, as will most of the other editors arguing in good faith that that phrase is premature.
- Right now, what we have is a blind shop owner saying that someone claiming to be Hunter Biden dropped off the laptop, and forensic evidence that the files contained on it appear to be authentic. The most thorough evidence so far is the recent CBS article which doesn't actually come out and say "belonged to", instead couching it in phrases such as "believed to be".
- Our job as editors is to reflect what the reliable sources say. The simple solution is to just write around the "ownership issue" in the lead since it's not a very important part of the overall story, and it is treated reasonably well later in the article. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Dancing around H. Biden's having owned the laptop, would be counter-productive. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Depending on what one is trying to "produce", of course. Our job as editors is to reflect what the reliable sources say. It's certainly productive if that is the goal. If there's some other objective, maybe not so much. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- You are making a classic strawman argument because the article not only doesn't claim that Hunter Biden delivered the laptop to the store, but says that it is unknown if he did. We also don't know if the laptop was tampered with before or after it arrived at the store and say that. All we know is that it belonged to Hunter Biden and therefore that is what the article says.
- We don not know either if Hunter Biden is really Joe Biden's son. The birth certificate has never been published. All we have is circumstantial evidence. But fortunately political partisans haven't raised that objection. TFD (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- How, exactly, do we know that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden, when we don't know if he delivered it to the store himself?
- Seems there are three options: he delivered it himself, somebody else delivered it (who?), or someone cloned the hard drive, installed it on an identical device, and had someone deliver it.
- Do you have solid evidence it is any one of these three options? (or perhaps you have a fourth or a fifth?)
- I don't, hence my caution about stating things in Wikipedia's voice without sufficient reliable sourcing. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- You and I of course do not know, just as we don't know if Hunter Biden is Joe Biden's son or the moon-landing was faked. In fact, as editors, we are not supposed to fact check, which is considered to be original research. Instead, we merely repeat what reliable sources say. Occassionally (frequently), what reliable sources report turns out to be wrong, especially news reporting, which is why the New York Times publishes retractions every day. In fact, the publication of retractions is part of what qualifies a publication as a reliable source in Wikipedia.
- It has been said that journalism is the "first draft of history." IOW we expect errors to occur. If you want to qualify every claim until the facts have been established by an official enquiry, articles about current events would become unreadable. However, you don't do that. Instead, you zero in on certain facts that you question. But the article should not do that, because in violates neutral point of view. TFD (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- The moon landing and Hunter Biden's progeny are well established by the reliable sources. Articles about those topics are not littered with "alleged", "believed to be", "purported", etc.
- So of course we present those things as factual.
- My reading of the "ownership" issue is that the reliable sources, taken as a whole, are far from unanimous. Presenting it as such is a distortion. And an unnecessary one, since it's not very germane to the overall issue. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- There is also a signature on a receipt from the Delaware repair shop that "appears" to be Hunter Biden's. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Do you have a link for that? I thought the story was that whoever dropped off the laptop didn't provide any contact info. Wouldn't that be on the receipt? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Exactly correct. Several sources have authenticated some documents, but no source has authenticated the laptop itself. And the chain of custody was a mess. The right-wing narrative right now is that some documents being genuine proves that the laptop was Hunter's which proves that Hunter corruptly influenced Joe Biden, therefore the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is actually true, which proves that Biden is as bad as or worse than the failed coup guy.
- None of that causal chain is remotely supportable from actual proven facts. All we actually know is that some documents have been authenticated as Hunter's, others have not, some documents, on some of the many dubious copies in circulation, have been shown definitely not to be his, and the "aw, shucks, just a concerned citizen" narrative around the device itself remains as implausible as it was when even the NY Post article's authors refused to put their name to it. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Depending on what one is trying to "produce", of course. Our job as editors is to reflect what the reliable sources say. It's certainly productive if that is the goal. If there's some other objective, maybe not so much. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Dancing around H. Biden's having owned the laptop, would be counter-productive. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2022
The second sentence in the article says the laptop was abandoned on 2016. Reference 1 gives the date as 2019, which is the date used elsewhere in the article. Please correct the discrepancy. 2601:843:C380:61A0:0:0:0:CAE1 (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Just added the image given to CBS News by Hunter Biden's team. The team issued a very mealy-mouthed statement about what's depicted in the image, which is quoted in the captions, which can hopefully be polished by wiser minds than mine. Feoffer (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Best to stick with Hunter Biden as the top image. Also, we've enough going on this page, without opening another topic. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- That's fine! I don't care where we put it, I just thought readers would benefit from seeing the device DOES exist, it IS damaged, Hunter Biden's legal team IS sending out pics of it. Feoffer (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- By restoring the written changes to the lead you earlier made, you've breached 1RR. I recommend you revert or I'll have to report you to WP:AE. GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- I mean, we operate on Bold-Revert-Discuss -- Do you actually object to the image being included anywhere in the article? Feoffer (talk) 23:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm going to give you 'one more chance' to respect 1RR. I don't want to go the WP:AE, but you're forcing my hand. GoodDay (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- If you truly state an objection to the image being anywhere in the article, I'll be happy to remove it. If you're just objecting to any changes at all, even ones that you feel improve the article, you should go to AE and have them explain why we don't "freeze" articles. Feoffer (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- You've breached 1RR by restoring parts of the changes you earlier made. 1RR means 1RR. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- So revert the parts you object to and keep the parts you approve of -- we're not edit warring back and forth, I'm throwing out suggestions and you're reverting and discussing. I legitimately believed you'd love including an actual image of the device and attributing the photo to Hunter Biden's legal team. That's how BRD works. You said you didn't want it the top, I said cool, how about in the body? If you don't want the image anywhere, you should feel free to delete it, or I will. If you don't like the caption I wrote -- I don't particurly like it either! Feoffer (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- You've breached 1RR by restoring parts of the changes you earlier made. 1RR means 1RR. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- If you truly state an objection to the image being anywhere in the article, I'll be happy to remove it. If you're just objecting to any changes at all, even ones that you feel improve the article, you should go to AE and have them explain why we don't "freeze" articles. Feoffer (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm going to give you 'one more chance' to respect 1RR. I don't want to go the WP:AE, but you're forcing my hand. GoodDay (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- I mean, we operate on Bold-Revert-Discuss -- Do you actually object to the image being included anywhere in the article? Feoffer (talk) 23:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- By restoring the written changes to the lead you earlier made, you've breached 1RR. I recommend you revert or I'll have to report you to WP:AE. GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- That's fine! I don't care where we put it, I just thought readers would benefit from seeing the device DOES exist, it IS damaged, Hunter Biden's legal team IS sending out pics of it. Feoffer (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Image of Laptop
It seems like showing readers the laptop image provided by Hunter Biden's legal team is highly relevant. What is the reason to have Hunter Biden's image as part of the lead? Arguably, his person is the least relevant part of this article.
What is the issue with having the laptop as the top image? It is what the article is about.
As to the image description, let's figure it out. Slywriter (talk) 03:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- What about the written intro. It shouldn't have been changed, while there's an ongoing-RFC. GoodDay (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- it is a Hunter laptop but not the laptop [48] soibangla (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Right - this is ANOTHER laptop that Hunter lost track of. The laptop most of this article is about (the one from the Delaware computer store) is a separate laptop. In light of that, this picture probably belongs better in a body section, near wherever this new bit gets mentioned. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- @SPECIFICO "there is discussion ongoing" is not sufficient reason alone to revert another editor's BOLD contribution. Please use edit summaries in a more constructive manner. Additionally, feel free to participate in the talk page discussion here. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Good point. The main reason as far as I can see is to reinforce Hunter Biden over the actual subject of the article. MacIsaac would be as appropriate. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:46, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- I agree the up top image should not be a pic of Hunter Biden. The purported "controversy" is not about him. It's about the NY Post story and the attempts to sustain that yarn in various forms and fora. A similar situation arose in 2020 when a woman made unsubstantiated claims about her employment on Joe Biden's staff decades previous. At first there was a photo of Joe up top on the page. I removed that photo. It was briefly contentious, but the infobox and first photo are now of the woman who promoted these allegations.
- Our publication of a pic of Hunter Biden up top violates NPOV and possibly BLP in its framing of the article content that it reveals significant "controversial" facts about Biden. The Biden photo should not be at the top. This page is about the Post story and related events, not Biden. SPECIFICO talk 12:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
So when does the RM open, to try to have Biden's name removed from the article title? After that, will the next step be to remove his name entirely from this page? Perhaps an AfD itself? GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Please stay on topic for this section. If you wish to raise other ways to improve the page, please open a separate section with a neutral header. SPECIFICO talk 14:33, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- GoodDay, why do you think Hunter Biden is the focus of this article? Whatever may come about this matter in coming months or what some sources believe occurred, I don't see this article as the place for it anyway. If Burisma or something else is legit, it would be covered in detail elsewhere as that is not really the controversy. The controversy is that he dropped off a laptop, Republicans got their hands on the data, Mainstream media and Social media went through extraordinary lengths to suppress the story and that some of the Republican data may have been altered before it was given to the press. The legitimate contents of the laptop is not really this article. That belongs in Hunter Biden's article if it is due. Slywriter (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- IMO the laptop image should be at the to of the article, and the Biden image removed. The subject matter really has little to do with Hunter personally, as it is primarily about the wild accusations, disinformation, and conspiracy theories regarding the contents. Zaathras (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- or could use that which started it all... https://nypost.com/cover/covers-for-october-14-2020/ Slywriter (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- The post cover is a very logical top image, and a nice compromise because it contains an image of Hunter Bidne. Feoffer (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- It would unlikely pass WP:NFCC policy, though. Zaathras (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- You're not wrong :( Feoffer (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Reading over that policy, it seems to me that the Post cover would meet all the criteria. Well, except maybe 6, which is actually the entirety of the WP:IUP, which is... extensive. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Am I crazy or is #6 a bit circular and actually says nothing at all when you follow all the links? I think #8 would be the actual barrier, though can make an argument that it would increase a readers understanding, harder to fulfill detrimental without it. Slywriter (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think you're right about #8. That image wouldn't substantially increase understanding of the whole article. Just the story that started it.
- ...which was first published in a generally unreliable source at that. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Am I crazy or is #6 a bit circular and actually says nothing at all when you follow all the links? I think #8 would be the actual barrier, though can make an argument that it would increase a readers understanding, harder to fulfill detrimental without it. Slywriter (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Seeing this thread and speaking in an NFCC capacity, the Post cover would 100% be okay as a nonfree image here. That story is the topic of this article, similar to Dewey Defeats Truman. Masem (t) 00:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- It is in no way similar to Dewey Defeats Truman as that image is in the public domain, for starters. Second, that image is iconic because of Truman triumphantly holding up the "don't count your chicks' before they hatch" hasty headline, i.e. because of the falsehood. There's nothing analogous to that here, for all the NYP's usual hyperbole and tabloid-style reporting, that headline is a pretty tame claim, relatively. Finally, this article isn't even about the NY Post's coverage, that is a tiny aspect of the overall tale. Zaathras (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- It would unlikely pass WP:NFCC policy, though. Zaathras (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- The post cover is a very logical top image, and a nice compromise because it contains an image of Hunter Bidne. Feoffer (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- it's moot because it's a Hunter laptop but not the Hunter laptop.
[49] soibangla (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)A source from Hunter Biden's team of advisers told CBS News the laptop now in their possession may be the key to determining if anything was altered or added to that second laptop discovered at a Delaware repair shop — or to the other hard drives that have journeyed through multiple sets of hands.
- Yeah, I'm not up to speed on the gritty details -- anything we can do to help the reader understand this would be good. I was frankly baffled by the CBS caption. Feoffer (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Feoffer Your recent edit restoring your original caption is not helpful. The caption you reverted to is, as you said, mealy-mouthed; moreover, that phrasing is contradicted by the other CBS source I provided, which directly stated the laptop pictured was not the laptop most of this article is written about.
- You also technically violated the 1RR sanction imposed on this page by making that edit less than 24 hours after this one. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry bout that. I agree your caption is better and restored it. I wasn't really trying to get involved in the reversion between you and Specifico, just fixing a broken ref. Feoffer (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry bout that. I agree your caption is better and restored it. I wasn't really trying to get involved in the reversion between you and Specifico, just fixing a broken ref. Feoffer (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm not up to speed on the gritty details -- anything we can do to help the reader understand this would be good. I was frankly baffled by the CBS caption. Feoffer (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- The name of the page isn't Somebody's laptop controversy, but rather Hunter Biden laptop controversy. Thus the reason we have his image at the top of the page. Why suddenly change that, now? GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- That is no justification for associating Biden with the false claims in the Post story. His picture up top violates our core policies. It's promoting a smear. SPECIFICO talk 21:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- A stand-alone image of him adds exactly zero to the article. A "smear headline" is factually what happened and is literally the basis of the article. But I'll leave you two to continue your petty fights where the reader is not the primary concern. Slywriter (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- To suggest that the image of Hunter Biden at the top of this page, is some kinda smear campaign. Could be seen as assuming bad faith on the part of any editor who supports the image being there. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Can we all agree this discussion is moot and drop it and return to our regularly scheduled programming of endless dramas?[50] soibangla (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know that it's moot. The laptop in the picture is not the laptop, so perhaps it's not the best picture to use in the lead. Upthread, several editors make a good argument that the picture of Hunter Biden is not appropriate. We can remove it and replace it with [what?], or just remove it, or leave it as is. My take would be to remove it and if we can find something appropriate replace it, else simply not have an image in the lead. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Are we gonna need an RFC to settle this, too? GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Come on -- the article should have a pic of Hunter Biden in it somewhere, and there's no particular reason I can see that the top image should be the laptop and not the portrait. Feoffer (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- A picture is fine, just IMO not in the lede. Compare Hillary Clinton email controversy, Travelgate, Rathergate. Zaathras (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hunter Biden's image in the style of Hillary Clinton's image? GoodDay (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Or also Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy, Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy, Countrywide Financial political loan scandal, or ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 03:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- A picture is fine, just IMO not in the lede. Compare Hillary Clinton email controversy, Travelgate, Rathergate. Zaathras (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know that it's moot. The laptop in the picture is not the laptop, so perhaps it's not the best picture to use in the lead. Upthread, several editors make a good argument that the picture of Hunter Biden is not appropriate. We can remove it and replace it with [what?], or just remove it, or leave it as is. My take would be to remove it and if we can find something appropriate replace it, else simply not have an image in the lead. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Can we all agree this discussion is moot and drop it and return to our regularly scheduled programming of endless dramas?[50] soibangla (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- That is no justification for associating Biden with the false claims in the Post story. His picture up top violates our core policies. It's promoting a smear. SPECIFICO talk 21:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
If you (or anybody else) want to open an RFC on whether or not to change the top image? Then do so, if it's that important. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Zaathras, what bizarro world do you live in to say the subject matter does not have direct involvement with this story. The laptop belonged to Hunter Biden, that is past discussion. If editors want to talk about the GRU GRU GRU replacing the hard drive and dressing like Biden and the blind man who they gave it to fine, do that all day, but to make like the laptop has nothing to do with Hunter is, I don't even have the words for it. --Malerooster (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- DO YOU PEOPLE HEAR YOURSELVES??? What does this have to with Biden? Why have his picture? This is a BLP violation. YOU ARE IN AN ECHO CHAMBER WITH YOURSELVES. THE LAPTOP BELONGED TO HUNTER BIDEN. The story should just end there. Who really cares at this point, the election is OVER, MOVE ON. --Malerooster (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Can anyone present a 4Q 2022 source that says "Hunter didn't own the laptop and it was a GRU operation"? Because I've posted 13 sources in the RfC that say Hunter Biden's laptop including CBS conclusive review that shows the data was added consistent with regular daily use and stopped being added when it was damaged. Seriously, it is silly the amount of text and threads wasted trying to claim otherwise at this point. And it detracts from the real editing which is how to best explain the Republican data vs the CBS "clean" data. Slywriter (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Derkach trim
What about the Derkach is COATRACK? Read that essay and tell me how it relates in any way to this. Andre🚐 21:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- WP:COATRACK#All_About_George. In a nutshell, "briefly explain why someone might care that George Washington did so." Or, we should avoid going on too far a tangent into Derkach himself on an article about Hunter Biden and his laptop. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- It's not a tangent, it's central to the topic of the Ukraine and Russia chess games that surround all of the Hunter Biden material. Derkach was working for Russian intelligence and they were trying to hack Burisma to dig up dirt on Joe Biden. In fact Trump specifically threatened Zelensky on this topic leading to his impeachment Andre🚐 21:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- This article's content should focus on the topic in the article title. Two of the sources in that section [51] [52] don't even mantion Hunter Biden, his father, or the laptop material. The other two sources [53] [54] certainly show that Derkach was working to oppose the Bidens, but they don't mention the "Ukraine material" that circulated in 2019. Delving too deep into Derkach and his motivations and his history doesn't really serve THIS article well. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep in mind we are talking about "Hunter Biden Laptop Controversy" and the scope that entails. RS already shows HBLC was used by the Trump administration in the 2020 election and the scope of this article should encompass as much, but I'm very hesitant to use RS that doesn't at least mention the "HBL". DN (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree. There remain many unknowns about this episode, including exactly what Rudy, Derkach and others were doing as "Hunter laptops" were being offered for sale in Kyiv, and all the chain of custody unknowns. I remain skeptical that it has been proved this was not Russian/Ukrainian op. I'd like to hear what the FBI thinks about all this, because they have intel capabilities no journalist can match, but they haven't said a word as yet. soibangla (talk) 02:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Soibangla, we also don't know how many whores Biden banged and how much coke he snorted. Should we get articles [55] about prostitutes and drug use and introduce those as well? No, of course not, that would be original research unless it talked about Hunter Biden's laptop, which this one does. Yes, I agree, there remains many unknowns about this episode. --Malerooster (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- You can be skeptical and inquisitive all you like. But Wikipedia articles are meant to summarize what can be learned about a topic from the currently-available RS. Unless Derkach is somehow more relevant to this laptop controversy than his statement on social media, AND THERE ARE RS REPORTING ABOUT IT, expounding on what Derkach was doing or who he is or whatever is a pretty clear example of WP:COATRACK#All_About_George. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- I remain unpersuaded soibangla (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Can you provide justification for including material from any of the 4 sources I linked? Because I've provided an argument why we shouldn't. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- I remain unpersuaded soibangla (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Every email has a message ID produced by the server, such as 25eb7e48-2252-48ea-80ce-cf2f6119a8e3@ENV95-E2013-1.domain95.lab. These message IDs are the same for everyone who sent or received the message. The message also has a unique creation date, such as "Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 11:52 AM (Delivered after 0 seconds)." It also has the sender's ip address and details of all the servers it passed through on its route, including dates and times.
- Image files store location and time of creation.
- What are the chances that Russian hackers who don't speak idiomatic English and don't know the difference between a red state and a blue state could forge emails so well that no errors were detected in the first 129,000 examined?
- Also, they'd have to hack into Google and other email providers to plant the fabricated emails. They'd have to ensure that all the senders were physically present at the addresses the emails were sent from.
- Really, QAnon makes more sense than that. TFD (talk) 03:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- That's quite a naive argument. Aside from the obvious, if you knew anything about the Russian cyberintelligence facility it's that it is quite an advanced persistent threat and they would have no problem with the feasibility of such a task. See for example Fancy Bear, Guccifer 2.0, etc. It is absolutely possible that Russians hacked emails. In fact, they did this during the 2016 cycle with the Podesta emails. Now, I'm not saying that there is evidence that the Russians hacked Hunter Biden, but we do know they were trying to compromise his Ukrainian employer Burisma with spearphishing attacks.[56] Andre🚐 03:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
This article's content should focus on the topic in the article title
, which is exactly what this content is. Zaathras (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- This article's content should focus on the topic in the article title. Two of the sources in that section [51] [52] don't even mantion Hunter Biden, his father, or the laptop material. The other two sources [53] [54] certainly show that Derkach was working to oppose the Bidens, but they don't mention the "Ukraine material" that circulated in 2019. Delving too deep into Derkach and his motivations and his history doesn't really serve THIS article well. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- It's not a tangent, it's central to the topic of the Ukraine and Russia chess games that surround all of the Hunter Biden material. Derkach was working for Russian intelligence and they were trying to hack Burisma to dig up dirt on Joe Biden. In fact Trump specifically threatened Zelensky on this topic leading to his impeachment Andre🚐 21:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- It may well be that Derkach was "recently been sanctioned by the United States Treasury Department for interfering in the 2020 election"[57] is relevant to his credibility, but "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. If you have a source that makes that argument, we can consider including it. Otherwise, it's just an attempt to make Wikipedia a Biden administration mouthpiece. TFD (talk) 02:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- GRU GRU GRU GRU. ENOUGH!! This is the essence of original research and a fishing expedition. Where does it talk about the subject of this article, Hunter Biden's laptop? If a citation doesn't DIRECTLY discuss the HUNTER BIDEN LAPTOP CONTROVERSY leave it out. We have more than enough crap to sort through as it is. --Malerooster (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- That's a fair point. I was trying to salvage the context on Derkach from the section that off on a longer tangent about him. But honestly, if the readers of this article want to learn more about this Derkach guy, all they have to do is click the link on his name. If material isn't directly relevant to this article, or to the subsection that it's in, I don't see the point in including it. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
A disputed tag has nothing to do with consensus text
Mr. Ernie has now broken 1RR [58], [59]. Zaathras (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Something with RFC consensus is by definition not disputed. Launch a new RFC, wait for the current one to close, or accept the wording. I think any further attempts to ignore the current consensus will need to go to AE. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- If you prefer that 13 sources are cited to prove the line, let me know and I'll happily add all 13 to show the absurdity of continuing to claim without evidence that it is not his laptop. Slywriter (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- And Mr Ernie feel free to revert and then send me a ping because I will challenge the inappropriate tagging that goes against an RfC. Or you all can count Ernie's as my 1RR for the day and save the trouble. Slywriter (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- The addition of the dispute tag, comes across as a replacement for the word "allegedly". Please don't re-add it, as it merely causes tension. FWIW, Feoffer breached 3RR/24hs about two weeks ago, attempting to force in the "dispute tag". Why didn't you complain, then? GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm, the battleground mentality and esp. the tag-team offer by Slywriter is noted and filed away. Thank-you, gents. Feel free to archive this, unless someone else wishes to weigh in. Zaathras (talk) 03:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed. The battle ground mentality amongst a small few is so bad that I actually stand accused of the heineous crime of trying to foment a compromise, lol. Feoffer (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm, the battleground mentality and esp. the tag-team offer by Slywriter is noted and filed away. Thank-you, gents. Feel free to archive this, unless someone else wishes to weigh in. Zaathras (talk) 03:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Go to ANI if you want to make accusations. Otherwise, quit it. It was a factual statement of what would occur and there are zero editors here who would have been surprised if I removed the tag as the position of Respect the RfC process has been consistent by me. Slywriter (talk) 04:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- It's wrong to continually attempt to dispute something settled at an RfC that's has a second RfC going now. You have further accusations, make that at the proper place. This is not it. This is an attempt to chill discussion as you have now brought up three editors who disagree with you at ANI. Slywriter (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Reporting an editor to ANI, that you were opposing at this page, didn't exactly lower the temperature. Indeed, since you've joined or re-started these discussions, two weeks ago. You've been one of the more bold editors in the changes you either made or attempted to make. Just saying, it seemed a bit quieter on this page (including the talkpage) before 4 December 2022. -- GoodDay (talk) 04:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
it seemed a bit quieter... before 4 December
It was quieter before Musk reopened this can of worms! At least four new editors independently noticed the article needed help.- While I've got you -- what's up with this? Are you seriously "accusing" me of trying to find a Win-Win compromise to solve this long-standing dispute. Feoffer (talk) 05:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Reporting an editor to ANI, that you were opposing at this page, didn't exactly lower the temperature. Indeed, since you've joined or re-started these discussions, two weeks ago. You've been one of the more bold editors in the changes you either made or attempted to make. Just saying, it seemed a bit quieter on this page (including the talkpage) before 4 December 2022. -- GoodDay (talk) 04:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- The RfC, by my reading, prohibited language like "alleged" that implied doubt about Biden's ownership of the laptop. It did not, however, impose any specific phrasing for the Lead sentence, so reverts that aren't removing clearly prohibited language like alleged, believed to be, etc. don't qualify for a 1RR exemption. There was no RfC consensus against adding maintenance tags, but the [disputed – discuss] tag could also be considered prohibited language depending on where it's placed. That's a bit of a gray area, so I advise people to be careful with reverts around that. Looking at the reverts from yesterday it wouldn't be that hard for a passing admin to see Mr Ernie's 2 reverts or GoodDay's
32 reverts as a 1RR violation. One of the few things lamer than participating in an edit war over maintenance tags is getting blocked for participating in an edit war over maintenance tags. ~Awilley (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)- @Awilley: 3 reverts in 24 hrs? Not me. Anyways the addition of the 'dispute tag' comes across as creating doubt about H. Biden having owned the laptop. The RFC is well advertised, via the legobot & my neutral message on three WikiProjects. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- PS- @Awilley: you may want to express those thoughts (editing warring over a dispute tag) to Feoffer & Darknipples, too. Also, I didn't make the 'same' revert 'twice' in 24 hrs, either. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- GoodDay, it doesn't have to be "the same revert in 24 hours" any more, as you should recall. Please keep the battleground stuff off of article talk. Article improvement tags are to get more eyes and fresh thoughts. It has nothing to do with deprecating the established text. And the fact that it is disputed is rather incontrovertable, regardlelss of of the outcome. Finally, nobody looks at Project talk pages and those are meaningless and ineffective ways to summon assistance. SPECIFICO talk 20:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- When did you change your name to Awilley? GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- The tag is for Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute. It is unneccessary because there is no dispute in reliable sources that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. We had an RfC about that. While I find the GRU conspiracy theory amusing, it's unfair to invite readers to join in, which is the purpose of tags. That way we don't divert them from more important issues, such as whether the moon-landing was faked. TFD (talk) 12:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- TFD, you've just misrepresented your own RfC and your own previous RfC. While the moon meme is amusing, that rhymes with confusing for editors less steeped in the details of this discussion. SPECIFICO talk 12:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- As I remember, you don't understand that allegedly and purportedly mean the same thing. Some people argue about what the definition of is is. But such discussions are better placed in websites dedicated to such things. TFD (talk) 13:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- You appear to have me confused with the dozen or so other editors who have proposed "purported", etc. Do a page text search. The RfC's were/are both premature, as the efforts by Feoffer, Valjean, Carlstak and others have shown in discussion that's been marginalized or confounded by the premature RfC's. Both times. SPECIFICO talk 14:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- The RfCs were certainly not premature. Since every other editor on the page thought the article should express doubt about the ownership of the laptop, it was necessary to invite new editors to join the discussion. Unsurprisingly, the new editors agreed that the article should say Hunter Biden owned the laptop. Without an RfC, the article would still say alleged. RfCs are "a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content. RfCs are a way to attract more attention to a discussion about making changes to pages." Obviously you opposed that process, because you opposed changes. TFD (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- You appear to have me confused with the dozen or so other editors who have proposed "purported", etc. Do a page text search. The RfC's were/are both premature, as the efforts by Feoffer, Valjean, Carlstak and others have shown in discussion that's been marginalized or confounded by the premature RfC's. Both times. SPECIFICO talk 14:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- As I remember, you don't understand that allegedly and purportedly mean the same thing. Some people argue about what the definition of is is. But such discussions are better placed in websites dedicated to such things. TFD (talk) 13:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- TFD, you've just misrepresented your own RfC and your own previous RfC. While the moon meme is amusing, that rhymes with confusing for editors less steeped in the details of this discussion. SPECIFICO talk 12:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- The tag is for Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute. It is unneccessary because there is no dispute in reliable sources that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. We had an RfC about that. While I find the GRU conspiracy theory amusing, it's unfair to invite readers to join in, which is the purpose of tags. That way we don't divert them from more important issues, such as whether the moon-landing was faked. TFD (talk) 12:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- When did you change your name to Awilley? GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- GoodDay, it doesn't have to be "the same revert in 24 hours" any more, as you should recall. Please keep the battleground stuff off of article talk. Article improvement tags are to get more eyes and fresh thoughts. It has nothing to do with deprecating the established text. And the fact that it is disputed is rather incontrovertable, regardlelss of of the outcome. Finally, nobody looks at Project talk pages and those are meaningless and ineffective ways to summon assistance. SPECIFICO talk 20:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
When the RFC tag expires? I'll be requesting that only an administrator close the RFC & render a decision. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the timing of the initial RfC
I am inserting a break to separate the following discussion, because TFD and I disagree as to the timing of the intitial RfC, whether it was premature, and whether it would have benefitted from more discussion prior to the RfC
Here is the timeline: There had been various prior versions, none of which stated in Wiki-voice that the device belonged to Biden. They used "alleged" "reported by the Post" etc. The version on 27:55 22 August, 2022 said
- "allegedly belonged". TFD made the next edit and
- removed "allegedly" at 03:26, 28 August, 2022. His removal was swiftly reverted,
- restoring the status quo at 03:52, 28 August 2022. Then, with no intervening discussion, TFD launched the RfC to
- restore his removal of "alleged" at 12:08, 28 August 2022
SPECIFICO talk 20:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
RFC closure
I'll be requesting that only an administrator close the current RFC, when the tag expires in early January 2023. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
And or But
Shouldn't the sentence in the lead, which is currently;
Forensic analysis of the data showed that only some of it could be authenticated and, in particular, a key email used by the New York Post in the initial reporting could not be forensically verified.
beForensic analysis of the data showed that only some of it could be authenticated but, in particular, a key email used by the New York Post in the initial reporting could not be forensically verified.
? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- yeah I wrote that and I think it should say more like "one of two key emails published by NYP was authenticated" soibangla (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- If the sentence bhas changed that would explain why the sentence is now confused, I'll bow out on if the emails used by the NYP have or haven't been verified. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Looking at the data only, there's two versions:CBS which is a copy of the original data removed from the laptop by the shop and the Republican data which has significant custody issues and contains additional material not found in the CBS version. I think this fact set is not in dispute.
- Taking the shopkeeper at their word, the CBS data would match what the FBI seized.
- Whether the original data, the additional Republican data, or both were circulated in Ukraine, I'm not certain reliable sources have given a conclusion, though I have not looked too deeply.
- That Ukraine data causes significant confusion because if it doesn't include the CBS/FBI data then it's not actually related to HB laptop, though it is related to the HB laptop controversy as NYPost and other conservative/Right Wing sources used it and claimed it was on HB laptop left at the shop. Slywriter (talk) 03:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- If the sentence bhas changed that would explain why the sentence is now confused, I'll bow out on if the emails used by the NYP have or haven't been verified. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Made the change since was making update to lead. Edits are done separately in case of challenges to some but not all. Slywriter (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
The signature
The Twitter Files part 7 came out today. There’s a link to a receipt from the laptop repair shop with “what appears to be” Hunter Biden’s signature. For those who still don’t believe this laptop came from Hunter, what’s the explanation for this signature? Was it forged? From other signatures I’ve seen it looks to be an open and shut match. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Somewhere in this WP:BATTLE-like attempt to argue the topic itself and not the article, is there a suggestion of text to add to the article, or to modify an existing passage? Zaathras (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yes the article text doesn’t currently have any mention of the signature, despite it appearing in several RS. Mr Ernie (talk) 04:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
...appearing in several RS
, then wouldn't it have aided the discussion to provide those, rather than this sort of "aha, checkmate!" brag? But really, didn't we already do this two years ago? The bill for $85 with the dubious signature that is not how he is generally known to sign documents? Why is this "new" ? Zaathras (talk) 04:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)- Still waiting on the sources, Earn. Zaathras (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yes the article text doesn’t currently have any mention of the signature, despite it appearing in several RS. Mr Ernie (talk) 04:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Ignoring the inappropriate comment above, I'll say the same I said on Twitter Files on pulling information from the tweets, we need reliable sources discussing the tweet, connecting the signature. Those connections can not be made by editors. Slywriter (talk) 04:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- IMO it is not up to us to "explain" anything. That's not what we do here. It has nothing to do with our beliefs as editors, it's about what reliable sources say. To try and use that signature to say "well it it looks like his signature to me, so it must be his, therefore the laptop belongs to him", that's textbook WP:OR & WP:SYNTH. This is all basic Wiki-editing 101. If you want to include something, it needs to be reliably sourced and bare some WP:WEIGHT to achieve consensus for inclusion. The importance of dispassion on this article is not to be overlooked. No one here should really care one way or the other if X is "justified" in accusing Y of Z. It is basically beside the point to "take sides". Let's all just put down the WP:CRYSTALBALL, for the sake of productive civil debate, please. DN (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 20 December 2022
Insert a space before the third sentence, which begins "Forensic". Maurice Magnus (talk) 10:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
No - as that would create two too small paragraphs. The first paragraph would end up having 'less' then four lines. GoodDay (talk) 10:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)- Yes @Maurice Magnus:, my mistake. I 'now' understand what you're pointing at. The ref is squashed against the following word. GoodDay (talk) 11:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Done ~Awilley (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2022
Final sentence in the first para "No evidence of illegality by the Bidens has been shown from the laptop contents." is incorrect and we must either amend to "Images and documents were found on the laptop which suggest Hunter Biden engaged in illegal activity". Or to simply remove the last sentence entirely
Since the opposite is true: not only did it include possible evidence of crimes, but the FBI and DOJ are confident they have enough evidence to charge him, and have since forwarded these laptop documents to the Attorney General.
Whether or not the the Biden(s) are prosecuted is irrelevant to this request: they may decide not to prosecute due to other reasons (e.g. difficulty securing a conviction) but in any event, to say "no evidence of illegality" is no longer correct under any interpretation.
Sources:
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/06/politics/hunter-biden-investigation-federal-prosecutors-weighing-charges/index.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/06/hunter-biden-case-feds-believe-evidence-supports-tax-and-gun-charges.html https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/07/hunter-biden-reports-say-fbi-has-enough-evidence-for-prosecution https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-63166809 https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hunter-biden-tax-gun-purchase-evidence-fbi-us-attorney/ 86.10.181.189 (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- I've just done a quick scan through these sources, but do any of them mention the laptop? Cannolis (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Don't believe any of these stories link the criminal investigation or potential charges to the laptop. We do know that the FBI started investigating in 2018, and obtained the laptop in 2019 as part of this probe; but that's not enough. And as an aside, it doesn't seem like they're considering charging him for any of what Republicans allege the laptop "proves" (corruption, money laundering, etc). DFlhb (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed with DFlhb. I also looked over the articles presented here and there doesn't seem to be any mention of the laptop, and it seems like the "No evidence of illegality by the Bidens has been shown from the laptop contents " statement is not referring to any consideration of gun charges as far as I can tell. DN (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Reframe the article around WP:RS, then merge
It's a mistake to frame this "laptop controversy" as being about the laptop itself, and the NYPost articles. We're backing ourselves into a corner. The laptop story is fundamentally about persistent partisan allegations of crime. It is being treated as such by the media (NYT, The Economist, Vox, NYMag), who have separately analysed the data to attempt to verify these allegations (NBC), and found most were unsupported.
Two intertwined proposals:
- The way to fairly treat such a subject, is not to unduly emphasise partisan reporting. The NYPost's reporting has itself become newsworthy, which justifies covering their claims; but it is not grounds for organising this article around their claims, since they remain an unreliable source. This uses Wikipedia to launder talking points, and anchors our article firmly in partisan miasma. This article should instead be centred around WP:RS coverage of the allegations, treated with the appropriate caution. It currently focuses way too much on the smoke, when it should be centred around whether there's a fire.
- The second proposal flows from the first. Since the main topic should be the allegations, not the NYPost's partisan reporting, the laptop controversy remains indissociable from Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. They both have the same origin point (Giuliani), and allege the same things (Biden-Ukraine). Here's the correct timeline: the repairman's copy of the data was authentic, and given to the FBI. Then a copy was given to Giuliani, who gave it to Bannon, who gave it to the NYPost (NYMag, NYT), and that copy was demonstrably tampered with, with new data from G-d-knows-where (NYMag, WaPo). The NYPost story was based on Giuliani's altered copy; not the laptop itself. That makes the NYPost story (and consequently, the "October surprise") a sub-element of the partisan Biden-Ukraine conspiracy, so a split wasn't warranted. For context, this page was merged into Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory in 2021, and unwisely split back in March 2022.
Give WP:RS coverage of the allegations against Joe and Hunter their own section, trim the NYPost section to focus on the flaws in their story and the October surprise aspects, and have a separate laptop section that explains how it fits into things. Then merge. It's a complex story, and we should make sure appropriate nuance is maintained.
Should the allegations be covered through a WP:RS lens, instead of the NYPost's lens? And should the articles be merged? DFlhb (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Survey II regarding MERGE
- WP:RS and merge, as proposer. We now know the repairman's copy was authentic, and the NYPost's copy was altered. There's no need to spend entire sections on that, which creates needless confusion. As I said earlier, the laptop origin is unproven; its contents are fully authentic, and the NYPost's reporting was not based on the laptop's contents, but on material provided by Republican operatives. If even many editors don't understand this, we can't expect readers to get it. My proposals would trim a lot of the NYPost/laptop cruft, so hopefully these things will become clearer. DFlhb (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support merge to Hunter Biden, Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, and/or other appropriate articles, per WP:PAGEDECIDE, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:10YT. This nothingburger was never worth spinning off from the article about Biden-Ukraine. This whole laptop controversy article can be boiled down into one sentence: "Some of Joe Biden's political opponents said his son's laptop had incriminating evidence on it, but it didn't." It's just one of a series of events comprising Republican attacks on Joe Biden's son, which have been ongoing for years. In February we will have an article about Hunter Biden hearings in the House; everyone can go there to argue about who owned the laptop. If this proposal ends up having legs, someone should probably apply {{merge}} tags to the appropriate articles. Levivich (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose merge - As this isn't a proper 'merge' request & besides, it's best we wait & see what happens, during the Republican-controlled House investigations. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support Merge per my comment in another on this page. There is no controversy except among the WP editors on this page. There was a NY Post story and there have been investigative journalists trying to corroborate it and it turned out little to none of the central points of the story were true. That's not a controversy. Levivich has put it in a nutshell above. We don't have a page on the Ivormectin controversy or the Hillary is gay controversy or the Mitt Romney paid no income tax controversy or the Barry Goldwater wants to launch nukes controversy, usw. There are even fewer RS that refer to a "controversy" about the laptop than say the laptop "belonged to" Hunter Biden. SPECIFICO talk 20:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hate to break it to you, but there is an article on Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 01:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose merge as no policy or guideline reason provided. If it were merged, it would be a disproportionately long section of the other article, which would justify making it its own article. And if as some editors think this turns out to be a Russian forgery, that would be so elaborate and unprecedented that it would probably justify several articles. TFD (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Procedurally, this should not be buried in a subsection. On the merits, this is a story as evidenced by how many articles have been written about it by reliable sources. HB forgetting laptop, Reps altering data, CBS getting clean data, FBI seizing... This doesn't get hand-waved as meh it's nothing. Slywriter (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support merge. This article is fundamentally a WP:POVFORK of that one, in that it gives particular weight to one aspect of that theory and frames it in a way that implies that there was an underlying scandal or support for the underlying allegations, which the sources do not support. --Aquillion (talk) 11:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose merge procedurally, per Slywriter. Also, merging this into any other article would either 1) create an outsized section within that article, or 2) cause lots of sourced content from this article to be removed, PhotogenicScientist (talk) 01:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- @DFlhb there's still no evidence any reporting was based on inauthentic material. We'll need to wait for someone to to compare the "clean" copy files to the other one.
- We know folders were added. We don't know the contents of the folders came from anywhere else but the drive itself. We also don't know about any possible more sophisticated tampering Amthisguy (talk) 07:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support merge. After looking at the above arguments, both for and against, I agree with the perception of a possible POVFORK issue here. "Should the allegations be covered through a WP:RS lens, instead of the NYPost's lens?" - Yes. The details of this topic may evolve and change in the future, but we shouldn't base the WP:WEIGHT of this topic on what may or may not happen in the future. The big picture is about the consensus, or lack thereof, by the majority of RS. DN (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Discussion III
Opening this up is only going to add confusion (if there isn't already), while there's an RFC ongoing. GoodDay (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think they're about different topics, but if other editors think I should withdraw this until the RFC concludes, I will. DFlhb (talk) 01:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Regarding, This uses Wikipedia to launder talking points, and anchors our article firmly in partisan miasma.
- a related point I made a couple of months ago, but I'll repeat in this context: I don't see any "controversy" in the real world. Just controversies among a small number of Wikipedia editors. An allegation (Post story, partisan misinformation) and investigations to confirm or falsify the allegation is not a "controversy". An alternative approach would be to the opposite of what is proposed, namely to identify the Post/Giuliani/Fox misinformation as the subject of the article. Anyway I think DFlhb's points are the basis for fruitful discussion. SPECIFICO talk 02:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- For the record, I had your days-old proposal to remove Hunter's pic in mind while writing my proposal. It was well-intentioned, but I thought it would be window-dressing, when this article will always fundamentally be about allegations (trumped-up, sure). My main issue is that half the country thinks he's a criminal, and people come here to learn the truth about these allegations, yet we obfuscate them by placing them deep in the NYPost section, interwoven with intricate details about the laptop. Making the allegations more prominent (and highlighting their baselessness or debunkings, e.g. the fact that the FBI found insufficient evidence of money laundering) would be fairer to Hunter Biden. I think Hillary Clinton email controversy deals with a similar situation (exaggerated partisan claims of crimes) far better. DFlhb (talk) 03:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- The laptop has notability beyond any accusations that Trump Republicans made. Readers still want to know what's on it and how it came to be in the repair shop. TFD (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- The laptop is not notable, otherwise it would have its own page. As for this page: Most likely it will end up merged into the Hunter Biden bio page as a short paragraph -- likely not even in its own subheading -- relating to the Trump-Ukraine, Biden-Ukraine, etc. conspiracy theories and attempts to fabricate evidence of a corrupt Joe Biden narrative. SPECIFICO talk 17:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- It has received extensive media coverage and so merits its own article, which is this one, whatever it is called. If it was created by the Russians, then it will go down in the annals of spydom, as the most elaborate forgery ever made. TFD (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Per my comment linked above, there's no current reason to expect that it would be a total of more than 6 sentences in the Biden articles, combined, and then maybe a sentence each in various article on Republican conspiracy theories and those who promote them. SPECIFICO talk 21:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'd also add that much of the "controversy" among a small number of WP editors appears to be due to misuse of internet search. Some editors enter search queries that, in effect, instruct google to verify their minority or fringe prior viewpoints. Maybe even views from sources WP considers unreliable or deprecated. Then the search algorithm dutifully returns results for the biased query, and these biased google results are misinterpreted as an unbiased sample of the total of mainstream narratives on the subject. SPECIFICO talk 21:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- It has received extensive media coverage and so merits its own article, which is this one, whatever it is called. If it was created by the Russians, then it will go down in the annals of spydom, as the most elaborate forgery ever made. TFD (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- The laptop is not notable, otherwise it would have its own page. As for this page: Most likely it will end up merged into the Hunter Biden bio page as a short paragraph -- likely not even in its own subheading -- relating to the Trump-Ukraine, Biden-Ukraine, etc. conspiracy theories and attempts to fabricate evidence of a corrupt Joe Biden narrative. SPECIFICO talk 17:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Can you provide a credible source the the NY Post allegations are misinformation? LemonPumpkin (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
We don't know what will occur in the coming months. We can only hope that one way or the other, it'll be over with. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- What about a rename/move? I'm not sure the proposed merge will improve the clarity of the material, but I think perhaps this isn't the right title. "Hunter Biden laptop" ___ story? incident? event? I mean, it is controversial, but the controversy isn't really about the laptop itself but the data and events surrounding the material.Andre🚐 23:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
See this request concerning disputed BLP content SPECIFICO talk 16:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Already seen it. It's likely going to be rejected, as it's a content dispute. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- This Talk page is an utter trainwreck. What are we even discussing now? Is there an open RFC? soibangla (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- There is an ongoing RFC, concerning the lead. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Where is that? I don't see it. soibangla (talk)
- Thank you for your response above. I apologize that I am no longer capable of following this unmitigated fiasco, and I won't attempt to anymore. Have fun, everybody! jfc soibangla (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Well, as I repeated before. The intro will likely go through more changes, in the coming months. What kinda changes? who knows. GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- I, for one, would like to see an acrostic encoded that (if decoded) might prove to have two meanings. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:49, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- Well, as I repeated before. The intro will likely go through more changes, in the coming months. What kinda changes? who knows. GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response above. I apologize that I am no longer capable of following this unmitigated fiasco, and I won't attempt to anymore. Have fun, everybody! jfc soibangla (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Where is that? I don't see it. soibangla (talk)
- There is an ongoing RFC, concerning the lead. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- The first three responses at ARBCOM is that it is a content, not a conduct issue. There's no reason to remove the consensus version reached at the earlier RfC. TFD (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Restructure this page's content around three key topics
Hat ideas based on unreliable source. This is DOA. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The current page is a mix of disparate issues and is confusing to follow. Propose that the page be re-organized around the following three topics, to include a balanced discussion under each topic with arguments and evidence for and against: 1. The Biden family's alleged inappropriate relationship with foreign enemies (China) and Ukraine. (i.e., the two NY Post articles that were banned by Twitter with the help of the FBI) https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/ https://nypost.com/2020/10/15/emails-reveal-how-hunter-biden-tried-to-cash-in-big-with-chinese-firm/ 2. Financial Relationship between Hunter and Joe Biden, and the Uncle James Biden. ("10% for the big guy") As document in emails and text messages found on the laptop. 3. Hunter's illegal and delinquent behavior (drugs, guns, and prostitutes). This type of behavior from the adult son of a president is newsworthy. This is all documented in the emails, text messages, photos, and videos found on the laptop. Whatever folks think about these three topics, the need to be dealt with separately rather than the current mish-mash. LemonPumpkin (talk) 22:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
|
"No evidence of illegality by the Bidens"
The word for word quote from politifact, the source is "Nothing from the laptop has revealed illegal or unethical behavior by Joe Biden as vice president with regard to his son's tenure as a director for Burisma" Nothing in the source or elsewhere in the wikipedia article suggests extending that claim to Hunter Biden, who is under investigation for tax fraud. Amthisguy (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Good point. This is classic SYNTH. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- I thought we had agreed to reword that line for precision a week or so ago? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
+1 We agreed it should read "by Joe Biden". Also,That's not what is meant by WP:SYNTH. This term has been misused several times recently on this page. Please review the substance of the policy at that link. SPECIFICO talk 21:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)00:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- On November 5 I closed the lead with[60]:
Despite extensive scrutiny of the laptop contents by multiple parties, by September 2022 no clear evidence of criminal activity by the Bidens had surfaced.
- which was a paraphrasing of Intelligencer[61]:
And for all the time they have spent scrutinizing his emails and his dick pics, Maxey and others have yet to find any incontrovertible evidence of criminality.
- which is not limited to Joe or Hunter; it says any criminality.
- At some point this was removed from the lead. I argue it should be restored. soibangla (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- The current state of the lead does not reflect this sourcing. Also throwing in a bit of OR, some of the drugs Hunter consumes in photographs / videos are illegal. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Which would be OR. I know there are allegedly pictures showing Hunter Biden using drugs, but we should stick to what the RS say which is that the laptop data hasn't provided any evidence of criminality. Because a pic of someone smoking what appears to be a drug does not change that. However, according to Washington Post back in October, [62]
Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss, a Trump appointee, must decide whether to charge the son of the current president
withchargeable tax, gun-purchase
crimes.The investigation into Hunter Biden began in 2018
So maybe we should change the description to refer to the lack of illegal or corrupt business dealings.Trump and others argued the data on the laptop showed evidence of unethical and possible illegal business deals; Joe Biden and his supporters denounced the efforts as a smear.
.... It could not be determined for this article whether the laptop and its contents were useful in the Justice Department investigation.
See WP:BLPCRIME Andre🚐 23:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC) - Well yeah,
The current state of the lead does not reflect this sourcing
because it was removed. You have a trivial gotcha with the drugs, but the issue is whether the Bidens were engaged in illegal corruption involving Burisma and China. soibangla (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Which would be OR. I know there are allegedly pictures showing Hunter Biden using drugs, but we should stick to what the RS say which is that the laptop data hasn't provided any evidence of criminality. Because a pic of someone smoking what appears to be a drug does not change that. However, according to Washington Post back in October, [62]
- The current state of the lead does not reflect this sourcing. Also throwing in a bit of OR, some of the drugs Hunter consumes in photographs / videos are illegal. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hunter's tax investigation began in 2018, long before the laptop. soibangla (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
I'll leave it to the rest of you, to figure out what was/wasn't on H. Biden's laptop & how to write it up. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- I've amended to Joe Biden instead of the Biden's while this is sorted. I think we all agree that the sources show nothing on President Biden. I do think the Biden's is accurate as there is no sourcing showing the laptop is central to ongoing investigations. Slywriter (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- That is preferable for now to Ernie's wholesale masking of the reality of the subject matter, sure. People tend to forget that the crux of this entire right-wing conspiracy is that H. Biden was in the Ukraine at the behest of J. Biden, i.e. "the Big Guy". This entire amateur affair was an attempt at am October surprise to tank then-candidate Biden's election bid. Zaathras (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
"after they were allegedly found on a water-damaged MacBook Pro"
This language is from the first sentence of the "Laptop and hard drive" section under "New York Post reporting". The language used by NYT which is referenced by the cited Vox is “from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop.” Vox goes on to say
"Technically, the Times only vouched for certain emails they’d “authenticated” with the help of “people familiar with them and with the investigation.” But the Times reporters also said the cache of files “appears” to have come from a laptop Hunter abandoned at a computer shop — leaning toward, without quite endorsing, a long-questioned account of how the material got out."
The word "appears" refers to something that is probably true, while "allegedly" does the opposite, and is not an accurate or neutral representation of the RS, and should be changed.
Also from the Vox article
"It’s also not clear that any hack happened here at all. Even though the story of the abandoned laptop is bizarre, speculation that there’s more to it remains just speculation."
and "Some commentators did go too far in asserting that this was part of a Russian plot, when the evidence hasn’t emerged to back that up. The Biden campaign similarly sought to cast doubt on the story by alluding that it could be Russian misinformation — when the underlying emails appear to be authentic." Amthisguy (talk) 12:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- There was an RfC on using the term alleged and it was decided that the article should state that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. After the story appeared in the New York Post, mainstream media covered it but used qualified wording because they did not know how accurate the story was. That's how news is reported. For example, on 9/11, news reporters said that apparently an airplane had hit the World Trade Center. We wouldn't use that language today, because no reasonable person questions whether that happened. TFD (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- With due respect, it's not helpful to compare this story to the epic insane conspiracy theories of decades past. Happy new year, TFD. SPECIFICO talk 15:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- With respect, the existence of Hunter Biden's laptop is not a conspiracy theory although the theory it was a forgery comes close to one. There is anyway a similarity between the theory that the laptop was a forgery and 9/11 conspiracy theories. In both cases adherents rely on the fact that initial reporting was guarded. I picked the example because it's well known. TFD (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- With due respect, it's not helpful to compare this story to the epic insane conspiracy theories of decades past. Happy new year, TFD. SPECIFICO talk 15:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- In The Godfather, Brando appeared to be a gangster. But he really was not a gangster. "Appeared" is not "alleged". Superheroes appear to fly and melt solid objects in the cinema, but they are not alleged to have done so. SPECIFICO talk 15:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- And news media reported on election night that Biden had appeared to have won. Only a conspiracy theorist would insist on that phrasing today. TFD (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- @SPECIFICO "alleged" and "appeared" are not interchangeable. In this context "appeared" leans towards being true while "alleged" leans towards being false. And only one represents the source's view, or virtually any RS view after the drive was authenticated, for that matter Amthisguy (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- We're still waiting for the RFC concerning the intro, to be completed & closed/with a decision. GoodDay (talk) 05:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Is it accurate to say this all started with the tabloid (New York Post) in the lead?
With regard to this recent edit [63], please share your opinions here. Thanks. DN (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, the lead should summarize the core facts, and the origin of the matter was the NY Post scoop. The opening sentence needs to say something like, The Hunter Biden laptop controversy originated in a NY Post article published in October, 2020. That establishing sentence should precede the existing lead text. SPECIFICO talk 14:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Let's leave the lead 'alone' for a few weeks, at least. Please. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with the prior discussions and no RfC is proposed. It's an uncontroversial improvement, but since it's been reverted there will need to be a brief talk page ratification before it's reinstated. You'd do well not to escalate straightforward copyedits and NPOV narratives as if they were controversies requiring RfC or other drama. SPECIFICO talk 23:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Seems like an improvement to me -- I haven't heard anyone make an argument against it. Feoffer (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Here's an argument. Let's not push "...belonging to..." further down the lead. We've just been through 'two' RFCs. Let's not start up another 'lead' content dispute. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- So you would be OK putting this text in the second sentence?
That addresses your concern about keeping "belonged to" in the first sentence. Without one of these two additions, in either the first or second sentence, the subsequent reference to the Post makes no sense. SPECIFICO talk 00:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)In October 2020, a controversy emerged involving data from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden that was abandoned at a Delaware computer shop.It began with a NY Post article based on data the newspaper obtained from Rudy Giuliani.
- So you would be OK putting this text in the second sentence?
- Here's an argument. Let's not push "...belonging to..." further down the lead. We've just been through 'two' RFCs. Let's not start up another 'lead' content dispute. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- I don’t think it’s correct, and it depends on how you define what the controversy actually is. As Valjean and JzG have said Rudy was shopping around his copy of the drive well before October 2020. The FBI also obtained the actual laptop even before that. If the controversy is the accusations that there were allegations that the Bidens were behaving inappropriately based on information from the laptop, well that didn’t start in Oct 2020. If the controversy is the attempt to smear the laptop as disinformation and the suppression of the story on social media based on that, then yes that would be accurate. Let’s all pretend we had never heard of this before and give the entire lead a fresh read. Does it correctly portray what the controversy is? I think we need to be more clear about defining the controversy, or perhaps find a better description. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Please read the article and the sources cited in the body. The whole wide world pre-existed October 2020, but the set of facts and narratives that gave rise to this article's content as a separate notable subject began with the Post story, and there is nothing in your post above to the contrary. SPECIFICO talk 01:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- We wouldn't expect the article on the Watergate scandal to begin, "A June, 2020 article in the liberal Washington Post sparked controversy involving an alleged break-in at the DNC HQ." The Dreyfus affair doesn't begin with Zola's article.
- And before any editors say, "These are not comparable, because they were major scandals," let me assure them I am not saying this mini-scandal is major but that articles about major scandals can provide a template for how we cover minor ones.
- At this point, who broke the story is a minor detail, worth mentioning but not in the first sentence. The wording might make readers question the story because of its provenance. But reliable sources have authenticated the existence of the laptop.
- I am surprised that any editors would be defending the subject of this article. While I am not a moralist, I don't see it as exemplary to spend vast amounts of money on illegal drugs and strippers, while ignoring child support and income tax. And if drugs and strippers meant more to them than supporting their children or Big Government, at least they'd negotiate a frequent flyer plan or quantity discount. Just out of curiosity, do any of the other editors spend most of their income on strippers and illegal drugs? TFD (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- It doesn't have to do with major/minor. It has to do with, like, this is not a "scandal". Do you have a source calling the laptop story a "scandal"? Your recent tendency to present wild inapt analogies in lieu of reasoned arguments is rather orthogonal to article improvement. The current text mentions the Post out of the blue later in the paragraph. This would be fixed by the small improvement I have highlighted in green above. SPECIFICO talk 03:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- I more or less agree that there's no need to mention the NY Post in the lead and that it's not a particularly important fact. But I don't understand your moralizing. There's nothing illegal or unethical about strippers in many jurisdictions, nor do we have any reliable sources alleging that Hunter was involved in anything illegal involving strippers or sex workers. A pic of someone smoking a pipe isn't proof of illegal drug possession. So, remember that WP:BLPCRIME presumes Hunter's innocence until we have some evidence in reliable that he was guilty of a crime. Not to mention, unfairly besmirching his reputation per BLP. The tax thing, it is said that there were federal people considering whether Hunter was involved in some kind of a tax crime, and we can talk about what reliable sources have said about it, without implying guilty. "Ignoring income tax" is far beyond what any reliable source says and is a clear-cut BLP violation. Andre🚐 03:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- TFD, It doesn't have to do with major/minor. It has to do with, like, this is not a "scandal". Do you have a source calling the laptop story a "scandal"? Your recent tendency to present wild inapt analogies in lieu of reasoned arguments is rather orthogonal to article improvement. The current text mentions the Post out of the blue later in the paragraph. This would be fixed by the small improvement I have highlighted in green above. SPECIFICO talk 03:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- A "huge" scandal. But more about various government agencies colluding to hoodwink voters than anything about sex and drugs, per that columnist. On a side note, I have no idea what orthogonality is, only that all strippers are not equal and we shouldn't speculate further on the true nature of these ones. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- It's an op-ed that was published in the Washington Post editorial page so it's WP:RSOPINION. But there's also another article in Jacobin that Kmccook recently added that considers the Twitter Files a big deal. However, these minority opinions need to be contextualized. Andre🚐 20:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not proposing a change of any sort here, just showing SPECIFICO a source that calls this story a scandal. Whether a scandal is viewed that way or otherwise is always going to be an opinion. As to the proposed change, I have my thoughts. But they'd just slow things down. No objection, anyway, And yes, TFD, I used to spend most of my income on illegal drugs, but that was before we met. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Your google machine can locate a website that calls just about anything just about anything else. When you start with a fringe POV and end up hanging your hat on an opinion piece at AEI (let alone a screed by Marc Thiessen, who apparently found no mainstream outlet for it, it suggests you might reconsider your assessment of whatever you're trying to demonstrate. SPECIFICO talk 23:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- I didn't feed my machine any fringe POV, just "hunter biden scandal", which seemed to be what you were so interested in seeing. If you don't want it now, fine, but Andrevan's right, it was published in The Washington Post. I'm sure you've cited that opinion section before. Not that it matters, of course. Also of little consequence, I agree that Thiessen seems evil, but think you're using "orthogonal" wrong. Have a nice day! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Your google machine can locate a website that calls just about anything just about anything else. When you start with a fringe POV and end up hanging your hat on an opinion piece at AEI (let alone a screed by Marc Thiessen, who apparently found no mainstream outlet for it, it suggests you might reconsider your assessment of whatever you're trying to demonstrate. SPECIFICO talk 23:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not proposing a change of any sort here, just showing SPECIFICO a source that calls this story a scandal. Whether a scandal is viewed that way or otherwise is always going to be an opinion. As to the proposed change, I have my thoughts. But they'd just slow things down. No objection, anyway, And yes, TFD, I used to spend most of my income on illegal drugs, but that was before we met. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- It's an op-ed that was published in the Washington Post editorial page so it's WP:RSOPINION. But there's also another article in Jacobin that Kmccook recently added that considers the Twitter Files a big deal. However, these minority opinions need to be contextualized. Andre🚐 20:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- A "huge" scandal. But more about various government agencies colluding to hoodwink voters than anything about sex and drugs, per that columnist. On a side note, I have no idea what orthogonality is, only that all strippers are not equal and we shouldn't speculate further on the true nature of these ones. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm never defending the subject of this article -- I just note that we MENTION the NY Post reporting in Sentence 2, but we don't actually introduce it until the second paragraph. Readers will figure it out, but there's room for improvement of some sort there. Feoffer (talk) 03:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Specifico's jumping on the word scandal is a distraction from the discussion. The English language has multiple terms to describe the same thing and it's only an issue when deciding how to use them in the article. Andre's comment that we cannot say Hunter Biden used illegal drugs is also disingenuous, since even his Wikipedia article says he "was discharged from the U.S. Navy Reserve shortly after his commissioning due to a failed drug test....[He] received...a waiver due to a past drug-related incident....it was unlikely that the panel would believe his explanation given his history with drugs." Time has an article, "Hunter Biden On Making His Own Crack, Living with His Dealer and His Family’s Effort to Keep Him Alive" and Joe Biden even discussed it during a presidential debate. And I don't think the fact that strip clubs are legal means there's nothing wrong with spending huge amounts of time and money on them. And I didn't say he violated tax laws, just that he was not paying his taxes on time which is not in itself illegal.
- All of this shows a reluctance on the part of some editors for this article to accurately reflect what has been written about the controversy. But this is not a fake news story invented by a tabloid and a forged laptop created by the Russians. TFD (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, Hunter Biden smoked crack in the past and went to rehab. I believe George W. Bush also had some stories of his past drug use, which he admitted[64] long before becoming President. Admitted past drug use is not evidence of a chargeable crime. To the extent that there are sources that describe this, we can talk about it, but I don't see a source that he's been charged with crimes stemming from a laptop. As far as your contention that there's something wrong with spending time on strip clubs, it's irrelevant so there's no point arguing that point. As far as the misinformation, the misinformation is in claiming that the Hunter Biden laptop contains corrupt dealings with Burisma and Ukraine and Biden the elder. But it's also true that nothing has come from the laptop that ended up with any public information that Hunter Biden was guilty of a chargeable crime, and probably will not, House GOP nonwithstanding. Andre🚐 00:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- TFD, It was you who introduced "scandal". Others just responded. SPECIFICO talk 01:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Given I don't find an adult's addictions all that newsworthy, I really can care less about what pictures were found. Further the pictures revealed no new information.
- On the start of the controversy, I think we can improve the lead by clarifying timelines, however the timeline starts with Hunter Biden forgetting his laptop. No forgotten laptop, No NYPost story. Slywriter (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Not really. It was the public story that started the "controversy". By your logic, we could say it began when Steve Jobs met Wozniak. The critical element of controversy (if any) was public discussion. SPECIFICO talk 04:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- So you can care less about the pictures found? Had the Post not picked up the "story" it would not exist either. Seems like a classic "chicken before the egg" argument I will gladly pass up. I was basically looking to establish consensus on PROVENANCE in this discussion. I'm still hoping for some confirmation by the FBI as to the authenticity of the actual hardware. Until then, the lead sentence is still POV IMO, but Scottish has made their decision, which I will respect, despite not seeing the "rough consensus and the support of the large portion of more recent sources" to that effect. DN (talk) 04:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- @The Four Deuces: What do you recommend we add or subtract from the lead? GoodDay (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- (Ec)An adult with a known drug problem having a laptop with pictures of drug use is tabloid gossip, not encyclopedic content. As for the rest of your statement, that's nice but not worthy of further discussion after 20 threads and 2 RfCs. I believe the lead is the question here, so let's not get off-track.
- As the Laptop being abandoned lead to numerous events, it's quite relevant. FBI, Rep Operatives, NYPost all stem from that moment. The October Surprise portion is specifically the NYPost. Anyway, 1st sentence vs 2nd sentence explaining NYPost is not that far a bridge to cross. Slywriter (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Our second sentence now properly introduces the Post story, rather than just referencing it. With that fix made, I think it's fine to keep sentence 1 as is. Feoffer (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Feoffer, Third sentence needs copyedit. It's missing a word or something. Slywriter (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- Please read the article and the sources cited in the body. The whole wide world pre-existed October 2020, but the set of facts and narratives that gave rise to this article's content as a separate notable subject began with the Post story, and there is nothing in your post above to the contrary. SPECIFICO talk 01:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Slywriter, it doesn't matter what you find newsworthy, what matters is what news media find newsworthy. "An article...should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." It also doesn't matter if SPECIFICO and Andre condone spending a small fortune on crack and strippers instead of paying child support, taxes and other debts, but rather the weight of opinion on these actions in reliable sources. Anyway, if these actions are not in themselves unethical or illegal, then there is no BLP reason for excluding them. TFD (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- There is, because BLP says not to write an unduly negative tone or attack pages. It damages the reputation to focus on these issues. And there really isn't significant weight in reliable sources nor have you explained how it's related to the laptop, nor have you offered a source for the idea that Hunter was spending a "small fortune... instead of paying child support" Andre🚐 18:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- It hasn't been determined, if this page falls under BLP. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Any content dealing with a living or recently deceased person falls under BLP, regardless of what article, talk page, or any other page it appears on. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- @ScottishFinnishRadish: an editor recently left a 'edit-warring' warning template on my talkpage, concerning this article, even though I didn't edit-war. If you're an administrator? I recommend you keep a close eye on this page. We can't have anybody trying to 'scare' folks away from this article. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hmmm... I actually agree with your sentiment here, and while I do assume good faith in your edits such as this [65], there were some odd inconsistencies at times... [66], [67]. Perhaps we can agree that creating discussion and consensus is a priority, and that "scaring folks away" should not be tolerated? DN (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- @ScottishFinnishRadish: an editor recently left a 'edit-warring' warning template on my talkpage, concerning this article, even though I didn't edit-war. If you're an administrator? I recommend you keep a close eye on this page. We can't have anybody trying to 'scare' folks away from this article. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- Any content dealing with a living or recently deceased person falls under BLP, regardless of what article, talk page, or any other page it appears on. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- It hasn't been determined, if this page falls under BLP. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Distributed Denial of Secrets is not a reliable source.
The paragraph on Distributed Denial of Secrets is not a reliable source has other comparatively minor issues, but number one is that it's an unreliable, user generated source. It's a wikileaks style source, which is listed by wikipedia as unreliable. As a primary source it lacks verifiability and as a secondary source it lacks editorial oversight. Further. Cyberscoop quoting Ddos's unreliable analysis doesn't help. It's fundamentally no differant than if wikipedia quoted a source quoting wikipedia original user generated research. Although it does call in to question Cyberscoops own reliability, depeding on low quality sources. Amthisguy (talk) 07:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. It was briefly discussed in this section (now archived). I didn't find any of the arguments for the source compelling. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- I already updated the paragraph, per WP:BLPRS. It hasn't been challenged yet, but it may very well be. Reviewing the other thread, it does appear there is rough consensus that the source is self published, which per WP:SELFPUBLISHED, is a policy violation:
- "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." (Emphasis in original)
- There is also clearly no consensus that it's a high quality source, which would need to be the case for the claim it made.
- And in reference to specifico's comment in the other thread, the policy based reasons for the exclusion of the source have been clearly articulated if they weren't already. Amthisguy (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Amthisguy: What comment please? SPECIFICO talk
- This one. "I see no basis whatsoever to exclude that RS and I do not see anyone articulating any reasoning othere than that they personally had not heard of it -- a standard that would exclude most RS and indeed most of everything extant in the known universe." link Amthisguy (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
submitted for your consideration
Draft:House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family
Please feel free to dive in. soibangla (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Dive in to what, a Miscellany for Deletion filing on it? You have a routine story of "we found documents in an old office, let's follow procedure and notify Archives" here, there's nothing of substance. Mar-a-lago is a story due to a) the subject's past disregard for presidential norms, guidelines, policies, and federal laws, and b) the fact that agents had to enter the premises to seize documents. Trying to create a page out of this is the epitome of WP:FALSEBALANCE being done at the article-level, rather than in-article. Zaathras (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm confused. Is this some kind of merge proposal? Sorry, I'd rather not assume anything here with all due respect. DN (talk) 04:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Recommend we just relax. If anything major occurs in the coming days/weeks, then it'll be dealt with. GoodDay (talk) 06:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Are attributions not allowed in the lead?
With regard to this revert by Mr. Ernie [68]. The edit summary reads "Hunter Biden signed for it and there are no other credible explanations". Where does the cited source state this? The citation is clear "Data from a laptop that the lawyer for a Delaware computer repair shop owner says was left by Hunter Biden in 2019". It also says "In a statement, an attorney for Hunter Biden said "there have been multiple attempts to hack, infect, distort, and peddle misinformation regarding Mr. Biden's devices and data." Should this be included as well to avoid POV? Seemingly nowhere does this source seem to even mention the signature, as Mr. Ernie suggests...DN (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Would it not be better, just to let this page settle for a bit? Unless or until major events occur, in the coming days/weeks. GoodDay (talk) 06:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- No, wikis aren't pineapple upside down cakes -- they never need to "settle". We will never stop updating this article or trying to improve it. The proposed changes aren't an improvement, but nobody's ever going to stop updating wikis. That's the nature of a wiki. Feoffer (talk) 09:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hunter Biden's attorney is partisan and wouldn't be a useful addition to the lead paragraph. So far, we haven't heard any serious rebuttal to the idea that a laptop with data belonging to Hunter Biden was abandoned at a Delaware computer store. There's still a lot of room for improvement in the lead, but attributing the abandonment to the owner's lawyer wouldn't be an improvement. The furthest we could go would be attributing it to the computer store owner, but even that seems unnecessary. Feoffer (talk) 09:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
That attribution needs to be reinstated. Like the cited CBS source, the WEIGHT of mainstream narratives attributes the dropoff bit to the statements of Mac Isaac and his attorney. The edit summary for the revert of the attribution is pure WP:OR, which is unacceptable for sensitive BLP content. Edits that stem from a WP editor's preconceptions, or from an editor's casual acceptance of non-RS narratives cannot be justified for article content, let alone BLP content. Moreover, in his various video appearances on Fox and elsewhere, Mac Isaac carefully frames his story in terms of his blindness and other factors that preclude a definitive BLP statement about Hunter Biden. See (hear) for example this audio of Mac Isaac himself SPECIFICO talk 12:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
The current version simply states the reality that the laptop was abandoned at the repair shop. This avoids the need to give a weak attribution about who dropped it off. The reader is free to speculate - it could have been Hunter, a ghost, or even a Russian spy. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- RS do not state that they know that anyone "dropped it off" because the laptop was first revealed when the Post story broke, via collaboration with other Trump-affiliated operatives. "Dropped off at the repair shop fails verification in RS. It does not address the issue and the reinsertion of that unverified content, after the attribution was conformed to the statement in the cited source, is a disallowed BLP violation. SPECIFICO talk 16:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Do we really need to know who dropped it off? It was dropped off, enough said. For the time being, I don't see it as something for folks to obsess about. PS - I think we can agree, it wasn't teleported there. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Please read my comment immediately above. We do not know that it was "dropped off". And your WP:OR is not relevant to the discussion and is certainly no justification for unverified BLP content. We do not know that it was "dropped off". For one counterexample, it could have been sourced in Ukraine or the US by Republican/Trump affiliates and placed with the sight-impaired man in the shop. Please read the cited source and refrain from deflections such as teleport in lieu of Reliable Source verification. SPECIFICO talk 16:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)