InedibleHulk (talk | contribs) m →Consensus required restriction: Fame ain't the name of the game here. |
Nonperson1 (talk | contribs) Tags: Reverted use of deprecated (unreliable) source Reply |
||
Line 1,261: | Line 1,261: | ||
:::'''To everyone else''': I find it a bit suspicious that Nonperson1 just showed up ten days ago, [[Special:Contributions/Nonperson1|made a bunch of now reverted edits to a page and now has appeared here]]. I have no evidence that they are a sock puppet account, but it looks suspicious. Regardless of whether anything they say might agree or disagree with me, a sock puppet account is not allowed. |
:::'''To everyone else''': I find it a bit suspicious that Nonperson1 just showed up ten days ago, [[Special:Contributions/Nonperson1|made a bunch of now reverted edits to a page and now has appeared here]]. I have no evidence that they are a sock puppet account, but it looks suspicious. Regardless of whether anything they say might agree or disagree with me, a sock puppet account is not allowed. |
||
:::[[User:RoyLeban|RoyLeban]] ([[User talk:RoyLeban|talk]]) 09:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC) |
:::[[User:RoyLeban|RoyLeban]] ([[User talk:RoyLeban|talk]]) 09:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC) |
||
::::This is a community of partisans, who seem intent on deleting and banning anyone that writes anything that goes against their leftist political agenda according to these sources: [https://www.allsides.com/blog/wikipedia-biased] [https://www.newsmax.com/us/wikipedia-liberal-activist-website/2020/11/29/id/999156/] [https://thecritic.co.uk/the-left-wing-bias-of-wikipedia/] More available, if you need. |
|||
::::One, unless you intend to have "alleged" in front of every single word in an article, you have to consider what level of skepticism is appropriate. Even with a photo of Hunter dropping of the laptop the article could say "an alleged photo of allegedly Hunter allegedly dropping off allegedly the laptop" as each particular could be true or false and require its own independent and perfect proof. Are you sure it's a photo and not a fake? Are you sure, even if a photo, he was dropping off the laptop? Etc. |
|||
::::Or, we could be somewhat reasonable. There is a [https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2020/10/918/516/Biden-docs-1.jpg?ve=1&tl=1 slip] from the shop signed by Biden. The owner is an eyewitness ([https://www.foxnews.com/video/6225508218001 testimony]) (he isn't completely blind, but is visually impaired) and there is a call from Biden's attorney where the attorney makes reference to Hunter's having dropped off the laptop (see prior link). The FBI took [https://www.the-sun.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2020/10/NINTCHDBPICT000615386481.jpg?w=620 possession] of it. The forensics experts believe the laptop is [https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-doj-fbi-confirm-hunter-biden-laptop-is-not-part-of-russian-disinformation-campaign authentic] and [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hunter-biden-laptop-data-analysis/ unadulterated]. There are defamation cases filed against news outlets and Biden regarding their slandering the shop owner as participating in criminal activity. Suits such as these put the claims of the shop owner under intense scrutiny, something he is unlikely to do if the claims he made are false.[https://thefederalist.com/2022/10/20/russian-disinfo-huh-computer-store-owner-sues-hunter-biden-campaign-for-defamation-over-laptop/] |
|||
::::"-Computer Forensics Services' chief technology officer, Mark Lanterman, said he believes it's clear the data was created by Hunter Biden. "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," he said."[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hunter-biden-laptop-data-analysis/][https://www.cbsnews.com/video/copy-of-hunter-biden-laptop-data-appears-genuine-independent-experts-find/#x] |
|||
::::Various media [https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-new-york-times-admits-authenticity-of-hunter-biden-s-laptop/ar-AAVcQ2V outlets] (some a year+ after the fact) acknowledge it is authentic as well. I can give you other sources for these, but I have a sneaking suspicion that nothing, even an admission by Biden on tape, would count for some people as proof enough to not remove every usage of "conspiracy theory" and "alleged" in the article. At the least, Hunter did not deny the laptop was his with CBS, but said it "[https://www.foxnews.com/video/6246355880001 could be]". |
|||
::::And now, you try to get my account blocked - calling me a [[sock puppet account]] because I make a comment on a Talk page? What's your source for the claim that this is a sock puppet account? You are right that I am new here (which is hardly an indictment for a system dependent on new users) and am still learning the rules and formats. Does this make my edits false? Personally, I am more curious about the motivations and financial funding behind people who spend their days deleting other people's politically uncomfortable edits and trying to get users who make comments banned. [[User:Nonperson1|Nonperson1]] ([[User talk:Nonperson1|talk]]) 15:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:50, 31 January 2023
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
"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)
- [36] 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)
Is it accurate to say this all started with the tabloid (New York Post) in the lead?
With regard to this recent edit [37], 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[38] 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 [39], there were some odd inconsistencies at times... [40], [41]. 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)
OK, this is live now: United States House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family soibangla (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- James Comer feels like the second-likeliest typo after James Comet for James Comey, but the more believable. That'd be OR and UNDUE in the article. But here? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- I reckon so. Sorry, but I don't have a Rod Serling quote for this, in response to the discussion heading. GoodDay (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Are attributions not allowed in the lead?
With regard to this revert by Mr. Ernie [42]. 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)
- This is a silly thing to discuss. Laptops are not able to ambulate by themselves. A motive species, most likely a human, maybe Hunter Biden, maybe a Russian disinformer, maybe a FedEx delivery driver, maybe a professional laptop planter, or maybe a laptop retriever dog, took the laptop to the repair shop. Since editors don't seem to believe the Hunter Biden signature is well sourced enough, and therefore we can't say in wikivoice that Hunter dropped it off, we just say it was abandoned to keep it simple. The rest of the details are appropriately reserved for the body. The FBI took possession of the laptop in 2019, therefore they knew about the laptop before the Post story broke. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- The issue is this. Puerile attempts at humor insult every editor who takes the time to read them.They fail our standard for BLP content. Unless there's substantive sourced support for saying the thing was abandoned -- which RS do not say in any form the origin needs to be attributed to the statements of the partisans from whom they originated. SPECIFICO talk 19:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- This is a silly thing to discuss. Laptops are not able to ambulate by themselves. A motive species, most likely a human, maybe Hunter Biden, maybe a Russian disinformer, maybe a FedEx delivery driver, maybe a professional laptop planter, or maybe a laptop retriever dog, took the laptop to the repair shop. Since editors don't seem to believe the Hunter Biden signature is well sourced enough, and therefore we can't say in wikivoice that Hunter dropped it off, we just say it was abandoned to keep it simple. The rest of the details are appropriately reserved for the body. The FBI took possession of the laptop in 2019, therefore they knew about the laptop before the Post story broke. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:21, 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)
- I'm going to tell anyone who asks it was the laptop retriever dog. In fact, I may tell people who would never even think to ask. We'll see which doggone accepted narrative prevails by June! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:01, 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)
it could have been sourced in Ukraine or the US by Republican/Trump affiliates and placed with the sight-impaired man in the shop.
"placed with" is equivalent to "dropped off", is it not? Feoffer (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)- No, not at all. It could have been placed with Mac Isaac, meaning planted with him so that he could falsely claim everything he said to Fox Media and in his conspiracy theory-filled video interviews. I'm disappointed you would not understand the issue here. We have no RS cited that has been prepared to state that the device was "dropped off" = "brought to the shop as a repair customer." Placed is not the same as dropped off. If failed to clarify the distinction above, I believe I have done so now. SPECIFICO talk 22:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- In my dictionary, though, a drop-off is just the act or an instance of making a usually brief deposit or delivery. Doesn't matter who or why. Anyway, I fixed an incriminating typo in your second sentence, hope that's cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- No, not at all. It could have been placed with Mac Isaac, meaning planted with him so that he could falsely claim everything he said to Fox Media and in his conspiracy theory-filled video interviews. I'm disappointed you would not understand the issue here. We have no RS cited that has been prepared to state that the device was "dropped off" = "brought to the shop as a repair customer." Placed is not the same as dropped off. If failed to clarify the distinction above, I believe I have done so now. SPECIFICO talk 22:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
On April 12, the laptops were dropped off at Mac Isaac’s repair shop.
from The Washington Post. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Best we leave the content-in-question as is, for the time being. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Sounds like you're discouraging debate again...It seems like some of us are saying we should not use attributions in the lead. I am trying to AGF, but I get the feeling we are using Wikivoice in this manner to lean into a POV as to placate our far right readers and editors, not because it is what RS state. If that is inaccurate please correct me and explain the logic that is being used here. DN (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Requesting verification of recent edit
@Amthisguy: Regarding this edit you recently made. I do not find the wording you attributed to the cited NY Times reference. Could they perhaps be from a different reference that needs to be used? Please take a look. SPECIFICO talk 16:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- At the bottom of the article there are 2 editor notes/corrections. They load after the main article text, and aren't showing up on the wayback machine archive, but they are there. On the top it also mentions that it was updated on Dec. 8th, that's the correction it's reffering to. Amthisguy (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oh. Weird it didn't show up on a page search for me. At any rate, it reads a bit strange in the article, because Biden has equivocated and carefully avoided outright claiming the device was not his. So the wording from the Times sounds as if it is rebutting something that was not said. Thanks for the explanation. Interestingly, that Times article does not Verify "abandoned" but instead says "dropped off", which would be consistent with a delivery from a Trump ally for the purpose of setting the stage for the FBI and Fox Media notifications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 16:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- I only meant to rebut his claim that it could have been stolen. Amthisguy (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
This article is an example of why Wikipedia is a failure
The very first sentence of this article has a statement which is false, yet it is apparently the "consensus" that it should be there. I corrected it and the fix was reverted very quickly. The laptop in question may have been owned by Hunter Biden. It may have been taken by him to the repair shop. It may have been abandoned by him. Yet, no proof has ever emerged that definitively shows any of those three statements to be true, and no proof is cited in this article. There is proof that a hard drive with data supposedly copied from the laptop's hard drive contained data that was Hunter Biden's. Similarly, there is proof that same data has other data that is clearly non Hunter Biden's on it. And, an analysis has shown that there were potentially incriminating emails sent to Hunter Biden in that data. The emails are real, but no evidence has been found that Hunter Biden received or read those emails (all verification is about the sender, not the receiver). That's the truth. Why doesn't Wikipedia care about the truth?
The lede of this article must use a word such as "claimed" or "believed" or "asserted". A definitive statement is, effectively, a lie. RoyLeban (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- We've been through two RFCs on this matter. We really don't want to go through a third one. Best to drop the stick, RoyLeban. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- We just follow what the sources say. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- Several editors have spent months, seems like years, battering each other bloody over this. We had an RFC last summer that concluded the laptop once belonged to Hunter. Just when you think the article has reached some semblance of stability, someone barges in, flips the table over and rewrites the lead. Seriously, this may be the most brutally debated article in Wikipedia history. soibangla (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- RoyLeban, while you're making an argument in good faith, we've had several RFCs and the consensus was to say Hunter did once own the laptop. Consensus can change but you haven't provided any new evidence or sources. So as of right now while I welcome a user around since 2009 popping by to contribute, you had best back away from the dead horse carcass on this narrow point, though there are undoubtedly other improvements to make. Wikipedia doesn't specifically care about truth but rather verifiability. Andre🚐 23:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
This article is an example of why Wikipedia is a failure
. This is a very unique case and a lot of things had to come together to create this failure. A non-admin closed the first RFC and later acknowledged the close did not represent consensus. At the close review, discussion was derailed when someone tried to overturn on the basis of bigotry against the closer's demographics rather than a valid reason -- so the admins promptly rejected overturning it with extreme prejudice. Then you add in that the Hunter Biden camp doesn't actually deny that the laptop might be his, and that CBS has forensically validated a "clean copy" -- it becomes increasingly tempting to be lazy about meeting WP:V and instead just sweep the remaining doubts under the rug. Feoffer (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)- @Feoffer: You've misrepresented my request for a close review in what amounts to a serious [[WP:NPA|personal attack}}. Please have a look at the close review and correct your statement above. SPECIFICO talk 23:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- @SPECIFICO:, I offer you the biggest on-wiki apology I have ever given! I do not believe I have EVER made any mistake as bad as the one I just made. I am embarrassed to have recorded that wrong in my mind, and I'm embarrassed for how that mistake has colored everything I've ever said to you and every word I ever read from you. Thank you for correcting me. I'm deeply sorry. Feoffer (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- An actual apology on Wikipedia? This is unprecedented! Has there been a disruption in the spacetime continuum? soibangla (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- It's proof that WP is not broken. By the way, you stole my line, soibangla, but I give you permission to use it, with attribution.;-) Carlstak (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- Well let's not go crazy -- yes, I mistook one username for another, but RoyLeban's concerns aren't invalidated by my misreading. But damn I do feel bad about the error -- sorry Specifico! My only defense is that I had been reading small-print 1940s-era newsprint all day every day during the week, so maybe eyestrain was a factor in me overlooking the true author of the anti-Christian comment. Feoffer (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- It's proof that WP is not broken. By the way, you stole my line, soibangla, but I give you permission to use it, with attribution.;-) Carlstak (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- An actual apology on Wikipedia? This is unprecedented! Has there been a disruption in the spacetime continuum? soibangla (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- @SPECIFICO:, I offer you the biggest on-wiki apology I have ever given! I do not believe I have EVER made any mistake as bad as the one I just made. I am embarrassed to have recorded that wrong in my mind, and I'm embarrassed for how that mistake has colored everything I've ever said to you and every word I ever read from you. Thank you for correcting me. I'm deeply sorry. Feoffer (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Feoffer: You've misrepresented my request for a close review in what amounts to a serious [[WP:NPA|personal attack}}. Please have a look at the close review and correct your statement above. SPECIFICO talk 23:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Some responses:
- GoodDay - Unfortunately, RfCs are flawed. A tiny, tiny number of generally uninformed but interested people vote (or don't vote, if you prefer that term) on a "consensus." What Wikipedia needs is RfT (Request for Truth).
- Mr Ernie - This article is not following the sources, at least not in the lede. Can anyone point to a single, unbiased source that says any of the following is definitively true? (a) the laptop exists and unquestionably belonged to Hunter Biden, (b) Hunter Biden personally dropped off the laptop at the repair shop, (c) Hunter Biden personally "abandoned" the laptop at the repair shop, (d) all of the data on the laptop unquestionably belonged to Hunter Biden, (d) all of the data provided by Rudolph Giuliani unquestionably came from Hunter Biden, (e) emails included in the data were unquestionably received by and read by Hunter Biden. The answer to all of these is NO. Therefore, the lede says something which is unsourced (and also false) and that material should be removed.
- soibangla and Andre wrote, respectively, "We had an RFC last summer that concluded the laptop once belonged to Hunter" and "we've had several RFCs and the consensus was to say Hunter did once own the laptop" — this is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. What you claim happened would be considered original research. The fact is that the sources do not support the statement in the lede (see above, and this article itself), and that is what an RfC is supposed to figure out. At best, it is unknown if the laptop was Hunter Biden's, the data is real, etc. At worst, it's part of a Russian disinformation campaign. What we do know for sure — based on the sources — is that there is not definitive proof that the statement in the very first sentence is true. The lede violates Wikipedia policy.
- Feoffer wrote "Then you add in that the Hunter Biden camp doesn't actually deny that the laptop might be his, and that CBS has forensically validated a "clean copy"" —
- People who do not have an agenda of disinformation try not to state things as true that are not definitely true. We all know Rudolph Giuliani and the Russians don't have those scruples. This is unfortunate here.
- Much, maybe most, of the data in the data dump (which may or may not have been on the purported laptop) is clearly Hunter Biden's data, but there are many of ways it could have gotten in a data dump. The existence of some valid data does not prove that all data is valid. That is a logical fallacy. (It also doesn't prove any data is invalid.)
- CBS did not validate a "proven clean copy". CBS explicitly said that they "believed" it to be a clean copy. There are unquestionable chain of custody issues — for example, in the intervening three years, bad actors could have carefully scrubbed a doctored data dump to make sure that there were no longer any telltale indicators of editing after March 2019. Forensic analysis of emails have focused on validating that the emails were actually sent as indicated, not that they were actually received by or read by Hunter Biden. That's not the fault of the forensic analysts — there is no unforgeable way to prove that an email was received or read.
I don't think this is general laziness, as Feoffer suggests. I think it indicative of a critical flaw in Wikipedia itself. The fact that an unsourced and untrue statement is in the first sentence of this article about a "hot button" topic is as big a violation of what Wikipedia is supposed to be as there is. And, apparently two RfCs have let it stand.
When I happened to come across this page and saw the first line, contradicted by the article itself, I figured some anti-Biden editor had inserted an incorrect, obviously biased statement, one not supported by sources. So, naturally, I fixed it. At the time, it didn't even occur to me that two(!) RfCs had let that statement stand. To make sure I'm clear, I am NOT saying that the laptop did not belong to Hunter Biden and that the data on the supposed "clean copy" is not completely his data. I don't know that. What I am saying is that, as of right now, nobody knows definitively one way or another, and there is also no reputable, unbiased source that states it as fact, and that therefore the article should not state it as fact.
I am aware that we are not going to fix Wikipedia here, but can we manage to fix this article? RoyLeban (talk) 10:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- A majority of editors have expressed support for a compromise that refocuses the lead on the laptop data, which has been verified to belong to Hunter Biden, rather than the physical device, which as yet has not been authenticated. Nobody cares about the device's provenance anymore -- the data is what matters. The present wording and sourcing suffices, but the right advocate could easily generate a consensus for a lead centered on the laptop data verified by CBS.
No POV would LOSE, all POVs would win without distracting the reader with spurious doubts over the physical device -- that's like asking: Yes, it's a genuine Hunter Biden email, but was it really printed on paper handled by Hunter Biden??? Who the heck cares?!? There's a simple solution here, and it's to stop arguing about the "paper" and focus on the "data". Feoffer (talk) 11:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)- The compromise doesn't work because:
- The first sentence includes the phrase "data from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden", when this is disputed.
- The first sentence includes the phrase "that was abandoned at a Delaware computer shop", when this is disputed.
- The data has not been verified as belonging to Hunter Biden; it has been verified that it appears to belong to Hunter Biden. Some of the data is verifiable and probably has been verified (e.g., emails that he sent that others have received), but not all of it. There is no reputable source that says that all of the data (even on the "clean copy") absolutely belongs to Hunter Biden. And that's because no analysis can prove ownership of documents in a situation like this. It just isn't technically possible. Even CBS knows this (see here: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hunter-biden-laptop-data-analysis/), emphasis mine: Computer Forensics Services' chief technology officer, Mark Lanterman, said he believes it's clear the data was created by Hunter Biden." And remember this is the copy with a three-year chain of custody problem, not mentioned in the article.
- [Side note: Why can't it be proven? Documents sometimes have metadata which allows us to disprove things, like that a document can't have been created before a certain date, but documents without cryptographic signatures, which is almost all of them, do not provide a mechanism to prove even so much as a creation date (dates are surprisingly easy to forge); emails are an exception because of headers which can prove that a message was sent, and what path it took, but we still can't prove delivery or that a message was read.]
- The article should not state something as fact which cannot be proven (and for which, not surprisingly, no source exists that states it unequivocally as fact).
- The idea of focusing on the data is fine, but the phrasing doesn't do that, and the lede still should not state as fact things that are known not to be facts. RoyLeban (talk) 11:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- The status quo is not the proposed compromised. The compromise proposal is to defer all mention of the physical device to lower in the article and focus the lead sentence on the data. Feoffer (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm confused. I'm responding to what people wrote here. The RfCs are referred to in the past tense. If they have been closed, why has the article not been updated. Also, it seems to me that my edit was very much in the spirit of the compromise, with the caveat that it does not state definitively that the data was Hunter Biden's, because that is not known. RoyLeban (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- If you go look at the last RFC, the "compromise" proposal ('laptop data') was a late-added option five. The rfc was closed on "status quo", NOT the compromise proposal -- but closer explicitly opined that the compromise proposal might garner consensus. I agree the situation is a little outrageous. The compromise would be one way to move forward. Another way forward would be to get any RS from the past six months ever denying or opining that the device belonged to Biden -- I've looked and I can't find anyone seriously debating against that point. Feoffer (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm confused. I'm responding to what people wrote here. The RfCs are referred to in the past tense. If they have been closed, why has the article not been updated. Also, it seems to me that my edit was very much in the spirit of the compromise, with the caveat that it does not state definitively that the data was Hunter Biden's, because that is not known. RoyLeban (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
What you claim happened would be considered original research. The fact is that the sources do not support the statement in the lede
I recommend you actually review the RFC Andre🚐 18:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- The status quo is not the proposed compromised. The compromise proposal is to defer all mention of the physical device to lower in the article and focus the lead sentence on the data. Feoffer (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- The compromise doesn't work because:
- Roy, to answer your questions, starting with a:
"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, which states
House Republicans and their staff have been studying messages and financial transactions found on a now notorious laptop that belonged to Hunter.
- for b - the article doesn't say that.
- for c - the article doesn't say that.
- for d - the article doesn't say that.
- for e - the article doesn't say that.
- You also say
At worst, it's part of a Russian disinformation campaign.
Can you provide a source that has evidence of that? And no, I'm not talking about that Natasha Bertrand Politico piece, which goes out of its way to stateWhile the letter’s signatories presented no new evidence...
. There's also a Vox piece which statesAnd 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.
andSome 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.
There was a lot of misinformation early on in this saga that has become deeply rooted, which is part of why this article is so hard to update. Roy, where are your sources? Mr Ernie (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)- With respect to your four references, none of those articles are acceptable sources on ownership of the laptop. They are passing references which are merely repeating what has been said elsewhere (by unacceptable sources). Things don't become true because they are repeated, no matter how often. Can you point to an acceptable source that actually states with authority, and with evidence, and not as a passing reference, that any of a through e are true?
- With respect to b through e, this article clearly implies (b), (c), and (e). As an example, the last paragraph of the first section reads " Two forensic analysts who independently examined the data for The Washington Post authenticated 1,828 and 22,000 emails" without the important qualification that only incoming emails could be authenticated and such authentication did not prove that they had been received by Hunter Biden or read by him. Yes, the WaPo and CBS all gloss over this (reporters don't understand it), but it's explained in the details. You are write that the article does not state (d) but it is easy to misread, plus bad actors are claiming it to be true — the article should be clear.
- I did not state that it is part of a Russian disinformation campaign, but there are plenty of sources that say that it is, and we absolutely know that this is the sort of the thing Russian agents do, plus there have been numerous reports that Rudolph Giuliani and Trump himself have been compromised. We also know that there are at least two different versions of the data dump, which is very suspicious. There are clearly bad actors somewhere, so the fact that those bad actors are Russian agents, or affiliated with Russia, is not much of a stretch. This issue is already addressed in the article (the word "disinformation" appears 18 times and the word "Russian" appears 27 times). I am not proposing changes to that at this time as my focus is on the inaccurate and unsourced lede. This is the Talk page, not the article.
- RoyLeban (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- I agree there are still many unknowns about this whole thing, but that has not stopped a narrative from solidifying in certain circles: "the laptop has been proven to be Hunter's, the NYT finally admitted everything on it is real, therefore the NY Post was right all along and it's been proven it wasn't a Russian disinfo op." Some editors appear to buy into that narrative, I do not. That said, there was an RFC about Hunter's ownership, though I hasten to add I was not present for that discussion. soibangla (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- A "narrative solidifying" (great term, that) does not mean anything. The fact that there are people who believe, without evidence, certain things, does not make them true. Echo chambers repeating the same unproven, unverified statements does not suddenly make them true. The FACT is that it is a claim, not a fact, and the lede, and the article, should reflect that. There's really no debate here — with no source that isn't just an echo, the statement cannot be made. I am astounded that anybody would argue otherwise! RoyLeban (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- To add another point, there are millions of people who believe Donald Trump's lies that the 2020 election was "stolen". Does the article on the election start by repeating that lie? No, it does not. In fact, it states that it is a lie. In this case, we don't know the truth, and we should not pretend that we do, no matter how many people say so. I would also object if the article started with a statement like "...a laptop falsely claimed to belong to Hunter Biden...". Although I suspect that may be true, it is also not a proven fact, and there are no sources which state definitively that it is not his laptop (though there are reputable sources that state that some of the data in some of the data dumps appear to be forged). RoyLeban (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- There are no sources who present a single shred of evidence that the laptop or anything associated with it are Russian disinformation. Most of the sources who even suggest it go out of their way to say there’s no evidence so far. It’s always fun to debate but if you aren’t going to present sourcing to support content improvement suggestions then we are kind of wasting our time. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- This may be one of the few points we agree on, but it doesn't change the fact that there is some serious cherrypicking going on from the cited sources, and the Russia aspect is being used as a strawman/red herring. DN (talk) 05:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- The article already talks about the possibility of a Russian disinformation campaign. None of those edits came from me. The only edit I have ever made to this article has been reverted. My personal opinion is irrelevant here.
- My suggestion for content improvement was in my edit and is in the comments above. State, accurately, matching reputable sources, that the laptop is claimed to belong to Hunter Biden, that the data is claimed to be his, etc. Going beyond that is stating something for which there is not a reliable, unbiased source which is not simply an echo. For example, a reliable source would detail evidence proving the claim. Such a source does not exist. RoyLeban (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- If you don't like the RFC decision? Then bring your comlaint/challenge to the appropriate board. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- This is not about any RfC decision (although it is quite obvious that process is flawed). It is about the inaccurate, unsourced lede that does not belong on Wikipedia. If you think there is an appropriate board to bring this to, feel free to suggest it. Absent that, it seems like this is the best place to find editors willing to assist in fixing this. RoyLeban (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- If you don't like the RFC decision? Then bring your comlaint/challenge to the appropriate board. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- I agree there are still many unknowns about this whole thing, but that has not stopped a narrative from solidifying in certain circles: "the laptop has been proven to be Hunter's, the NYT finally admitted everything on it is real, therefore the NY Post was right all along and it's been proven it wasn't a Russian disinfo op." Some editors appear to buy into that narrative, I do not. That said, there was an RFC about Hunter's ownership, though I hasten to add I was not present for that discussion. soibangla (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- We already had two RFC on this matter. Your not liking the results, isn't going to overturn them. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- You haven't read what I've written or you are ignoring it. I didn't even know about the RfC's. I assumed it was the work of a malicious editor. Why else would the lede state something that was untrue, unsourced, and contradicted by the article itself? That said, the result of the RfC is that the current lede and what is supposedly "consensus" is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. And it's also a false statement. RoyLeban (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- Two RfCs that discussed the issue ad nauseum are conclusive evidence that no policy is violated as no consensus can overrule policy. It is also consensus, so no quotes needed. As the last was closed by an admin, there isn't even the "taint" of non-adminstrator closing. So instead of repeatedly stating the lede violates policy, show sources that provide evidence that GRU or the Easter Bunny dropped off the laptop. Funny thing about any claims that it's not his laptop is they also lack any coherent narrative of how the laptop wound up there (and let's not forget the two other laptops that were picked up). Slywriter (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Two RfCs that discussed the issue ad nauseum
But you do notice that there's an apparently unending stream of new editors showing up at this article asking us to improve it. When I first got here, the lede was far worse -- we just cited ownership outright without any inline sourcing! I can live with this status quo, i've "dropped the stick". But this discussion will keep occurring until we improve the article to the point that casual readers no longer show up to complain about it. Feoffer (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)- There's an unending stream of new editors & IPs showing up at Donald Trump's page, with complaints that it doesn't meet NPoV. This page isn't unique. GoodDay (talk) 03:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Anons complaining about balance is one thing, but but we've got veteran editors with two decades on Wikipedia showing up and complaining the current text doesn't meet oneWP:V. Our current status quo is a Win-Lose, in that it meets our concerns but fails to satisfy the good-faith concerns others have raised. You and I should be looking for a "win-win" text that makes everyone happy. Feoffer (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- There's an unending stream of new editors & IPs showing up at Donald Trump's page, with complaints that it doesn't meet NPoV. This page isn't unique. GoodDay (talk) 03:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps a six-month moratorium on this topic should be put in place. GoodDay (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- It sure would be convenient to force an obviously false statement to remain on the page for six months, huh? RoyLeban (talk) 10:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Again, bring your complaints/challenges to the RFC decision, to the appropriate board. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- This is not about any RfC decision (although it is quite obvious that process is flawed). It is about the inaccurate, unsourced lede that does not belong on Wikipedia. If you think there is an appropriate board to bring this to, feel free to suggest it. Absent that, it seems like this is the best place to find editors willing to assist in fixing this. RoyLeban (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Again, bring your complaints/challenges to the RFC decision, to the appropriate board. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- It sure would be convenient to force an obviously false statement to remain on the page for six months, huh? RoyLeban (talk) 10:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Slywriter wrote "So instead of repeatedly stating the lede violates policy, show sources that provide evidence that GRU or the Easter Bunny dropped off the laptop" but that isn't how either Wikipedia or the world works. To put something in an article, it needs to be sourced — we don't need to find a source that provides some alternate statement to remove it. Since there is no reliable, unbiased non-echo source for what is in the lede, it shouldn't be there. To paraphrase Feoffer, as long as the lede has an obviously false statement, editors like me will come along and object. This will never stop until the lede is fixed. RoyLeban (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- The "I'm going to keep complaining here, until I get my own way" approach, isn't productive. In fact, it could be seen as disruptive. Again, bring your challenges to the RFC decision, to the appropriate board. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- GoodDay, you appear to be willfully misquoting me! Others have said I am not the first editor to notice the inaccurate, unsourced information in the lede. I will not be the last. It will not stop until the lede is fixed.
- Also, I am not complaining. I am trying to help people understand what is wrong. I am frustrated that people are arguing for something that is not proven and for which there is no source. I admit that it is hard for me to believe that it is not politically motivated.
- To repeat, as if there's an echo in here, this is not about any RfC decision (although it is quite obvious that process is flawed). It is about the inaccurate, unsourced lede that does not belong on Wikipedia. If you think there is an appropriate board to bring this to, feel free to suggest it. Absent that, it seems like this is the best place to find editors willing to assist in fixing this.
- RoyLeban (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- The impression I'm getting is that you're not listening & perhaps the rest of us should simply ignore you. The changes you want make to the intro, won't be accepted. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Is there a reason to turn this into a personal attack? RoyLeban (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- I get annoyed when an editor refuses to accept the result of an RFC. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- I get annoyed when it appears that editors are allowing their political biases to override NPOV. Obviously, I don't know if that's the case with you, and I have avoided accusing anyone. My annoyance, and yours, is not an excuse for a personal attack.
- I also get annoyed when people mischaracterize what I have said, as you have just done, but I won't make a personal attack. I'll just point out that you are mistaken and encourage you to read a bit more carefully.
- Finally, the lede is going to get changed. There is no source for what is there, and that is a very important rule on Wikipedia. It's just a matter of how long it takes. RoyLeban (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- I get annoyed when an editor refuses to accept the result of an RFC. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Is there a reason to turn this into a personal attack? RoyLeban (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- The impression I'm getting is that you're not listening & perhaps the rest of us should simply ignore you. The changes you want make to the intro, won't be accepted. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- The "I'm going to keep complaining here, until I get my own way" approach, isn't productive. In fact, it could be seen as disruptive. Again, bring your challenges to the RFC decision, to the appropriate board. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Two RfCs that discussed the issue ad nauseum are conclusive evidence that no policy is violated as no consensus can overrule policy. It is also consensus, so no quotes needed. As the last was closed by an admin, there isn't even the "taint" of non-adminstrator closing. So instead of repeatedly stating the lede violates policy, show sources that provide evidence that GRU or the Easter Bunny dropped off the laptop. Funny thing about any claims that it's not his laptop is they also lack any coherent narrative of how the laptop wound up there (and let's not forget the two other laptops that were picked up). Slywriter (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
@RoyLeban: if you don't like the decision of both RFCs & you're going to continue to complain about those decisions? Then officially challenge those decisions at WP:AN. Repeating your complaints here, isn't accomplishing anything. GoodDay (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- I sincerely don't recall when RfCs began to mean more to what went into an article than things such as RSN approval. I don't know when the bickering between editors become more important than the context in which reliably sourced material was produced, but it needs to stop immediately. If I took a majority of these cites to RSN to pass the smell test almost all of them would fail, but since I don't want to put administrators through the hell of trying to convince editors here that they don't actually understand what makes a source reliable for what it says, I feel stuck with trying to not appear like a leftist Biden-zealot/cuckoo bird. It's not their job to control content. It's our job to get it sorted, and we have failed miserably here. I will say, as I have previously, that it is very likely more editors like RoyLeban will show up and say the same thing that the rest of us have been, but failed to take to RSN. This article is not paying attention to it's own cited sources. DN (talk) 05:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- There's several RFCs that haven't gone the way I wish they had. An RM & RFC at Queen Camilla's page didn't go my way. An ongoing RFC at Trump's page isn't going my way. Best thing to do? accept the results & move on. Same with this page & its RFC results? the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. At some point, the time comes to let go & move on. Either that or make an official challenge at WP:AN. GoodDay (talk) 05:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- AN is more for personal than practical matters. This is not personal. DN (talk) 05:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed on both counts: WP:AN is not the place for this, and editors arguing for the false statements in the lede are ignoring what the cited sources say (and don't say).
- I feel a bit like I should start arguing that the laptop absolutely did not belong to Hunter Biden, that it was absolutely created and planted by Russian agents (and I can easily find sources that say that, sources that are just as unreliable as the sources that say the laptop absolutely belonged to Hunter Biden). Backing this up is the proven fact that there are at least two versions of the data dump, and at least one version had data in it that was not Hunter Biden's, but was claimed to be (and nobody has established who created that false data). And maybe then we can "compromise" at the right place in the middle, that the truth is not known. RoyLeban (talk) 11:23, 17 January 2023 (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.- 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.
- If you believe that The Guardian, Financial Times, and PBS are unreliable sources then you can go make the case at WP:RSN to get them deprecated. Otherwise our article is going to follow what they report. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Mr Ernie, you are mischaracterizing what I wrote. I hope it is that you just skimmed it and it is not deliberate. So please read this carefully. None of those four citations are a source for what you are claiming. None of them provide evidence, explanation, or anything which explicitly states that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. All of them make a passing reference to "a laptop owned by Hunter Biden." They are echoes of other statements, not reliable sources for this particular question. You need both a reliable source (and The Guardian, Financial Times, and PBS are fine) and a citation from them which addresses the claim itself, not an article with a passing reference. This is Citation 101. I do not believe such a source exists. If I'm wrong, prove it. If nobody can find a source for what is in the lede, then the lede must change. RoyLeban (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- AN is more for personal than practical matters. This is not personal. DN (talk) 05:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- There's several RFCs that haven't gone the way I wish they had. An RM & RFC at Queen Camilla's page didn't go my way. An ongoing RFC at Trump's page isn't going my way. Best thing to do? accept the results & move on. Same with this page & its RFC results? the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. At some point, the time comes to let go & move on. Either that or make an official challenge at WP:AN. GoodDay (talk) 05:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- RoyLeban, while I largely agree with your position, the unfortunate fact remains that this matter has been (mostly) settled by several RfCs and we have to move on. As in real-life American politics, there are those who accept election results when they do not go as expected, and there are those that screech and wail when they lose, and blame the process. That sentiment is largely mirrored among Wikipedia editors, where those who try to keep these sorts of articles balanced and reasonable are the ones who accept the results and move on, while the others who want to make the article as negative and tabloid-ish as possible scratch and claw for every negative and tabloid-ish word they can, even when in a distinct minority. In this case, it didn't go the way you wanted. Best to let it go. ValarianB (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- yes soibangla (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- The RfC process is flawed (I won't repeat what I wrote above). What we have here are three potential points of view:
- The article should state that the laptop absolutely BELONGED TO Hunter Biden, despite the lack of a source
- The article should state that the laptop absolutely DID NOT BELONG TO Hunter Biden, despite the lack of a source
- The article should state that it is CLAIMED that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden, or some similar language.
- Isn't it interesting that nobody is arguing for (2)? When I see this, it is hard for me to believe that there is no political motivation. Clearly, the only NPOV position is (3). RoyLeban (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Setting aside the past RFC closure for just a sec and considering this issue just by itself -- "claimed" would be too weak -- the "best" source uses the language "believed to be". Could you, Roy, support as improvement a change that focuses the first sentence on the data rather than physical device? Feoffer (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- I think that change would be an improvement. It is not my preference, but it removes the inaccuracy and no longer states something that is not sourced. Clearly, a lot of the data in the data dump is from Hunter Biden, though it has not been proven that all of it is from him, and that issue is addressed in what is currently the third sentence. The second sentence would still be problematic (the phrase "The laptop was abandoned" is not proven, is not sourced, and there are huge questions and chain of custody issues). I would recommend removing the second sentence entirely. RoyLeban (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- At least three editors have advised you to bring your complaints/objections etc, to the proper boards. So far 'here', you're not gaining a consensus for what you want. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Well, if you want my advice, the way forward would be to continue building consensus for language that focuses on the data. Questions about the device itself are a red herring, like asking if the leaked "Pentagon Papers" were actually printed on DOD paper-products or not. Feoffer (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Feoffer, thank you for your thoughts. The reason it is important to talk about the device is that there are editors insisting that the device must be mentioned, and it must be said that it belonged to Hunter Biden, despite not providing a single source that provides proof, evidence, an explanation, etc. And they have made ridiculous statements like I need to provide a source for some other theory in order to remove the unsourced statement. It is getting harder to assume good faith. RoyLeban (talk) 07:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- I understand every word you say -- When I first got here, the article didn't even have a source. My first comment mirrors yours. There's a lot of battleground on this page. But despite it all, there's a win-win to be found -- probably by just focusing on the data. Feoffer (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Sourcing has been provided in this thread, two RfCs have sources as do the numerous ancillary theeads. Drop the stick and skip the subtle accusations of bad as your continual claims of no sourcing are false. Slywriter (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- I can live with our status quo -- but that said, let's all keep our eyes out for a source that forensically authenticates the device itself, as it would be an important improvement. Feoffer (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Slywriter, nobody has stepped forward, in the article or here, with a source that provides evidence, forensic or otherwise, that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden, that Hunter Biden dropped it off, that Hunter Biden abandoned it, that all the information in the data dump came from that laptop, or that all the information in the data dump belonged to Hunter Biden. It is a claim, repeated over and over again, and repetition does not make something true, nor is such repetition a source that meets Wikipedia's standards. Surely, if the statement is true, as the lede currently asserts, a source would exist. Go ahead, prove me wrong. All you have to do is find such a source, one that is reputable and reliable, meets Wikipedia's standards, and explicitly provides information and evidence about the statements above. Despite repeated requests, before and after I got here, nobody has provided such a source. And, no statements by political operative and serial liar Rudolph Giuliani don't count. He's not listed as a reputable source.
- In contrast, there are multiple sources that state that most of the data in the data dump belonged to Hunter Biden, with appropriate information, detail, and evidence. Similarly, there are multiple sources that state that some of the data in one of the versions of the data dump was forged. These things we can consider well sourced facts. What isn't clear is where that data dump came from. There is no reputable source that presents evidence that it came from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden, only sources that repeat that claim.
- This isn't a high bar, but it is the bar required by Wikipedia. Absent a source, how can anybody justify the statement in the lede?
- RoyLeban (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with you that there is not a source that explicitly and expressly states that Hunter Biden's laptop was indeed confirmed to have belonged to him. However, there are a number of sources that accept it as his laptop and describe it as such. It's not just implied that it's his laptop: they say it's his, they just do so lazily and without firm confirmation. I among others agreed at the RFC that we should describe it as his "purported" laptop or "alleged" laptop, but, 2 RFCs and an overturn review have determined that there is a consensus for referring to it as his laptop. Whether or not we agree with this argument, that is the current consensus. If you wish to pursue a new RFC or a new discussion to change the consensus we would need some new information, absent that, it is best to let this lie and acknowledge that it can't be helped at present. Andre🚐 03:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Andre, by that standard, Trump won the 2020 election and it was stolen :) If, in fact, the repeated statement was true, you'd think somebody would be able to find a single source(!) that are not simply repeating the statement. A "consensus" (and, yes, I'm deliberately putting that in quotes) cannot override Wikipedia policies.
- If another RfC is the way to go, this section of the Talk page demonstrates that, despite repeated requests, none of the people who insist the lede should say it definitely is/was his laptop have failed to come up with a single source to cite. And I'm only asking for one source — really, an article like this that is such a hot button issue should have multiple sources for key statements.
- One source. That's all that's needed. Why is it so hard?
- RoyLeban (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- @RoyLeban I've linked these before, but it is possible you have overlooked them. Here are 4 sources that say the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. There are many more than refer to "Hunter Biden's laptop" or something similar. I've added the bolding to help you find the wording.
"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, 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) 14:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- I mean, no, I don't agree, RoyLeban, really at all. There are countless sources about the 2020 election being not the way Trump claims. There are many sources, linked by various folks on this page, that indicate that Hunter Biden owned the laptop - though as I said, they do not establish a clean chain of custody or provenance or a forensic verification of ownership and there are doubts. But again, there were several RFCs and a consensus found (one that I did not agree with). Another RFC is NOT the way to go unless you have some new information. Otherwise this is WP:IDHT Andre🚐 18:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Mr Ernie and Andre insufficient citations do not suddenly become sufficient if you repost them! What you are saying is lots of people are assuming that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden, and lots of people are repeating the fact that other people have made that assumption, and that's enough. Well, it's not! It's just an echo chamber. It is not plausible that there is not a single reputable and reliable source for this claim, yet we're all supposed to believe it as absolutely true.
- Since, repeated requests for such a source have turned up nothing, I suspect that such a source does not exist.
- Present such a source, and we will add it to the lede of the article, and I will admit I was wrong. But, if no such source can be found, the lede has to change.
- To be clear, the source has to:
- Be reputable — meet Wikipedia standards
- Be reliable — a news article, not an opinion piece (or an article that just references opinions)
- Present evidence — e.g., list facts, quote people with actual firsthand knowledge, not people who are just speculating
- The lede says it's a fact, not "believed to be" or "claimed" or "lots of people are saying." An appropriate source needs to make it clear that it's a fact, not an opinion, not an assumption, not that people "believe it to be," etc.
- An article that presents evidence on both sides of a controversy is, by definition, a source for both sides of the controversy, not one side (i.e., no cherry picking).
- All of this is extremely straightforward — it's the way Wikipedia works.
- RoyLeban (talk) 09:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- I get everything you're saying -- this is a very special set of circumstances. If we could find ANY RS or partisan seriously saying "it's not his laptop!", things would be different. We really can find a way to make a better article but "claimed" is a total non-starter. "believed" isn't much better. At the same time -- this lede IS suboptimal, as it might suggest forensic authentication of the physical device itself. Within those parameters, there's room for much-needed improvement (I think) Feoffer (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- That is actually not the way Wikipedia works, RoyLeban. But it has been explained to you why, and we're into WP:IDHT. Andre🚐 19:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Andre. I've heard what you've said, but you're wrong. You're saying that it's ok to put unsourced information in an article. And then when people ask for a source, you can argue one isn't necessary because everybody is assuming the statement is true? Can you point to that policy?
- There's a line in Shakespeare "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." It applies here. The people arguing so strongly that no source is needed are doing so because no source exists. RoyLeban (talk) 06:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- I didn't say no source was needed. I said that the RFC by consensus determined the sources provided were sufficient. I happen not to agree with that consensus but that is how things work on Wikipedia. I advise you to self-revert or you may find yourself being submitted for sanction at AE or ANI. Andre🚐 07:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- You have effectively said no source is needed. Since you are so confident that the statement in the lead is a fact, not a belief, then surely you must have a source. Why won't you provide it? RoyLeban (talk) 02:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- This is at the point where I'm soon not going to be able to continue participating in good faith, RoyLeban, so let's try it one last time. In the sources provided by others, statements along the lines of "a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden" or "once belonged to" Biden or statements such as "Biden dropped off at the repair shop" etc., are made. An RFC was begun in which I, among other, opined that this was not sufficient remove the "purported"/"alleged" language. I did NOT agree that this should be removed but a consensus of editors DID find that it was sufficient. Wikipedia makes decisions based on WP:CONSENSUS and there were not 1, but 2 RFCs and an overturn review discussing this. WP:CCC, but you have failed to provide new evidence or new arguments and your tone is bordering on inappropriate. As I've stated already I do not believe it was firmly established that Hunter Biden's laptop belonged to him but if it didn't, he's sure taking his time about providing evidence that it was not his. Meanwhile, RS have decided to describe it that way. I do not agree with this but we have to write what RS say and abide with the consensus. And so do you. Andre🚐 02:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Nobody has ever provided a single source for the statement "a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden". Never. Somebody repeating a statement that somebody else made is not a source, no matter how many times it's repeated (if that was true, then Trump won the 2020 election!). The statement had to originate somewhere. Where did it originate? This question is fundamental. Wikipedia's consensus process does not say that sources are not required, nor does it say that people misrepresenting what a source says is allowed.
- How do you propose that Hunter Biden provide proof that the laptop wasn't his? Provide a receipt for some other laptop? It is hard, if not impossible, to prove a negative. That is why it is so important that there be a source for the positive statement (that it was his laptop).
- You might also want to read Truth by consensus, which explains how consensus doesn't get at the truth.
- RoyLeban (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's standard is reliability and verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia: Verifiability, not truth.
material from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden
[43]a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden
[44] Andre🚐 04:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's standard is reliability and verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia: Verifiability, not truth.
- This is at the point where I'm soon not going to be able to continue participating in good faith, RoyLeban, so let's try it one last time. In the sources provided by others, statements along the lines of "a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden" or "once belonged to" Biden or statements such as "Biden dropped off at the repair shop" etc., are made. An RFC was begun in which I, among other, opined that this was not sufficient remove the "purported"/"alleged" language. I did NOT agree that this should be removed but a consensus of editors DID find that it was sufficient. Wikipedia makes decisions based on WP:CONSENSUS and there were not 1, but 2 RFCs and an overturn review discussing this. WP:CCC, but you have failed to provide new evidence or new arguments and your tone is bordering on inappropriate. As I've stated already I do not believe it was firmly established that Hunter Biden's laptop belonged to him but if it didn't, he's sure taking his time about providing evidence that it was not his. Meanwhile, RS have decided to describe it that way. I do not agree with this but we have to write what RS say and abide with the consensus. And so do you. Andre🚐 02:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- You have effectively said no source is needed. Since you are so confident that the statement in the lead is a fact, not a belief, then surely you must have a source. Why won't you provide it? RoyLeban (talk) 02:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- I didn't say no source was needed. I said that the RFC by consensus determined the sources provided were sufficient. I happen not to agree with that consensus but that is how things work on Wikipedia. I advise you to self-revert or you may find yourself being submitted for sanction at AE or ANI. Andre🚐 07:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- @RoyLeban I've linked these before, but it is possible you have overlooked them. Here are 4 sources that say the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. There are many more than refer to "Hunter Biden's laptop" or something similar. I've added the bolding to help you find the wording.
- I agree with you that there is not a source that explicitly and expressly states that Hunter Biden's laptop was indeed confirmed to have belonged to him. However, there are a number of sources that accept it as his laptop and describe it as such. It's not just implied that it's his laptop: they say it's his, they just do so lazily and without firm confirmation. I among others agreed at the RFC that we should describe it as his "purported" laptop or "alleged" laptop, but, 2 RFCs and an overturn review have determined that there is a consensus for referring to it as his laptop. Whether or not we agree with this argument, that is the current consensus. If you wish to pursue a new RFC or a new discussion to change the consensus we would need some new information, absent that, it is best to let this lie and acknowledge that it can't be helped at present. Andre🚐 03:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Feoffer, thank you for your thoughts. The reason it is important to talk about the device is that there are editors insisting that the device must be mentioned, and it must be said that it belonged to Hunter Biden, despite not providing a single source that provides proof, evidence, an explanation, etc. And they have made ridiculous statements like I need to provide a source for some other theory in order to remove the unsourced statement. It is getting harder to assume good faith. RoyLeban (talk) 07:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- I think that change would be an improvement. It is not my preference, but it removes the inaccuracy and no longer states something that is not sourced. Clearly, a lot of the data in the data dump is from Hunter Biden, though it has not been proven that all of it is from him, and that issue is addressed in what is currently the third sentence. The second sentence would still be problematic (the phrase "The laptop was abandoned" is not proven, is not sourced, and there are huge questions and chain of custody issues). I would recommend removing the second sentence entirely. RoyLeban (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Setting aside the past RFC closure for just a sec and considering this issue just by itself -- "claimed" would be too weak -- the "best" source uses the language "believed to be". Could you, Roy, support as improvement a change that focuses the first sentence on the data rather than physical device? Feoffer (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- The RfC process is flawed (I won't repeat what I wrote above). What we have here are three potential points of view:
- yes soibangla (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- RoyLeban, while I largely agree with your position, the unfortunate fact remains that this matter has been (mostly) settled by several RfCs and we have to move on. As in real-life American politics, there are those who accept election results when they do not go as expected, and there are those that screech and wail when they lose, and blame the process. That sentiment is largely mirrored among Wikipedia editors, where those who try to keep these sorts of articles balanced and reasonable are the ones who accept the results and move on, while the others who want to make the article as negative and tabloid-ish as possible scratch and claw for every negative and tabloid-ish word they can, even when in a distinct minority. In this case, it didn't go the way you wanted. Best to let it go. ValarianB (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
@ScottishFinnishRadish:, IMHO, this entire discussion should be hatted, as it's becoming a time sink. RoyLeban can bring his complaints about the RFC result, to the appropriate board. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not the one to hat a discussion that relates to my RFC closure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Outdenting
May I recommend editors WP:OUTDENT, once their posts reach 10 indents? That way, discussions won't be squeezed up against the right side of the talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 04:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Matter of preference, eh? Well, I'd rather see you spell out numbers under 13. I don't understand your discomfort with the right side of the page, but whatever, let's make it ten. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Russian disinformation misinformation
In an interview with The Australian, Douglas Wise, a former intelligence officer and one of the infamous "Russian disinformation" letter signers, stated All of us [the signatories] figured that a significant portion of that content had to be real to make any Russian disinformation credible
. He also said it was "no surprise" that the emails were genuine. He also stated that he had no regrets signing on to the letter. The article opens The former top US intelligence officials who suggested - wrongly it turned out - that Russia could have been behind embarrassing and potentially incriminating files found on Hunter Biden's laptop before the 2020 presidential election, all believed "significant portions" of the content "had to be real".
(emphasis mine). I am not that familiar with The Australian, but it has a green rating at at the RS list with the description "The Australian is considered generally reliable." The author is Adam Creighton. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- With all due respect, I'd rather see a non-paywalled version of the citation, as I do not put much faith in this selective quoting. ValarianB (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Right click the link I provided, copy it, and paste it into the navy blue background box at archive.today and you will be able to read it. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- You're twisting Douglas Wise's words and trying to tie them to the article author's characterization ("wrongly it turned out") of the subject matter. ValarianB (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Nah, he prefaced it with "the article opens". The article is the article author here, for all intents and purposes. But that doesn't explain in the slightest what he (Mr. Ernie) wants us to do with this information. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- This is the first RS that I've seen that directly states the Russian disinformation narrative was wrong. It's also another source that says it was Hunter Biden's laptop, which is somehow still being disputed. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Again, you are misrepresenting what a source is saying, and also conflating "Hunter Biden's laptop" with "the contents of Hunter Biden's laptop". ValarianB (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree with your first accusation and refuse to comment on any hypothetical conflation. Mr. Ernie is fairly representing the source, just paraphrasing, also fairly. There is still precisely zero semblance of a proposed amendment to the article, which is mildly troubling, and rather a hint of indication of intent to "prove them wrong", which has always been the worst part of this infinite sadness. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Not true, and accusing me or anyone else of the intent to "prove them wrong" is an uncalled for attack.My proposed amendment is the change I made that got reverted. I've said that several times already. Feoffer has also made a proposal. RoyLeban (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)- I wouldn't call my line about a mere hint of indication an "accusation", much less an attack. But if it is, it's pretty clearly "leveled against" Mr. Ernie, not RoyLeban. You haven't been here long enough for me to speak with familiarity about your motives (if you even have them). Whatever's going on with you and Feoffer is not my business. Just ValarianB and the aforementioned OP. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- InedibleHulk, fair enough. I'll strike out the first sentence. RoyLeban (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call my line about a mere hint of indication an "accusation", much less an attack. But if it is, it's pretty clearly "leveled against" Mr. Ernie, not RoyLeban. You haven't been here long enough for me to speak with familiarity about your motives (if you even have them). Whatever's going on with you and Feoffer is not my business. Just ValarianB and the aforementioned OP. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree with your first accusation and refuse to comment on any hypothetical conflation. Mr. Ernie is fairly representing the source, just paraphrasing, also fairly. There is still precisely zero semblance of a proposed amendment to the article, which is mildly troubling, and rather a hint of indication of intent to "prove them wrong", which has always been the worst part of this infinite sadness. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- The claim that there is/was a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden isn't being disputed — it is an unsourced claim. The fact that the phrases "Hunter Biden's laptop" (like in the title of this article) and "laptop belonging to Hunter Biden" are being repeated is not a source! Repeating a statement, no matter how often, is not evidence that that statement is true. An actual source that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden would provide information and evidence about that supposed fact. Despite repeated requests, before and after I got here, nobody has provided such a source. And, no statements by political operative and serial liar Rudolph Giuliani don't count. He's not listed as a reputable source.
- In contrast, there are multiple sources that state that most of the data in the data dump belonged to Hunter Biden. Similarly, there are multiple sources that state that some of the data in one of the versions of the data dump was forged. These things we can consider well sourced facts. What isn't clear is where that data dump came from. There is no reputable source that presents evidence that it came from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden, only sources that repeat that claim.
- RoyLeban (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Again, you are misrepresenting what a source is saying, and also conflating "Hunter Biden's laptop" with "the contents of Hunter Biden's laptop". ValarianB (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- This is the first RS that I've seen that directly states the Russian disinformation narrative was wrong. It's also another source that says it was Hunter Biden's laptop, which is somehow still being disputed. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Nah, he prefaced it with "the article opens". The article is the article author here, for all intents and purposes. But that doesn't explain in the slightest what he (Mr. Ernie) wants us to do with this information. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- You're twisting Douglas Wise's words and trying to tie them to the article author's characterization ("wrongly it turned out") of the subject matter. ValarianB (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- Right click the link I provided, copy it, and paste it into the navy blue background box at archive.today and you will be able to read it. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm writing to add the incredibly obvious statement that anybody who was trying to create disinformation in the form of a data dump would start with as much real data as possible, and there are many ways the real data could be obtained by bad actors. So, the fact that a significant portion of the data is unquestionably real is not a surprise in the least. We also know that there are at least two versions of the data dump, and one version of the data dump had information which was out of place, likely forged data. Whether this means that the whole thing is a product of a Russian disinformation campaign (or not) is not something that any of us could know. But, at this point, I have not seen any source that says it is definitively real (and, certainly, it is not possible for all versions to be real, so something odd was happening). The Australian article is mostly a report of an interview with one person, Douglas Wise, not a news article or investigative piece, and it is all over the map (e.g., Wise is also quoted as saying "Russians or even ill-intended conservative elements could have planted stuff in there"). RoyLeban (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
- What's wrong with a notable reporter working for a reputable newspaper basing his story on an interview he conducted with a relevant expert with pertinent firsthand knowledge? Anyway, in case you missed it, "Hunter Biden's laptop" is also in the reliable source itself. I agree, a headline doesn't count for [redacted]. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- A few things about the article:
- Douglas Wise has background information, not any first-hand information about the purported laptop or the data dump. So, the article is, essentially, a report on Wise's opinions, not facts.
- The reference to "Hunter Biden's laptop" here is referential (an echo), and there is nothing the article that provides any evidence of the purported laptop's ownership.
- The statement that other media has accepted the laptop as belonging to Biden is not evidentiary. Conclusions reached by people at media properties are not evidence. It's not the same as evidence they publish. As I've said elsewhere, if there's a source with evidence, someone should provide a link to it. Why is that so difficult?
- I appreciate the fact that Wise brings up the chain of custody problems.
- RoyLeban (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- If we were duking it out in a court of law, my friend, I'd also want to see some evidence. A timestamped security video showing his face clearly as he drops it off would be great, a fingerprint match on the keyboard or even just a sworn deposition of ownership from a verified Twitter account. But we're obviously not getting that depth of gotcha and usually don't for most things Wikipedia covers. Here, verifiability beats "truth" and we rely on the reliable source writers' opinions on what is or isn't a fact of the matter. Here, the mainstream consensus is that yeah, this was Hunter's Biden's laptop. Unlike a lot of times, simply accepting this part of "the official narrative" wouldn't really hurt you. You could even still choose to disbelieve it, either quietly or openly. But you've gone on long enough trying to convince people who've read enough that they should see things your way, just because alternative explanations are plausibly out there. Lay back for now, like I did about 9/11, and if you happen to find something damning or exonerating on your vacation, then hit us up! I, at least, will be glad to peruse it. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- One source. That doesn't seem like a very high bar. In contrast, it is extremely difficult, sometimes impossible, to prove a negative. This is why misinformation and disinformation can proliferate like it does. Whether it's intentional or unintentional misinformation, once it's out there without proof, it may be impossible to prove that it isn't true. Here, I'm not even trying to argue that there wasn't a laptop, or that there wasn't a laptop owned by Hunter Biden — I'm merely stating that, without a source, the lede shouldn't state something as fact. I continue to be astounded that anybody who has edited Wikipedia for any length of time would argue otherwise. RoyLeban (talk) 10:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- If we were duking it out in a court of law, my friend, I'd also want to see some evidence. A timestamped security video showing his face clearly as he drops it off would be great, a fingerprint match on the keyboard or even just a sworn deposition of ownership from a verified Twitter account. But we're obviously not getting that depth of gotcha and usually don't for most things Wikipedia covers. Here, verifiability beats "truth" and we rely on the reliable source writers' opinions on what is or isn't a fact of the matter. Here, the mainstream consensus is that yeah, this was Hunter's Biden's laptop. Unlike a lot of times, simply accepting this part of "the official narrative" wouldn't really hurt you. You could even still choose to disbelieve it, either quietly or openly. But you've gone on long enough trying to convince people who've read enough that they should see things your way, just because alternative explanations are plausibly out there. Lay back for now, like I did about 9/11, and if you happen to find something damning or exonerating on your vacation, then hit us up! I, at least, will be glad to peruse it. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- A few things about the article:
In the "failure" section above, Mr. Ernie showed you (at least) four more, at least twice. You simply deemed them "insufficient" and said reposting wouldn't change your mind, so I won't. I also won't repeat that evidentiary standards are much laxer on this site than you want to believe. I will repost Lay Back and you can take that advice or leave it. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- None of the articles linked to by Mr. Ernie assume that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. None of them even attempt to provide any evidence, good, bad, or otherwise, supporting that statement.
- Yes, it is frequently the case that evidentiary standards are laxer on Wikipedia than they should be. But, when somebody (like me) pushes back and points out that an article does not support a statement, the proper action is to find a linked-to article which actually supports the statement. That's all I'm asking for. Instead of providing such a source, the argument is that an actual source is not necessary because lots of people have already assumed it's true and lots of people are repeating that. Where is the policy that says that's ok?
- I have added a citation needed to the lede. If, as is claimed, the statement is a fact, it should be easy to provide a citation. I look forward to seeing it.
- RoyLeban (talk) 07:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, all of the sources provided by Mr. Ernie assume this was Hunter Biden's laptop, whether by using that exact phrase, saying it belonged to him or whatever other means an average reader should consider assertive. You're certainly not the average reader, and part of me salutes you for that! But on the other hand, I can't match your endurance any longer any this; you win. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- InedibleHulk, over my 2 decades plus editing Wikipedia, I have noticed that editors who have a lot of free time on their hands tend to get their way, even if they're wrong. I can point to articles that are still broken, many years later, because I didn't have time to fight with an editor who, for example, said that "Wikipedia doesn't have timelines" (it probably has hundreds of thousands). One of those editors ended up permanently banned from Wikipedia, but not before they screwed up many articles. Because the lack of a source is so egregious here, I decided I'd check in once a day on this article. Guess that's some endurance :) RoyLeban (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, all of the sources provided by Mr. Ernie assume this was Hunter Biden's laptop, whether by using that exact phrase, saying it belonged to him or whatever other means an average reader should consider assertive. You're certainly not the average reader, and part of me salutes you for that! But on the other hand, I can't match your endurance any longer any this; you win. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
FBI involvement with social media censorship of the story
Good article on Fox News this morning detailing the FBI's role in censoring spread of the story on Twitter: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/elon-musk-chose-me-report-twitter-files-disturbing-things-learned-fbi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.10.80 (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- It's an opinion piece. DN (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- Unreliable and fringe, unusable in any event. Andre🚐 03:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- Wrong side of the aisle. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
this one went viral for about a day
How a Hunter Biden conspiracy theory grew, from lone tweet to a big megaphone soibangla (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for sharing. 2 quotes that I think are pertinent here are (emphasis mine):
It started with a tweet on Jan. 12 by an anonymous account — a photo of a rental application by Hunter Biden, plucked from the hard drive of his laptop left behind for repair in a Delaware shop in April 2019.
Devine, author of the book “Laptop From Hell,” which is about the device left at the repair shop
- Now we've all enjoyed the fun of the last few months debating if the laptop was Biden's or if it was "dropped off" or "abandoned" or whatever, so hopefully this WaPo Fact Check can finally put all this to bed. The most interesting point of that Fact Check to me though is the bit about CEFC / Chinese energy company paying $4.8 million to entities owned by Hunter Biden and his uncle for a business deal that collapsed. That ought to be more notable. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Let’s pause for a moment and scrutinize the form. The Hunter Biden laptop has been the subject of much scrutiny. The Washington Post asked two security experts to examine 217 gigabytes of data on a hard drive, purportedly Hunter Biden’s...
Emphasis (and italics) mine. When too many cooks (Glenn Kessler and Adriana Usero) can spoil even a single article/paragraph with such bet-hedging noncommital wishiwashiness, it's no wonder its readers don't know what to think, either. Anyway, again, "purportedly". Let the games continue. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Topic bans needed
RoyLeban, Feoffer, and now Zaathras have reinserted the citation needed template into the first sentence. Do these editors need to be reported to AE for the disruptive behavior that’s been ongoing for far too long now or can any admins who happen to be watching just directly apply a topic ban? I think the good faith was exhausted months ago. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- WP:AE is thataway. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- @ScottishFinnishRadish do I need to self revert so that another editor can make the inevitable edit or are we good to enforce the firmly set consensus this way? Mr Ernie (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- You would be best off self reverting and reporting at AE, providing the history of RFC, RFC closure review, BLPN discussion, another RFC, and all the discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Sigh Zaathras has reported me at the edit warring noticeboard. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- @ScottishFinnishRadish do I need to self revert so that another editor can make the inevitable edit or are we good to enforce the firmly set consensus this way? Mr Ernie (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Mr. Ernie himself will be heading to Arb Enforcement momentarily if he does not self-revert. The 8 bulleted points at WP:3RRNO do not cover his claimed reason for violating 1RR.. Zaathras (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- This feels oddly familiar - Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy/Archive 5#A disputed tag has nothing to do with consensus text. @Slywriter. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, you did get away with it before. I assumed at the time that reasoned discussion would lead to better self-reflection on your part. By the time it didn't, an AE filing would have likely been closed as "stale". So, good that we have your established pattern of disruption now. Zaathras (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- This feels oddly familiar - Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy/Archive 5#A disputed tag has nothing to do with consensus text. @Slywriter. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Leave my name out if it -- My stick is dropped, I didn't reinsert anything, I proposed a creative solution that might finally resolve this longstanding dispute. We gotta break outta this battlegroundy mindset and just try to make the article better. Feoffer (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- Or all split up and make a dozen or so articles better, let a new class hover menacingly over this nothingburger for a few months, see if they go crazy. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
ScottishFinnishRadish accused me of being disruptive for making my second edit ever to this page in the history of time. Mr Ernie is doing the same thing here. This is false information, essentially an attack. Requesting a source, even repeatedly, on a talk page is not disrupting Wikipedia. In fact, I am following the guidelines for not being disruptive by trying to reach consensus on the talk page — consensus that a source is required to put something in the lede of an article, especially something which is contradicted by the article itself. Compromises have been suggested, but they have been ignored. Until yesterday, I did not make a second editor to the page after my initial edit which was intended to fix an obvious problem that I assumed was the work of a malicious editor.
Part of my edit yesterday was the addition of well-sourced information that I feel belongs in the article, and for which no explanation was given for it's removal. This is an inappropriate revert by ScottishFinnishRadish. The other part was a request for a citation for unsourced information. As Feoffer pointed out, I am (at least) the 14th editor who has stumbled into this, so it's going to keep happening until it gets fixed. If I give up to the editors who are insisting no source is needed, then somebody else will come along. I figured I might as well see it through.
This is the first time I have ever seen the response to a citation needed be the deletion of the tag rather than the provision of a citation.
On the subject of a topic ban, it is inappropriate, but I understand why it's desired — if you can't win an argument with logic or facts, then ban discussion so you can't lose. And the argument that "good faith was exhausted" before I had even seen this article is preposterous!
I am trying very hard to be polite and assume good faith, but I will also admit that it is hard when there is continued insistence that no actual source is needed, since there are so many people assuming the supposition is fact and repeating it.
I am going to restore the change that ScottishFinnishRadish reverted without cause and without explanation. If somebody wants to call that a revert, fine, it's my 1 revert for today. For now, I won't put the citation needed back.
RoyLeban (talk) 06:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- From WP:VERIFY (copied here 01/22/2022, underlined emphasis mine)
- All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.
- Attribute all of the following types of material to reliable, published sources using inline citations:
- all quotations,
- all material whose verifiability has been challenged,
- all material that is likely to be challenged, and
- all contentious matter about living and recently deceased persons.
- The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly, ideally giving page number(s)—though sometimes a section, chapter, or other division may be appropriate instead; see Wikipedia:Citing sources for details of how to do this.
- Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it.
- Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page. You should also be aware of how Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons also applies to groups. RoyLeban (talk) 06:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I've reported GoodDay for a 1RR violation (discussion) which also included a completely disingenuous rationale for reverting my attempt to clean up citations (he claimed that cleaning up citations is a "big change" which requires consensus). A revert like this and an attempt to ban discussion of the need for a source for a statement are making it harder and harder to AGF. RoyLeban (talk) 08:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I did not yet make the other change I said I would, the addition of the additional information from the WaPo article which ScottishFinnishRadish inappropriately removed without justification or explanation. I put it in the lede paragraph, and I now think it belongs later in the article, so I will get to it later, perhaps tomorrow. RoyLeban (talk) 08:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
FWIW - RoyLeban reported me to the wrong board, but anyways I've reverted my revert, since. I am concerned though, that since January 15, 2023? Roy has shown WP:IDHT, WP:SPA, refusal to drop the stick & WP:BLUDGEONING behaviour. GoodDay (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Requesting a hat for this. It does share some useful guidelines but it's mostly distracting. DN (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Consensus required restriction
Due to the recent edit warring on this article I've applied the consensus required restriction which states that: an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page. For clarify, this includes content which has already been challenged unless there is an existing consensus which clearly supports the challenged content. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Callanecc: FWIW, may I point out the RFC (at the top of the talkpage) & its consensus. Note - The RFC-in-question was closed by an administrator. GoodDay (talk) 09:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yep, saw that with regard to
What is clear from the discussion is that the language that assigns ownership of the laptop (or the data) to Biden still has rough consensus and the support of the large portion of more recent sources.
Is that the bit you're referred to GoodDay or the bit about not invalidating the earlier RFC on the lead (was that this one or an earlier discussion @ScottishFinnishRadish?). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)- @Callanecc: I'm a stickler for respecting RFC results, no matter what the closure is. So yes the RFC closed by ScottishFinnishRadish, barely two & a half weeks ago, is the bit-in-question. PS - With the new page editing rule in place, I'm hoping it'll stop the attempts to undo the RFC decision-in-question, etc. GoodDay (talk) 10:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yep, saw that with regard to
Put me down for thinking topic bans and editing restrictions aren't helpful. New users keep showing up to complain that our article should be better -- I don't think ordering them to be silent is the path to a better article. I expressed concerns about an earlier version of the lead that didn't have any sourcing, and all my concerns were addressed to my satisfaction -- I can live with this lead! But it's still clear that some readers, without any particular partisan ax to grind, think this article needs more polishing. We are chefs, and people keep sending our food back -- we should take that as a call to improve the article, not to silence those who call for us to do better. Feoffer (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Umm,
decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus, which is accepted as the best method to achieve Wikipedia's goals
(WP:CON). Nothing in the consensus required provision prevents that or requires silence, in fact, it requires discussion and collaboration to determine an the solution. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)- I appreciate your good faith proposal. You're an admin, I'm no one important, I bear that in mind. But my personal assessment is that article has attracted enough independent complaints from non-partisans for us to accept there's room for improvement. Its not my place to say precisely what an 'improved' article would look like, but I doubt squelching the negative feedback from our readers or otherwise 'locking in' the present version will help us get to a better article. Feoffer (talk) 10:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) All editors are equal when judging a consensus - admins just have extra functions to prevent disruption (including edit warring). Our edit warring policy says that edit wars are not conducive to building a consenus. The restrictions on this page are designed to push editors towards discussing changes and establishing a consensus rather than edit warring their version. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- FWIW, Callanecc. Since the RFC closure, I haven't seen any big number of editors complaining about its result or seeking to change it. GoodDay (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Sometimes we all see what we want to see without knowing or even caring if it is objectively true. So why imply such assumptions? Time has yet to tell how future editors will judge this article, and not just RoyLeban. People usually only come to complain if something is wrong, and rarely to come to give out pats on the back, but that is only an assumption on my part, a POV, if you will. It doesn't add much to the conversation, but is it useful? DN (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- I appreciate your good faith proposal. You're an admin, I'm no one important, I bear that in mind. But my personal assessment is that article has attracted enough independent complaints from non-partisans for us to accept there's room for improvement. Its not my place to say precisely what an 'improved' article would look like, but I doubt squelching the negative feedback from our readers or otherwise 'locking in' the present version will help us get to a better article. Feoffer (talk) 10:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Feoffer when he says "topic bans and editing restrictions aren't helpful" I'm apparently the 14th editor to come along and assume the inaccurate, unsourced (still!) lede shouldn't be there. Like me, I assume most of them thought it was put there by a malicious editor, or just a mistake. When I pointed out that I wouldn't be the last editor to come along, and that the lede would eventually have to change because it has no source and is contradicted by the article itself, GoodDay wrote "The impression I'm getting is that you're not listening & perhaps the rest of us should simply ignore you", as if I am the problem, a clear misinterpretation of what I wrote, and a misunderstanding of reality. Sure, you can bludgeon me to death, you can trick an admin into blocking or banning (I have never once received any ban, block, etc., in over 2 decades). And then you can sit back and wait for the 15th editor to come along. I am not the problem. The problem is the people who have refused to cite a source for a statement in the very first paragraph of the article.
I am also bothered by the fact that a significant (and ridiculous, clearly non-consensus change) was made exactly one hour before the recent restriction was added by Callanecc, with no warning on the page itself for the poor 15th editor to come along (as we know here, one can be accused of bad actions that happened months before even having seen this page). Now, if anybody reverts that change, they look like the bad person, when the reality is that Mr Ernie is well aware that the citations are non-responsive. I'm talking about this change [45]. None of the citations address the issue in question. None of them provide any explanation, evidence, or even insight into the phrase "a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden". Not in the least. The closest we get is that the Rudy Giuliani (known for serial lying, frivolous lawsuits, Four Seasons Total Landscaping, and the fact that he can no longer practice law) had possession of it at some time. Adding those citations with the edit comment "adding requested citations" seems to me a bit like thumbing one's nose, as nobody has requested those citations, and I do not think they improve the article as they are all peripheral, not even primary reporting like other sources cited later in the article. Callanecc, may I suggest you revert that change?
With respect to Callanecc's comment "The restrictions on this page are designed to push editors towards discussing changes and establishing a consensus rather than edit warring their version", I want to point out that I, at least, have not been edit warring. I've made three changes total to the article. But I think that the rejection of the citation cleanup I did here [46] which was reverted by GoodDay shows that some editors are acting like they own the page. Those same editors are refusing to establish a consensus and also refusing to accept that consensus can change.
Throughout this entire exchange, I have repeated one thing, over and over again. I know I sound like a broken record, but here it is. Find one source that actually says that the laptop belonged or belongs to Hunter Biden, and I'll accept it. This is an extremely low bar. I think it is unacceptable to argue that even this low bar is not required for a statement in the lede which is contradicted by the article itself. Here is my proposal:
- We give editors who believe the sentence belongs in the article one week to come up with a source. Let's make it 11:59:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC), so that is 7 days + 15 hours.
- An acceptable source must (a) actually support the statement, not just repeat it (From the Wikipedia guidelines: "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article."), and (b) meet all the guidelines I quoted above (note my underlined emphasis).
- If an acceptable source is found and provided before that time, a citation to that source is added to the lede sentence, and such other changes as are appropriate are made to the article. If an acceptable source is not found, the lede sentence is changed to indicate that the laptop has been "claimed" to be Hunter Biden's, and, again, such other changes as are appropriate are made to the article.
- In the meantime, editors who have been part of this discussion agree not to change the first section of the article. Absent a notice on the page itself, we cannot place this restriction on other editors, like a potential 15th editor who stumbles into this.
- After whichever change is made, we can improve the first section of the article. It is a mess, irrespective of the content which is in it.
It is my hope that this reasonable proposal will be accepted by all of the interested parties here, and that those editors who are confident the statement is true will use their energies toward finding a source rather than arguing with me.
(Note: as I mentioned earlier, it is my intent to add some additional information elsewhere in the article which was inappropriately removed by ScottishFinnishRadish. While the removal was inappropriate, I realized that the additional information did not belong in the first section, and I can probably also do a better job with it. I will do so when I have time.)
RoyLeban (talk) 09:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- I think your call for a deadline is overly battleground.
- I think a good first step would be to add some notice to readers that there's an on-going discussion about how to improve the first sentence.
- The first step to solving a problem is to admit a problem exists; Readers keep showing up on talk to complain about this article, that's a problem. We're a wiki -- we don't need to hide that discussion from our readers, on the contrary, we should advertise it so they can help us. Feoffer (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Both you and Roy recently added a citation needed template to the lead ([47],[48]), so I added several. Now I see that you've removed them. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Roy and I have very different points of view. I suggested the possibility of adding a very specific, very narrow request for a source forensically authenticating the physical device. The CBS source is very strong and suffices for now. (I'm not attached to that, more just brainstorming about how to get a lead that everyone can be proud of.) Feoffer (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think we're that far off. I'm asking for the same thing that you are. But, the CBS source only addresses the data dump and does not authenticate any physical device. It says that some of the emails were definitely sent to Hunter Biden, that some of the other data very much looks like it was/is his, and that other data cannot be authenticated. It does not weigh in with any evidence or explanation as to whether the data came from an actual laptop belonging to Hunter Biden, or whether such a laptop was left for repair, etc.
- RoyLeban (talk) 05:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Roy and I have very different points of view. I suggested the possibility of adding a very specific, very narrow request for a source forensically authenticating the physical device. The CBS source is very strong and suffices for now. (I'm not attached to that, more just brainstorming about how to get a lead that everyone can be proud of.) Feoffer (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm interested in who these 14 complaining editors are, since the last RFC closed. I seen this mentioned two or three times, yet I've only seen 1 (maybe 2) editor, since the RFC closure. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
who these 14 complaining editors are
- Well go back and look at the past RFCs. I know more than a dozen agreed it would be an improvement over status quo to focus the lead sentence on the data and defer discussion of the physical device until later. I'm not sure what the best way forward is, I know it's not to weaselword it with "claimed" or something stupid like that. But there's no doubt that there's still a lot of room for improvement in the lead. Feoffer (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Feoffer:. Clarify - "...add some notice to readers, that there's an on-going discussion..." PS - Why do you keep posting that editors keep showing up to complain about this article? I've only seen 'one' (maybe 'two), since the last RFC was closed. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- An average of 1 per 9 days is actually quite a high rate of reader complaint. Feoffer (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- That's weak tea. Look at the history of Talk:Adam's Bridge. Over a third of the recent edits are complaints and immediate reverts of those complaints. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Just looking over that page, it seems to be a longstanding situation with little opportunity for compromise -- an article can only have one title.
- In contrast, the editors on this article seem to have no irreconcilable differences. Everyone agrees the data has been forensically validated, everyone agrees the device has not yet been forensically validated, and everyone agrees that media routinely refers to the device as "hunter biden's laptop". The only discussion is how best to communicate these facts to readers.
- The status quo meets my concerns. But I bet we can get the article to a place where it meets everyone's concerns. Maybe not -- Adam's Bridge situations do exist, but I'm skeptical this is such a case. Feoffer (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Better to leave things as they are. It's an American politics-related page. Trying to make 'everybody' happy, usually ends up making 'nobody' happy. GoodDay (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Feoffer,the statement "Everyone agrees the data has been forensically validated" is a reach. Some of the data (some incoming emails, between 1% and 17%) has been forensically validated but that proves only that they were sent and delivered somewhere, not that Hunter Biden received them or read them. Additional data was validated in other ways, e.g., because other copies of the same files were available elsewhere. Most of the emails and a large amount of other files have not been validated (forensically or otherwise) but the statement has been made that they appear to belong to Hunter Biden. This is not terribly surprising — it would be true whether the data dump came from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden or if it was manufactured as part of a disinformation campaign.
- GoodDay, would you say the same thing if the article currently used the word "claimed" to match the source material?
- RoyLeban (talk) 05:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
it would be true whether the data dump came from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden or if it was manufactured as part of a disinformation campaign
- That's an excellent statement of the widespread objection to the current text. Our current text leads readers to believe the device has been authenticated, but we don't have sourcing to support that. There's room for improvement. Feoffer (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- I accept the results of the last RFC. I recommend that you do the same & drop the stick. GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- GoodDay, that is a nonsense argument. I have nothing to do with "stick" you refer to. You know this. Please stop acting as if I was here months ago or I was aware of the RfCs, etc. the actual "stick" is the people insisting that no source is needed. RoyLeban (talk) 06:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- Please stop pushing for changes you want. You're not closer to a consensus now, then you were about a week ago. GoodDay (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- Same to you. Please stop pushing for an unsourced statement to stay in the lede. You're not closer to a consensus now than you were about a week ago. You're not closer to providing a source (or an actual rationale for it to stay) than you were about a week ago. I've been asking for single source that meets Wikipedia policy repeatedly. Why haven't you provided one? RoyLeban (talk) 07:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- Please stop pushing for changes you want. You're not closer to a consensus now, then you were about a week ago. GoodDay (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- GoodDay, that is a nonsense argument. I have nothing to do with "stick" you refer to. You know this. Please stop acting as if I was here months ago or I was aware of the RfCs, etc. the actual "stick" is the people insisting that no source is needed. RoyLeban (talk) 06:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- That's weak tea. Look at the history of Talk:Adam's Bridge. Over a third of the recent edits are complaints and immediate reverts of those complaints. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- An average of 1 per 9 days is actually quite a high rate of reader complaint. Feoffer (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Both you and Roy recently added a citation needed template to the lead ([47],[48]), so I added several. Now I see that you've removed them. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Accusing others of owning this page, is a non-starter. Others may see you as attempting to own this page (if not the talkpage), so its best not to cross such lines. Also, there's already a consensus. You just won't accept it. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- My comment about page ownership is mainly about the revert of my change to clean up citations. There was no reason for that revert. Three all-time edits of the page doesn't make me look like I think I own it, and I'm not trying to own the Talk page either. I'm just being insistent that consensus shouldn't override Wikipedia guidelines. Statements need sources. RoyLeban (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- You've no consensus for what you want. Drop the stick & move on. GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- See my response above. Please stop repeating yourself. Please stop with the accusations. Please provide an actual source for the statement you claim to be true with no evidence. As for consensus, it is clear that there is no consensus for your position that no source is needed for a supposed statement of fact. The goal here is to figure out how to make the article better. Why don't you want that? RoyLeban (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- You've no consensus for what you want. Drop the stick & move on. GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- My comment about page ownership is mainly about the revert of my change to clean up citations. There was no reason for that revert. Three all-time edits of the page doesn't make me look like I think I own it, and I'm not trying to own the Talk page either. I'm just being insistent that consensus shouldn't override Wikipedia guidelines. Statements need sources. RoyLeban (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Honestly, this is kind of ridiculous. More than 1 source has been provided that says that the laptop belonged or belongs to Hunter Biden. You just dismiss the sources and the consensus, and frankly at this point it is disruptive. Andre🚐 16:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Not to nitpick, but, out of all the sources that are actually focused on (in context) the legitimacy of the laptop, how many say it is without a doubt HB's laptop, and how many use words like "purportedly" "believed" "assumed" "alleged" etc...Just numbers would suffice, I'm trying to keep the focus on RS since it is still being discussed by others without beating the dead horse on my own accord. Cheers. DN (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know, but there's also recency to take into account. In the 2 RFCs part of the discussion was that older sources were more likely to use the "alleged" language. Andre🚐 05:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- CBS uses "believed" to describe the laptop data. I'd concur with Andre than "alleged" is deprecated. Feoffer (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not saying I'm the only one allowed to nitpick, by any means. Still waiting on those numbers though...DN (talk) 05:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Echoing what DN said. I don't think it is too high a bar to request a single source which is actually about the ownership of the laptop, as required by the Wikipedia guidelines and that says definitively, without words like "purportedly" "believed" "assumed" "alleged" etc., that the laptop existed, belonged to Hunter Biden, that the data dump came from it, etc. This is actually an extremely low bar for a statement in the first sentence of a Wikipedia article. RoyLeban (talk) 05:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Sources have been provided, but you keep rejecting them. GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- I have to agree with GoodDay that these sources were provided. I'm not the one to provide these numbers as I'm not advocating for any change to the RFC consensus and the burden of proof isn't on me in this dispute. RoyLeban rejects whatever is provided to him and claims it is insufficient. Andre🚐 19:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- GoodDay and Andre (or anyone else), please point to where in WP:VERIFY it says that sources that provide no evidence or explanation of a statement satisfy the requirement that "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article." And where a source isn't needed for "all material whose verifiability has been challenged ...[and]... all contentious matter about living and recently deceased persons." Oh, and where this requirement "Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step" doesn't apply if people argue enought. And where this requirement "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups..." doesn't apply if there's a big enough echo chamber with no actual evidence.
- Maybe I'm missing something, but WP:VERIFY is very clear (all italic text in previous paragraph is directly from there). If I am missing something, just point to where the policy supports your arguments. An RfC cannot override Wikipedia policy.
- So ... please drop your stick and let us fix the article.
- RoyLeban (talk) 07:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with the article. Therefore there's nothing to fix. GoodDay (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- There is absolutely something wrong with the article. As I have explained over and over again, there is an unsourced statement in the very first sentence which is contradicted by the article. You know this and no amount of dodging the issue changes that. Either it needs a source or it should be removed. Provide a source and it can stay. Without even a single source, it will eventually be removed. Wikipedia policy requires it. If you think I am misunderstanding/misreading Wikipedia policy, feel free to explain it with a policy reference and quotes, as I have done. Sans that, you are just repeating the same false argument over and over. RoyLeban (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- And over & over again, editors have provided sources, but you rejected all of them. If you don't like the result of the RFC decision, then challenge at the proper board. GoodDay (talk) 07:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with the article. Therefore there's nothing to fix. GoodDay (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- I have to agree with GoodDay that these sources were provided. I'm not the one to provide these numbers as I'm not advocating for any change to the RFC consensus and the burden of proof isn't on me in this dispute. RoyLeban rejects whatever is provided to him and claims it is insufficient. Andre🚐 19:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Sources have been provided, but you keep rejecting them. GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Echoing what DN said. I don't think it is too high a bar to request a single source which is actually about the ownership of the laptop, as required by the Wikipedia guidelines and that says definitively, without words like "purportedly" "believed" "assumed" "alleged" etc., that the laptop existed, belonged to Hunter Biden, that the data dump came from it, etc. This is actually an extremely low bar for a statement in the first sentence of a Wikipedia article. RoyLeban (talk) 05:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not saying I'm the only one allowed to nitpick, by any means. Still waiting on those numbers though...DN (talk) 05:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- CBS uses "believed" to describe the laptop data. I'd concur with Andre than "alleged" is deprecated. Feoffer (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know, but there's also recency to take into account. In the 2 RFCs part of the discussion was that older sources were more likely to use the "alleged" language. Andre🚐 05:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Not to nitpick, but, out of all the sources that are actually focused on (in context) the legitimacy of the laptop, how many say it is without a doubt HB's laptop, and how many use words like "purportedly" "believed" "assumed" "alleged" etc...Just numbers would suffice, I'm trying to keep the focus on RS since it is still being discussed by others without beating the dead horse on my own accord. Cheers. DN (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Take your RFC challenge to the proper board. None of your arguments have convinced me to change my stance. GoodDay (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- GoodDay and RoyLeban, can you please stop responding to each other? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 07:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, Firefangledfeathers. This will be my last response for now. RoyLeban (talk) 07:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Feoffer wrote "I think your call for a deadline is overly battleground." Not my intent, but I think some deadline is needed to bring the lede into alignment with the currently available sources. Right now, the argument is being made that the unsourced statement should stay unless somebody finds a source that says definitively that the laptop didn't exist, or the equivalent — and everybody knows proving a negative is virtually impossible. With my proposal, when the deadline is reached, the lede will change, either to add the source or to remove the unsourced statement. If sources are found later, like say the FBI makes an announcement that the laptop exists and was forensically proven to be Biden's, or Giuliani admits that he worked with the Russians to manufacture the data dump, then the page should change, even though the deadline has passed.
I would support adding a step 0. Add a notice to the article itself about the lede.
What do others think? Can we commit to improving the lede?
RoyLeban (talk) 06:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- It makes a lot of sense for us to actively solicit readers to participate in the talk page discussion about about the lead. When we don't encourage such participation, we basically only get complaints, which can potentially bias the discussion. Feoffer (talk) 06:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Actively soliciting readers to participate in a talk page discussion about the lead? Administrators @Callanecc: & @ScottishFinnishRadish:, wouldn't that be called canvassing? GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Here is an opportunity for us all to more closely examine the definition of WP:CAN...
"In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.
...DN (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior."
- Here is an opportunity for us all to more closely examine the definition of WP:CAN...
- Actively soliciting readers to participate in a talk page discussion about the lead? Administrators @Callanecc: & @ScottishFinnishRadish:, wouldn't that be called canvassing? GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with the lead. We had an RFC on this matter, less then a month ago. There's no consensus for the changes you want to make. GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Clearly, there's no consensus for leaving the lede sentence either. If we had 1,000 unbiased editors participate in an RfC, I am confident that the consensus would be that an unsourced statementthat is contradicted by the article itself cannot be allowed. One of the key problems with Wikipedia is that a tiny number of editors can participate in an RfC, reach a wrong conclusion, and then claim there is "consensus" for something which is not only wrong, but violates Wikipedia policy. RoyLeban (talk) 07:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- There's a consensus for the current lead, see the last RFC. You just refuse to accept the result of that RFC. If I'm repeating myself? it's only because 'you' are repeating yourself. GoodDay (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- Provide one source that follows Wikipedia policy and I'll stop. You just refuse to do that. If I'm repeating myself, it's only because you are refusing to do that. RoyLeban (talk) 07:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- Sources have been provided by editors. You just refuse to accept them. GoodDay (talk) 07:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- Provide one source that follows Wikipedia policy and I'll stop. You just refuse to do that. If I'm repeating myself, it's only because you are refusing to do that. RoyLeban (talk) 07:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- There's a consensus for the current lead, see the last RFC. You just refuse to accept the result of that RFC. If I'm repeating myself? it's only because 'you' are repeating yourself. GoodDay (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- Clearly, there's no consensus for leaving the lede sentence either. If we had 1,000 unbiased editors participate in an RfC, I am confident that the consensus would be that an unsourced statementthat is contradicted by the article itself cannot be allowed. One of the key problems with Wikipedia is that a tiny number of editors can participate in an RfC, reach a wrong conclusion, and then claim there is "consensus" for something which is not only wrong, but violates Wikipedia policy. RoyLeban (talk) 07:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
While a note could be added to the article notifying of the discussion here without being canvassing, a similar notice has been removed (v1 & v2) from the article so there would need to be a consensus established to add it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- I support either of those changes. I would also support another RfC if (and only if) an effort is made to get 1,000 unbiased editors to show up, because clearly an RfC with a few people can reach a conclusion which is inconsistent with Wikipedia policy. It is frustrating that I am asking for a single source and editors who want the unsourced statement have not provided one. It is frustrating that I am pointing to policy and people who want the unsourced statement do not respond, as if the policy is irrelevant. While I appreciate you (Callanecc) showing up, it seems that only one side of the discussion is interested in improving the article.
- Side note: it's a shame that Wikipedia uses the term "canvassing" to mean a biased attempt to find voters. The real word doesn't mean that. Where Wikipedia uses the word "canvassing" it should use the term "stuffing the ballot box" or something equivalent.
- RoyLeban (talk) 07:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- What it comes down to, RoyLeban, is that we have a couple of sources that say "a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden" or "Hunter Biden's laptop."[49][50] You can claim these sources are inadequate or unacceptable for some reason, but you cannot claim that a single source has not been provided since they HAVE BEEN PROVIDED MULTIPLE TIMES. Wikipedia guideline text does not require references in the lede when supported in the body. 2 RFCs and an overturn review have determined the sourcing sufficiently supports such statement. Personally I do have doubts as to whether it belonged to him, but it doesn't matter what I think! What matters is what the sources say and what the consensus of editors thinks. One editor is not important enough to completely derail all the processes and make special exceptions, especially for such a controversial issue. Now if we had a new source that there was some doubt that the laptop was actually Biden's laptop or he is personally denying such ownership, or if another source that was more recent stated that there was an issue with the Russians or Giuliani. I would expect and welcome such a thing! I fully believe the Russians and Giuliani are involved and the laptop is fishy as hell! I have never said otherwise! But we have to follow the consensus of editors and the statements made in RS, regardless of what we personally believe. Andre🚐 20:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- I hadn't seen this Snopes piece posted yet. It's a fair summary of the saga. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- Snopes is reliable and states
signs began emerging in the months and years to come that indicated the contents of the laptop were real, and the the device really belonged to Hunter Biden
, largely relying on the reliable CBS story that was cited earlier. More reason why we have to, at this juncture, treat the laptop as real since RS are. I still suspect, per SnopesIt would be "difficult, if not impossible to fabricate"...the laptop has been the source of hoaxes and misinformation,
Andre🚐 23:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)- To quote the Snopes article (emphasis mine): "CBS News tapped Mark Lanterman, a digital forensics expert, who told CBS he believes that the laptop's contents are authentic and do indeed belong to the president's second son." and "But signs began emerging in the months and years to come that indicated the contents of the laptop were real, and the the device really belonged to Hunter Biden." and "Lanterman told CBS unequivocally that he believe[d] the laptop contents are real and belonged to Hunter Biden."
- Also (emphasis NOT mine): "But in the months and years following its leak, evidence continues to mount that much (but not all) of the content in the public eye is real."
- And (emphasis mine): "It would be "difficult, if not impossible to fabricate" that type of everyday use" (quoting one of the Lanterman's, it doesn't say which one).
- So, in summary, the Snopes article says that the Lantermans believe that much of the content of the data dump is real and that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. The Snopes article is about the data, which, as I've explained (and others have too) would be true whether the data dump came from a device owned by Hunter Biden or it was fabricated by disinformation specialists. No evidence or information is provided about the ownership of the laptop itself. It merely repeats things others have said, without evidence. Also, note that the Snopes article, like Wikipedia, is not a direct source of information. It is repeating and summarizing information from elsewhere.
- And to comment on one thing that Mr Ernie, we need not have a source that says the laptop isn't Hunter Biden's. What the article needs and doesn't have, is a source that says the laptop IS his. We only have articles that repeat the assumption that it's his.
- That said, the Snopes article clearly supports adding the words "believed to be" or "some people believe to be" to the lede of the Wikipedia article. Mr Ernie and Andrevan does your bringing up this article now mean that you have changed your mind and now support that change? That would be a great move toward improving the article.
- RoyLeban (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Snopes is reliable and states
- I hadn't seen this Snopes piece posted yet. It's a fair summary of the saga. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- What it comes down to, RoyLeban, is that we have a couple of sources that say "a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden" or "Hunter Biden's laptop."[49][50] You can claim these sources are inadequate or unacceptable for some reason, but you cannot claim that a single source has not been provided since they HAVE BEEN PROVIDED MULTIPLE TIMES. Wikipedia guideline text does not require references in the lede when supported in the body. 2 RFCs and an overturn review have determined the sourcing sufficiently supports such statement. Personally I do have doubts as to whether it belonged to him, but it doesn't matter what I think! What matters is what the sources say and what the consensus of editors thinks. One editor is not important enough to completely derail all the processes and make special exceptions, especially for such a controversial issue. Now if we had a new source that there was some doubt that the laptop was actually Biden's laptop or he is personally denying such ownership, or if another source that was more recent stated that there was an issue with the Russians or Giuliani. I would expect and welcome such a thing! I fully believe the Russians and Giuliani are involved and the laptop is fishy as hell! I have never said otherwise! But we have to follow the consensus of editors and the statements made in RS, regardless of what we personally believe. Andre🚐 20:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- I oppose both of those proposed changes. GoodDay (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- Andre, just a sidenote, it looks like the 2 CNN cites you posted are not specifically about the laptop's authenticity. Hence, it is only used as a term of reference. Sources that are specifically about the laptop tend to use much more caution and care, as not to imply certainty. DN (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- A source doesn't need to be specifically about something to have facts about something in it. While I would agree with you that any old reference to "Hunter Biden's laptop" could simply be an association, "laptop belonging to Hunter Biden" is more of a flat statement that could easily say "alleged" or "believed," but it doesn't. We have to accept this for now unless there is any kind of source that actually offers a meaningful counterweight to the idea that it had belonged to him at one point. Andre🚐 03:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- To follow up -- the real problem is that we can't yet source a statement like "The physical device has been forensically authenticated." In contrast, "the media frequently refers to the device by the moniker Hunter Biden's laptop" is amply sourced. This lead is good enough for me, but I see what DN and Roy are trying to get at. Feoffer (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- The entire device will probably never be completely authenticated but for whatever reason, the RS of record at the current time have decided to accept the veracity of the laptop itself even if it may have misinformation or tampering associated with it. This could certainly change in the future if new information arises. Andre🚐 03:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
entire device will probably never be completely authenticated
Well, not to gaze into a crystal ball, but I had thought it plausible that such a source might emerge literally any day now and put an end to all this. Your opinion is undoubtedly more-well-informed than mine, but we can hope! lol Feoffer (talk) 03:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- The entire device will probably never be completely authenticated but for whatever reason, the RS of record at the current time have decided to accept the veracity of the laptop itself even if it may have misinformation or tampering associated with it. This could certainly change in the future if new information arises. Andre🚐 03:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Andre, just a sidenote, it looks like the 2 CNN cites you posted are not specifically about the laptop's authenticity. Hence, it is only used as a term of reference. Sources that are specifically about the laptop tend to use much more caution and care, as not to imply certainty. DN (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I echo what DN wrote. Articles which use a term of reference are not a source per WP:VERIFY. It says, in three places,that a source must "directly support" a statement. For example: "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source[2] that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."
Here is footnote 2 which explains what "directly supports" means:
- 2. A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of Wikipedia:No original research. The location of any citation—including whether one is present in the article at all—is unrelated to whether a source directly supports the material. For questions about where and how to place citations, see Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section § Citations, etc.
The burden is not on me or anyone to disprove the statement currently in the lede. The burden is on any editor who believes that it belongs. If the device is never authenticated, then it's never authenticated, and the article can't say that it is. To repeat the quote above: "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."
I'm just trying to get this article to follow Wikipedia policy. The lede is hardly the only place with this problem, but it is the most egregious because it is the very first sentence. An RfC, even two, cannot override Wikipedia policy. If you believe the policy is wrong, then head over to the WP:Verify talk page.
In all this discussion, nobody has:
- Provided a source which directly supports the statement
- Explained why it's ok to have an unsourced statement in the article
- Explained why Wikipedia policy doesn't apply here
- Explained how I am misinterpreting WP:VERIFY
I encourage everyone, especially those who believe that the unsourced statement should stay, to read WP:VERIFY.
RoyLeban (talk) 06:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- You're misinterpreting because having an explicit statement such as "laptop belonging to Hunter Biden" IS direct support. That is not an implication, it's an explicit statement. Andre🚐 16:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- That's a misunderstanding of what "direct support" means. You can find many equivalent statements of things that are simply not true. The earth isn't flat. Humans have landed on the moon. Trump didn't win the 2020 election. Etc. None of those are statements provide support to those non-facts being true, no matter how many times they are repeated. Same here. None of those statements, and none of the repetition of a presumption here, satisfy the requirement in footnote 2 above. Given all the attention, you'd think someone would have found at least one actual source, but nobody has. No statement from Biden, the FBI, the CIA. Not even the KGB (uh, the FSB). Plus, the statement is contradicted within the Wikipedia article, and I have had no influence on any of these sentences (bold emphasis mine):
- PolitiFact wrote in June 2021 that, while "over time, there has been less doubt that the laptop did in fact belong to Hunter Biden. (quoted twice in the article)
- The Post reported that the email was found in a cache of data extracted from the external hard drive of the laptop computer that purportedly belonged to Hunter Biden.
- Hunter Biden stated in an interview published in April 2021 that he was not sure whether the laptop belonged to him; he said there "could be a laptop out there that was stolen from" him, or he could have been "hacked" by Russian intelligence.
- The veracity of the Post's reporting was strongly questioned by many mainstream media outlets, analysts, and intelligence officials due to the unknown origin and chain of custody of the laptop and the provenance of its contents and also due to suspicion it possibly may have been used as part of a disinformation campaign by Russian intelligence or its proxies.
- As I've said, the article has lots of problems, but I have never seen so egregious a violation of policy on Wikipedia as in the lede.
- As clearly stated by Wikipedia policy, there's a requirement of a source to ADD information, not to remove it. Absent a source, questioned material must be removed. If there are editors that don't like that, they should try to get WP:VERIFY changed, not insist (pretend?) that it doesn't apply here.
- For fun, check out the Bigfoot article. The first sentence has the word "purported" in it, yet there are many, many sources that say Bigfoot is real, and those sources have more supporting evidence than this article. They're not just repeating a claim. They have photos and images and footprints. Using the same argument as given here, it shouldn't say "purported." After all, nobody can point to an article that shows absolutely, positively that Bigfoot doesn't exist, because proving a negative is basically impossible.
- RoyLeban (talk) 06:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Well, no. If there were reliable sources that said Bigfoot was a real thing it would say that in Wikipedia. The most prominent sources that we have at this time say Hunter Biden's laptop is real. What you're asking to do is original research and POV. The reason why Bigfoot isn't said to be real is not because there are no sources that say Bigfoot is real - it's because the weight of the prominent reliable sources has debunked the reality of Bigfoot. Andre🚐 06:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- For now... InedibleHulk (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- I can't believe my comparison to Bigfoot is being misinterpreted. The point is that, if you believe the arguments made here, then there is no choice but to remove the word "purported" in the Bigfoot article. There are far more sources (even some reliable ones, like this guy) that say that Bigfoot is real than there are sources that say the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. Because even one source is more than zero.
- The fact is that there is not a single reliable source anywhere that provides evidence or proof that Bigfoot isn't real. Don't believe me? Try to find a reputable article that says that, as opposed to one that debunks claims that have been made, or that says there is no evidence. Go ahead, I'll wait. You won't be able to find one because no reputable scientist will make a statement like that. Fortunately, nobody needs to provide such a source, because Wikipedia requires sources to include material, not to exclude it.
- Let's compare: the Bigfoot sources have photos, footprints, images going back millennia, college professors and other experts, etc. And even the sources that have not been debunked are still not sufficient to remove the word "purported." In contrast, the claim that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden has none of that. We have Rudy Giuliani and others we know are untrustworthy, we have a blind computer repair shop owner who doesn't actually know who dropped off the purported laptop, we have a description that has been repeated over and over again. No actual documentation or evidence whatsoever. Yet, that painful lack of evidence has been deemed sufficient to remove the word "purported" (or "claimed" or "believed to be" or even "citation needed") from this article!
- I keep saying, find one actual source that isn;t an echo and I'll shut up. And the result is crickets.
- No, I'm not asking for OR and I'm not pushing my POV. It's really the other way around. I'm just asking for Wikipedia policy to be followed.
- RoyLeban (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- You're not getting "crickets". You're getting countless walls of text telling you that your standards of evidence are too high for the situation you've put yourself in. You tried to change the future and the future refused to change. Why not move on to another unproven claim? There are plenty, even in this same article, that are entirely based on echoes. How do we know Hunter is Joe's son? No source has published his birth certificate or Joe's paternity test results. They just repeat the unproven assertion, over and over, till people forget it's possibly a lie. Now go big or go home! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's standards are not too high. If anything, they're too low. I'm focusing on this unproven, unsourced claim because it is in the very first sentence. If we can't fix this, the article has no hope. If this were almost any other article, nobody would accept an unproven claim in the first sentence. But this is an article about politics and there may be hidden agendas at play here. Certainly, it's been insinuated that I must have one because I'm insisting on following Wikipedia policy. If people disagree with the policy, this is not the place for it. Go over to WP:VERIFY and complain there. Until and unless it's changed, we should follow it.
- With respect to whether Hunter is really Joe's son, there are literally thousands of sources, like proof that Hunter lived in the family, photos of them together from when Hunter was a kid, many witnesses, etc.
- I am very aware that I'm being extremely stubborn. Here's the fact. That sentence is eventually going to change. Either somebody is going to find an actual source, like the FBI, or the statement will change to indicate it is just a claim. How long will this take? I don't know, but it's been 27 months(!) since the laptop supposedly appeared and, during that time, no proof has emerged that it belonged to Hunter Biden, that he took it to the repair shop, etc., and there is no reliable source that provides any such proof or any evidence. It's comical, really. We have a statement that the FBI took possession of a laptop, we have multiple versions of a data dump which purportedly came from that laptop, we have verification that much of the data in that data dump belonged to or was sent to Hunter Biden (and also verification that there are at least two versions of the data dump, which is highly suspicious), and that's basically it. So, sooner or later, this article is going to have to come into line with reality — on Wikipedia, that means that statements without reliable sources, especially statements that have been disputed, as this one has been, do not belong.
- What justification is there to argue otherwise? And why isn't now a good time to fix the article?
- RoyLeban (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Because this is the point in time where almost everyone here doesn't want to fix the tiny little part that isn't broken. It's just you and your fistful of wishful thinking, bud. Happens to the best of us. More rarely, but often enough, focusing intently on a single tree in the forest while also doing the same thing, over and over, like crimson and clover, leads to insanity. Is that what you want? Because you'll get no evidence first. Needless to say, I skipped everything you wrote except the last question, and that's all I'll continue to offer you here. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Remarks like this are symptomatic of the problem with this talk page. Respect and kindness cost nothing, yet too many of us are trying to push our way with nothing but rhetoric, cheeky remarks and cliches. Instead of engaging, we deflect and use whataboutisms. Good luck improving the article with that. DN (talk) 10:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hulk, remarks like this make one think you are mistaking the Wikipedia for reddit. You get no karma upvotes here for (attempted) bon mots, either via post or edit summary, the latter being your usual habit. Zaathras (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- I have nothing to push, Darknipples. This idea that an unneeded citation needed tag or an extra expression of editorial doubt wouldn't improve the article is the local consensus. Advising a fellow contrarian to drop the stick and realize that before it potentially drives him mad is my idea of free kindness. If you're talking about "fistful of wishful thinking", Zaathras, I'll admit that didn't age well. Everything else, I stand by. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- If this single "tree" wasn't the first sentence, I wouldn't be so focused on it. But it distorts the entire article. How can we fix the rest of the article when it is seriously broken in the first dozen words? RoyLeban (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Skip it, not even facetiously. Read the remaining entirety of the story as if it involved a generic (or even fictional) political cast you've met for the first time. Does the article do a good job of presenting the conflicts the characters face, their reactions and the consequences? Is their world built up enough for someone without a firm grasp on the settings to appreciate the significance in context? Are there other details which seem illogical to the plot, or perhaps lead away from the core lesson these sections are intended to teach? Is the writing clunky, repetitive or otherwise suboptimal? If you answer yes to any of these questions, either solve the problem or ask someone for help. Bit by bit, person by person, this article can get better, we just all have to move past giving a shit who owned the laptop's contents before they were marginally controversial. Let's start at their revelation, OK? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- If this single "tree" wasn't the first sentence, I wouldn't be so focused on it. But it distorts the entire article. How can we fix the rest of the article when it is seriously broken in the first dozen words? RoyLeban (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- I have nothing to push, Darknipples. This idea that an unneeded citation needed tag or an extra expression of editorial doubt wouldn't improve the article is the local consensus. Advising a fellow contrarian to drop the stick and realize that before it potentially drives him mad is my idea of free kindness. If you're talking about "fistful of wishful thinking", Zaathras, I'll admit that didn't age well. Everything else, I stand by. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Because this is the point in time where almost everyone here doesn't want to fix the tiny little part that isn't broken. It's just you and your fistful of wishful thinking, bud. Happens to the best of us. More rarely, but often enough, focusing intently on a single tree in the forest while also doing the same thing, over and over, like crimson and clover, leads to insanity. Is that what you want? Because you'll get no evidence first. Needless to say, I skipped everything you wrote except the last question, and that's all I'll continue to offer you here. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- You're not getting "crickets". You're getting countless walls of text telling you that your standards of evidence are too high for the situation you've put yourself in. You tried to change the future and the future refused to change. Why not move on to another unproven claim? There are plenty, even in this same article, that are entirely based on echoes. How do we know Hunter is Joe's son? No source has published his birth certificate or Joe's paternity test results. They just repeat the unproven assertion, over and over, till people forget it's possibly a lie. Now go big or go home! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Well, no. If there were reliable sources that said Bigfoot was a real thing it would say that in Wikipedia. The most prominent sources that we have at this time say Hunter Biden's laptop is real. What you're asking to do is original research and POV. The reason why Bigfoot isn't said to be real is not because there are no sources that say Bigfoot is real - it's because the weight of the prominent reliable sources has debunked the reality of Bigfoot. Andre🚐 06:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- That's a misunderstanding of what "direct support" means. You can find many equivalent statements of things that are simply not true. The earth isn't flat. Humans have landed on the moon. Trump didn't win the 2020 election. Etc. None of those are statements provide support to those non-facts being true, no matter how many times they are repeated. Same here. None of those statements, and none of the repetition of a presumption here, satisfy the requirement in footnote 2 above. Given all the attention, you'd think someone would have found at least one actual source, but nobody has. No statement from Biden, the FBI, the CIA. Not even the KGB (uh, the FSB). Plus, the statement is contradicted within the Wikipedia article, and I have had no influence on any of these sentences (bold emphasis mine):
- Let's look at this for a different perspective -- in 2023, it may be OR to dispute that the laptop is Biden's. Since the CBS story dropped, can you find any RSes, even a partisan opinion piece, seriously arguing that the device isn't Biden's? I looked and couldn't find one, but you might have more luck than me. Feoffer (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- I have found none. The laptop is demonstrably his, yet the article goes on, at needless length, to deny, distract, and doubt the situation we now know to be true in 2023 until the last paragraph. The whole article needs a serious tone shift, as it is clearly a result of partisanship, not objectivity. Nonperson1 (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- But as sources note, there is a nuance between the physical laptop(s) and the contents of the hard drives. Sources which have noted the contents have been accessed, meddled with, added to, and deleted from as the drives passed through several hands. Some rather unclean. Zaathras (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Nonperson1: You wrote "The laptop is demonstrably his" — what is your source for this? When you use a word like "demonstrably" it means that you can demonstrate proof. Great! Since you're new here, perhaps you give the rest of us a link to that proof.
- You also wrote "The whole article needs a serious tone shift, as it is clearly a result of partisanship, not objectivity". I've tried to avoid saying this, but I fear that you're right. The lede sentence is the most egregious, but I also feel like there is an anti-Hunter Biden tone to this article.
- To everyone else: I find it a bit suspicious that Nonperson1 just showed up ten days ago, made a bunch of now reverted edits to a page and now has appeared here. I have no evidence that they are a sock puppet account, but it looks suspicious. Regardless of whether anything they say might agree or disagree with me, a sock puppet account is not allowed.
- RoyLeban (talk) 09:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- This is a community of partisans, who seem intent on deleting and banning anyone that writes anything that goes against their leftist political agenda according to these sources: [51] [52] [53] More available, if you need.
- One, unless you intend to have "alleged" in front of every single word in an article, you have to consider what level of skepticism is appropriate. Even with a photo of Hunter dropping of the laptop the article could say "an alleged photo of allegedly Hunter allegedly dropping off allegedly the laptop" as each particular could be true or false and require its own independent and perfect proof. Are you sure it's a photo and not a fake? Are you sure, even if a photo, he was dropping off the laptop? Etc.
- Or, we could be somewhat reasonable. There is a slip from the shop signed by Biden. The owner is an eyewitness (testimony) (he isn't completely blind, but is visually impaired) and there is a call from Biden's attorney where the attorney makes reference to Hunter's having dropped off the laptop (see prior link). The FBI took possession of it. The forensics experts believe the laptop is authentic and unadulterated. There are defamation cases filed against news outlets and Biden regarding their slandering the shop owner as participating in criminal activity. Suits such as these put the claims of the shop owner under intense scrutiny, something he is unlikely to do if the claims he made are false.[54]
- "-Computer Forensics Services' chief technology officer, Mark Lanterman, said he believes it's clear the data was created by Hunter Biden. "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," he said."[55][56]
- Various media outlets (some a year+ after the fact) acknowledge it is authentic as well. I can give you other sources for these, but I have a sneaking suspicion that nothing, even an admission by Biden on tape, would count for some people as proof enough to not remove every usage of "conspiracy theory" and "alleged" in the article. At the least, Hunter did not deny the laptop was his with CBS, but said it "could be".
- And now, you try to get my account blocked - calling me a sock puppet account because I make a comment on a Talk page? What's your source for the claim that this is a sock puppet account? You are right that I am new here (which is hardly an indictment for a system dependent on new users) and am still learning the rules and formats. Does this make my edits false? Personally, I am more curious about the motivations and financial funding behind people who spend their days deleting other people's politically uncomfortable edits and trying to get users who make comments banned. Nonperson1 (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- I have found none. The laptop is demonstrably his, yet the article goes on, at needless length, to deny, distract, and doubt the situation we now know to be true in 2023 until the last paragraph. The whole article needs a serious tone shift, as it is clearly a result of partisanship, not objectivity. Nonperson1 (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)