Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy: Difference between revisions

Regarding an edit to counts of Washington Post-verified emails

Since we must take every edit to discussion at the talk page, in the Forensic Analysis section, I think the wording "the analysts were able to verify that from 1,828 to nearly 22,000 emails Hunter Biden had received..." should be changed to "the analysts were able to verify that nearly 22,000 emails Hunter Biden had received...", per this diff. The current wording is awkward and unnecessary. Any oppositions? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

You want to change the meaning of the sentence that indicates that it was anywhere from 1,828 to "nearly 22,000" to instead suggest that it was "nearly 22,000" and you don't see the problem with this? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Have you read the source reference? Data analysts for the Post verified 22,000 emails as authentic. That much is verifiable. So the wording of "1,828 to nearly 22,000" isn't correct, aside from being awkwardly worded in the article.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/hunter-biden-laptop-data-examined/ PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The other examination, by Greene, could verify only 1828 -- hence the article text. SPECIFICO talk 19:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Which one? It doesn't appear to be cited in that paragraph, which helps to explain this confusion. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

1,828 is smaller than 22,000. In talking about the number of emails that can be verified, "nearly 22,000" emails covers both. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

"Green, working with two graduate students, verified 1,828 emails — less than 2 percent of the total — but struggled with others that had technical flaws they could not resolve."

"Williams verified a larger number of emails, nearly 22,000 in total — which included almost all of the ones Green had verified — after overcoming that problem by using software to correct alterations in the files."

Quoted from the WaPo article. The number 1,828 holds no significant meaning as a lower limit of emails that could be verified. One team verified more because they solved a problem the other couldn't. The number 1,828 speaks more to the ability of Greene and his researchers than to the number of verifiable emails. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

That sounds like your WP:OR. Maybe the team that verified 22,000 was lax in their methodology and Green's team was closer to the mark. You don't know that, and you shouldn't cherrypick the number that you like better. I put 1,828 back in. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that saying "between 1828 and 22000" emails could be verified discounts the work of the research team that verified the 22,000. The criteria they used to evaluate emails was not inadequate or anything, nor is it for us to decide that. Per the RS, nearly 22000 emails in total can be authenticated.

Current consensus in this thread seems to be 3 against including it as-is, and 2 for. The text as it currently is casts undue doubt on the 22,000 number. If you would like to include the 1828 number, it would be more appropriate to explain in more detail how 2 studies were done, and why this study verified a lower count of emails.

EDIT: Just saw your recent edit. Thanks for taking a stab at re-wording it. I've made some edits myself. Hopefully we can compromise on how to phrase this. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

If the source says nearly 22,000, why does the 1828 need to be mentioned? Mr Ernie (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The subsequent study supercedes the earlier one. TFD (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. No reason to include a lower count of verified emails, if IN THE SAME ARTICLE, a higher count of emails is presented. Especially since the larger batch includes nearly all the emails in the smaller batch. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

It's interesting to me that both of you are very into including the larger number (22,000) but neither of you restored the 129,000 total email number, which mysteriously disappeared at some point from the body (I assume it had to be there at some point since it's in the lead). Anyway, there's no reason to omit the 1828 from the other study. It's sourced and relevant. I support including it. Wes sideman (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

You should refrain from making personal attacks on other editors, even by implication. Keep talkpage discussions focused on the article. Also remember that Wikipedia is WP:NOTDONE, and any content that you think is missing just hasn't been added yet. You should always feel free to contribute to articles in ways that are relevant and meaningful.

And luckily for you, the current wording of the article mentions the 1828 study. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I would be careful about accusing someone of making a personal attack when they haven't done so. I do respect that you're very knowledgeable about Wikipedia, even after just creating your account 2 months ago. You mastered many policies right from your first week that I haven't even read yet. But I did read WP:PA, and I think it's possible that your relatively short time here may have contributed to you accusing me of something that I didn't do. Wes sideman (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I think the implication starting with "It's interesting to me that..." was pretty clear. It came across to me to be an implied WP:PA, so I said what I did. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Wes, remember the laptop dates from 2019 and included emails from 2009 through 2019. Early in that time period, DKIM implementations were nonexistent, and later, fairly new. DKIM involves digitally signing a hash of relevant email fields including sender, recipient, title, message body (usually). As with any other digitally signed document, this allows authenticity to be validated regardless of provenance, how many times copied, etc. It's just a string of bits, after all, and if it validates, it validates. Of 129,000 emails, many may have preceded the implementation of DKIM, others may have come from email providers that had not yet implemented it, and so on. It would be difficult or impossible to validate most of those. So of course one would expect only a small percentage of the emails to be validated by truly reliable means. Nothing odd or surprising about that. Indeed, it is exactly what I would expect. TwoGunChuck (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Mr. Ernie: regarding your reversion

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy&diff=1118432891&oldid=1118413764

Please see final paragraph of Forensic analysis section soibangla (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Needs to be reinstated per source. SPECIFICO talk 01:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Per which source? Be specific. Mr Ernie (talk) 06:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Please refer to OPs post, the article text, & the cited sources. SPECIFICO talk 11:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Another dodge. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah that’s not a reliable source. Mr Ernie (talk) 06:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

See below discussion clarifying Andre🚐 18:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I don’t See any discussion about this particular source, which doesn’t appear to be reliable. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry which source is unreliable? Andre🚐 20:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

https://ddosecrets.com/wiki/Hunter_Biden_emails and I’ve never heard of cyberscoop before. Is that reliable? SPECIFICO normally has a pretty high burden for RS especially in BLP sensitive articles, which is why it is odd to see them either dodge or lower their standards. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Distributed Denial of Secrets, it's notable enough for an article, I'd say its reliability may be derived from Emma Best or others being a WP:SELFPUBLISHED expert, but I also think maybe they are reliable on their own merits. Their credentials seem solid enough - it's affiliated with Harvard and described by Columbia Journalism Review as a "journalist collective" and by NYT as a watchdog group. Cyberscoop claims to be "the leading media brand in the cybersecurity market. With more than 6.0M monthly unique engagements" so it'd be more like a vertical media blog site, part of Scoop Media presumably. I'd say both appear to be relatively reliable but you could start a discussion at WP:RSN. Andre🚐 20:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Is Wikileaks a RS? That source is noted as a “successor” to Wikileaks, and Emma Best was affiliated with them as well. Looking forward to SPECIFICO’s take on that. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I see no sound basis to contest the reliability of the sources. I don't think we should reflexively reject sources simply because they work in specialized niches and aren't household names, and they haven't been noted on RSP. soibangla (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

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. SPECIFICO talk 19:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Your new sourcing standard is duly noted. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you wish to continue with your objection or can I restore the content? soibangla (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

My objection stands. Andrevan noted the issues with the sources (one is self published and the other is a blog). If you think this meets our standards and you have consensus of course you can implement it. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Huh? I was saying both sources appear to be reliable. Andre🚐 22:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

My concern is whether we are accurately reflecting the source. SPECIFICO'S edit says, "Two additional forensic analysts who independently examined the drive concluded its contents had been tampered with." But the source says, "The known possibly tampered emails were created between August 31, 2020 and September 2, 2020. The existence of other possibly tampered emails cannot be ruled out." TFD (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, it was my edit, actually. How's "concluded its contents showed signs of possible tampering"? soibangla (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

TFD -- thinking of me again?. SPECIFICO talk 21:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

What about "found that some files had been created after the laptop had been dropped off and could not rule out tampering with earlier files?" I think what we want to convey is that we cannot count on the earlier emails to be genuine or uncorrupted unless verified. We cannot make a blanket statement one way or the other. SPECIFICO, sorry, I assumed it was your original edit because you were first to defend it. TFD (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Your wording is not NPOV. "could not rule out" starts from an undocumented premise that it's all good, but can't rule out the slim chance of tampering. SPECIFICO talk 23:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The source says "cannot be ruled out." NPOV means reflecting what sources say. TFD (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

You need to weigh additional sources and the context in which your proposed wording occurs. SPECIFICO talk 00:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

What do additional (rs) sources say? TFD (talk) 01:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

It's your proposal. Make it better. SPECIFICO talk 02:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Take a deep dive on the WaPo articles. soibangla (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Let me take a step back a bit. WaPo and NYT reported some emails had been authenticated. A loud and ubiquitous narrative immediately took root: "the laptop is real and there was no Russian disinfo op, case closed." But if one takes a deep dive on the WaPo story, there is strong evidence of tampering, via files being copied for ~3 years (hacking 101: work off a copy, not the original) and other files/folders being written (even if it was still in his possession, would Hunter have created folders named "Big Guy File" and "Salacious Pics Package"?). NYT reported Burisma had been hacked by GRU and email credentials were stolen. Why would GRU want those? To forge emails that would withstand forensic analysis and be found real even though they're fake. And the logs were repeatedly deleted (hacking 101: obliterate your trail). All this should be touched upon in the lead with multiple sources (we now have one, WaPo) but the challenged sources should also be included to show there remains significant reason to question the pervasive "there was no Russian disinfo op" narrative. soibangla (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Important to note that to date there still is no evidence this was a Russian disinfo op. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK, reliable sources are discounting files that have not been authenticated and report as fact only those that are. Your approach seems to be to cast doubt on files we know to be genuine by mentioning that some unauthenticated files cannot be ruled out as having been tampered with. We have to accept the judgment of experts and not spin this.

BTW the Russian disinformation theory has no support in reliable sources. It would be very difficult for them to do especially considering that the laptop possession went from Hunter Biden to the computer store and was never in Russian possession. TFD (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Per WaPo, the experts said that if Burisma had been hacked, their assessment that some emails were likely authentic would be called into doubt. Russia hacked Burisma and stole credentials enabling forgery, rendering the experts' analysis questionable, by their own acknowledgment. I see lots of reports that the disinfo theory has been called into question, but I don't see any saying it has been definitively found false (I'm excluding Fox News primetime and talk radio hosts here). This is similar to reporting calling the Steele dossier "discredited," a weasel word that does not mean disproved (virtually none of it has been disproved) and is closer to meaning "lots of people have cast doubt on it." I don't see any evidence for the laptop possession went from Hunter Biden to the computer store and was never in Russian possession, especially since someone spent ~3 years offloading data from it. There's no telling how many hands touched it. The chain of custody is unknown. soibangla (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

During the election campaign, the Democrats spun the story as fake and media coverage was guarded. But now there is no doubt the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden and the authenticated files were his. TFD (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

The Big Guy email was not authenticated by forensics, a recipient vouched for it. The Pozharskyi email was "likely" authentic, though maybe not because Burisma's credentials had been stolen and he's never confirmed or denied he sent it. The Pozharskyi email is not a smoking gun, anyway. We've concluded by RFC consensus that Hunter owned it, but many dissented in that discussion; nevertheless, I accept our consensus. soibangla (talk) 02:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Depends on when the emails were sent, when Burisma was hacked, and whether the private keys used to digitally sign the emails were stolen in the hack. Not like Burisma has one private-public key pair for the whole company for all time. Likely hundreds, at least. The appropriate answer is that the Burisma emails may be genuine, or not, and absent an answer to the questions I posed, there is no reason to say one way or the other, unless you want to make an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Which, however, seems to be pretty popular in the press. TwoGunChuck (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

BLP?

My take is that the entire article should be subject to the rules of BLP. A copy of a laptop hard drive of unknown provenance, which had been added to repeatedly over time, containing numerous examples of damaging material allegedly created by a living person, is being framed as having belonged to that living person. Stating that the drive, and all the material on it, belonged to Hunter Biden is the same thing as stating it at the Hunter Biden article. Wes sideman (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I think we should not state that all the material was confirmed to belong to him. We know that a small fraction of it was confirmed to belong to him but most of it did not Andre🚐 16:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

If you can provide a reliable source the date it ceased to belong to him, we can put that into the article. I wasn't aware that tampering with someone else's property transferred ownership to the person who took possession. It sounds like a boon to the thieving classes. TFD (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

That's not what he's saying. Most reliable sources agree that it's unknown whether the actual physical laptop belonged to him. The shop owner doesn't definitely say that. Hunter Biden says he doesn't know. The closest we get is that it may have been a hacked and downloaded image of his actual drive that was then altered, added to, and put into another laptop. In other words, SOME of the material on the hard drive originated with him. But there isn't a reliable source that says he owned the actual physical laptop that was brought into that shop. It's not been confirmed, so your premise is false. Wes sideman (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Sources are clear the laptop belonged to Biden at some point. Check the RFC above for the sources and comments. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't remember seeing a source stating that the laptop belonged to Biden at any particular time or with any specificity, please present if you have. The issue there is that sources seem clear enough that some authentic files were found, on a laptop that we will call Biden's laptop because the sources do and our RFC convention does. There's a story about how the laptop came to be at the repair shop, according to the owner of "the store where Hunter Biden allegedly dropped the laptop off"[1]. That story about the drop-off should be attributed because the sources do attribute it. It is not a confirmed fact. We know that a laptop turned up apparently having belonged to Hunter Biden, which we are going to call his laptop because we're stipulating that. But we haven't stipulated that every aspect of the story has gone from an attributed allegation to a fact. Andre🚐 21:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

If you are referring to the sources you provided (Guardian and Politico), neither of them seem to explicitly say that. Ive read through them a few times and cannot find any such statement to back up your claim, so unless you can show us where it explicitly says "It's clear the laptop belonged to Biden at some point." I'm going to have to disagree. The Guardian does say "Now, however, almost no one disputes its authenticity." which is not exactly the same thing. Are they referring to the emails, or the laptop? They don't seem to clarify that. To make that jump on our own is WP:SYNTH, cut and dried.DN (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Answered in the section just below. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Where is the consensus of sources that confirm the 1st sentence in the lead?

"The Hunter Biden laptop controversy involves a laptop computer that belonged to Hunter Biden, son of the then-US presidential candidate and former vice president Joe Biden."...Please list the RS that say this word for word. As far as I can tell only a portion of the emails were confirmed as "likely authentic". Not all of the emails, not the laptop or drive itself. Did Hunter Biden confirm this himself, or are we just pretending this isn't WP:SYNTH? Thanks - DN (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

We just had an RFC about this. The section here lists the sources that were closely reviewed, but here are a few samples.

"a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden"

"NBC News obtained a copy of Biden’s laptop hard drive"

"thanks to a laptop once owned by Hunter Biden"

"crack the laptop of Hunter Biden"

"a hard drive in a laptop Hunter once owned"

"Hunter Biden’s laptop"

"from Hunter Biden's laptop"

"about Hunter Biden’s laptop"

"who was investigating Biden's laptop"

"Hunter Biden’s laptop"

"The contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop computer "

"Here’s how The Post analyzed Hunter Biden’s laptop"

"Washington Post conducted its own analysis and concluded the laptop and some emails were likely to be authentic" Mr Ernie (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

"a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden"

• Where's the rest of this sentence? In what context does it say this? Which source is this from?

"NBC News obtained a copy of Biden’s laptop hard drive"

• That's a headline. What the article says is that "NBC News obtained a copy of Biden’s laptop hard drive from a representative of Rudy Giuliani". Again, where does it explicitly state that it does in fact belong to him?

"thanks to a laptop once owned by Hunter Biden"

• Where's the rest of this sentence? In what context does it say this? Which source is this from?

"crack the laptop of Hunter Biden"

• Where's the rest of this sentence? In what context does it say this? Which source is this from?

"a hard drive in a laptop Hunter once owned"

• Where's the rest of this sentence? In what context does it say this? Which source is this from?

"Hunter Biden’s laptop"

• Again, no context here. Where's the rest of this sentence? In what context does it say this? Which source is this from?

"from Hunter Biden's laptop"

• Same issue. Where's the rest of this sentence? In what context does it say this? Which source is this from?

"about Hunter Biden’s laptop"

• Where's the rest of this sentence? In what context does it say this? Which source is this from?

"who was investigating Biden's laptop"

• Where's the rest of this sentence? Who is "who"? In what context does it say this? Which source is this from?

"Hunter Biden’s laptop"

• ...seriously?

"The contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop computer "

• Same issue

"Here’s how The Post analyzed Hunter Biden’s laptop"

• Which source is this from?

"Washington Post conducted its own analysis and concluded the laptop and some emails were likely to be authentic"

• This does not confirm the laptop is his, only that it is "likely to be authentic". DN (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  Please see the linked section in the RFC. This constant re litigation is tedious and disruptive. You’ve also violated one of the DS in force here by reinstating the tag. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Please see WP:AGF. I'm not sure which DS I violated, as I have only reverted once, because you removed the tag without discussion. DN (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

“If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit.” Mr Ernie (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Well in that case I suppose I am. I will remove it for now. Cheers. DN (talk) 01:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Mr. Ernie please do not remove tags until there is a consensus

Mr Ernie, regarding your edit, [2] Please make sure you are observing the rules. See here. [3]...DN (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

So, tags may be added without consensus, but may not removed without consensus? Is there a policy that describes the use of tags? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

That is correct as far as I know. DN (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

^ aside from that, reading up on the Template:Disputed, the first line in the 'Usage' section says to "first add a new section named "Disputed" to the article's talk page, describing the problems with the disputed statements," to keep the discussion about the tag focused and in a single location. You didn't do this before or after applying this tag. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

When I added the tags, in the edit summary i explained where the discussion over the disputed content would be on the talk page. It doesn't literally have to say "disputed content". DN (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I see PhotogenicScientist (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

If I am convinced the tags aren't necessary or there is a consensus that they aren't needed I will happily remove it. DN (talk)

We don’t need to convince you. The onus is on you to convince us. Read the RFC above. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Mr Ernie It's not my intention to waste my time and everyone else's. I would ask that you observe WP:AGF. I did read the RfC (which I was not around for) and it seemed very inconclusive. There was no clear consensus, and the arguments made for removing the word "alleged" from the title are not the concern here. That does not mean that the laptop's owner was confirmed to be Biden's, only that use of the word "alleged" in the title was inappropriate, to which I tend to agree. That doesn't mean we can use WP:SYNTH in the lead. In your attempt to remedy the dispute you seemingly cherrypicked parts of sentences out of context with no references to their sources instead of plainly listing the RS that explicitly state/confirm that the laptop undoubtedly belongs to Hunter Biden. This is a simple request and should be easy for you to find, if it in fact exists. My contention is that I have yet to see it with my own eyes, and I have looked. Believe me, I have better things to do. Just show us the sources and statements that confirm without a doubt the laptop belonged to HB and I'll happily remove the tag. Thanks.DN (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I was not present for the RFC and had significant issues with its conclusion, but we're bound to honor it. That said, I will add "once belonged," as it was out of Hunter's possession and there was no record of possession for at least three years, so readers should not have an impression it went straight from Hunter's hands into Isaac's hands. soibangla (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I’m sorry that you don’t agree with the consensus but I don’t see how that gives you license to ignore it. The sourcing presented is sufficient to remove to tag. Please undo your DS violation and remove it. There is no point relitigating the RFC which covers your concerns. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

The RfC consensus about the title? That seems like a separate issue. I agree with the RfC that the RS consensus is that a portion of the emails seem to likely be authentic, but that's not the reason for the tag. That we are claiming in wikivoice that the laptop is confirmed to belong to Hunter Biden without a source that explicitly says that, is the reason for the tag. If anyone can show me just one RS with a complete statement (in context) that says the laptop is confirmed to be Hunter Biden's, in no uncertain terms, I will gladly remove the tag. If that is too much of a hurdle to clear then it only seems to reinforce my argument. DN (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I’m trying to AGF. We have an entire RFC, still visible on this page, about the ownership of the laptop. There’s a section, which I already linked, where you can read this from The Guardian “thanks to a laptop once owned by Hunter Biden.” I don’t know how it could be stated more clearly than that. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, however this article isn't about the laptop, or the authenticity of it. I would say this is likely a poor source to make this claim, as it only makes that statement in context to what that article is about "Tucker Carlson tried to use Hunter Biden to get his son into Georgetown". So the context is going to be an issue. Got any sources that are actually about the subject in question, that meet the required standard? DN (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Up above where I linked all those phrases - those are all quotes from sources presented in the RFC. You seem to already have your mind made up when you got here. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

It's rather pathetic to think that after all these electrons have been spilled, with no firm resolution, that there can be any claim that the lead section is not "disputed". Article improvement tags are a way of notifying the community that more eyes are needed and fresh opinions are welcome. The tag needs to go back up. SPECIFICO talk 02:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Sure, since all the previous efforts to undermine the RFC consensus failed, why not have another one? The RFC consensus was upheld after your challenge at AN (IDONTLIKEIT). We have “firm resolution.” Mr Ernie (talk) 02:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

The tag is not restricted to the single word that was the subject of the botched RfC. Clearly the lead is disputed. SPECIFICO talk 02:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I recommend leaving 'out' the citation tag, in the spirit of the RFC decision. GoodDay (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Seconded. 194.255.48.178 (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

This whole section is about the most ridiculous thing I have seen on Wikipedia. Has Hunter Biden (or anyone else who might know) ever denied the laptop was his? I can't find any source for that yet here we are discussing whether we can say it was his, despite plenty of references that say it was. Dibdabdob (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

seizure

If the circumstances of the FBI seizure are not specified in the lead, I submit the seizure should not be mentioned in the lead at all, especially not right up top soibangla (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

soibangla I think this article is in serious need of some tags in the meantime. Possibly POV and OR? DN (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Soibangla I see your point. The lead would read just fine without mention of the FBI seizure. IMO, the lead should be focused on the aspects of the article title: the controversy itself. So, the laptop, the reporting, etc. I went ahead and made a change in line with this. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

cool, thank you soibangla (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Soibangla Per friendly advice from SPECIFICO here, I self-reverted one of the edits I made, which took the article away from the version that we seemingly agreed on. Just wanted to let you know. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Soibangla: Was it your view that the circumstances of the seizure should be removed from the lead? My impression was that, with the context included, you favored the mention that has now been reverted again. I favor the version with the circumstances farther down and think the removal should be undone. SPECIFICO talk 23:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I also favor the version with the circumstances farther down and think the removal should be undone. soibangla (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

[{ping|PhotogenicScientist}} Apparently your removal of that detail did not have concsensus here. You are the only one favoring removal. Please restore the text by self-reverting. Your edit summary "per talk" to remove it was not correct. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

You asked him to undo one of the reverts as it was a potential DS violation. Slow down and relax - none of this is urgent. Read the comment 3 above yours for more context. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with DS. Please catch up on the history. He just removed it a second time. SPECIFICO talk 02:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe I've violated any policy in making that edit. I boldly made a change that I believed would not be contested, more than 24 hours after my last change. You may feel free to make an edit you deem appropriate, @SPECIFICO PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I didn't mention policy. Just that you appeared to make your recent removal to implementing what you thought was a talk page consensus from this thread, per your edit summary. But it is now clear that there was not such consensus, so I asked you to undo. SPECIFICO talk 15:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

People make mistakes. And mistakes get undone by consensus in time. I appreciate you following up on the issue in this thread, but I'm not going to apologize for my edit. I invite anyone that disagrees with the current state of the article re: this topic to edit as they see fit. Knowing what I now know, I won't contest it. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Nobody's asked you to apologize. SPECIFICO talk 17:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully, I see no difference between that and asking someone to self-revert an edit that is otherwise policy-compliant PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The problem was to claim that the edit was reflecting a settled talk page consensus (in your edit summary) when there was no such consensus. That misleads other editors who may skip over the edit on their watchlists or on perusing the article history. This is not an accusation of a crime. It's just a way to edit more collaboratively and to ensure that everyone can do their best to improve the article. SPECIFICO talk 18:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe a cure to that could be any other editor making an edit with the summary "consensus still in dispute; see Talk page." It doesn't have to be me for it to make sense to these unidentified editors that peruse page histories. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

ownership

The Four Deuces, if we've concluded it belonged to Hunter, do we need to show to whom it now belongs to prove he no longer does? Is that your point?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy&curid=68481472&diff=1122681395&oldid=1122680526

soibangla (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

What’s the difference between “that belonged to” and “that once belonged to?” This is the same effective meaning. Why are we edit warring over it? Mr Ernie (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Is English your native tongue? Would you prefer "that had once belonged to"? That would be clearer, but it might carry the suggestion that it's known whether it still belonged to him. I think "once belonged to" is better, because it leaves open what is in doubt. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Belonged to, while past tense, does not exclude that it still belongs to him. When we describe past events we use past tense. It is significant that the laptop belonged to him when it was delivered. OTOH, "once belonged to" implies that it no longer belongs to him. We wouldn't say for example that Hunter Biden once lived in the United States if he still lives there. OTOH, we might say he was living in the U.S. when his father was elected.

If I am wrong, could you please explain to me why "once belonged" is preferable to "belonged?" Any reason to add an extra word if it adds no meaning? Also, it seems like a subtle way of questioning the ownership. TFD (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

There is a dubious narrative that Hunter handed the laptop to Isaac, then never returned, so Isaac could then claim ownership, so there is an implied "immediacy" of Hunter's prior ownership: it ended the moment he handed it to Isaac. But we know the laptop was not in Hunter's possession for at least three years, as others unknown were accessing and copying data from it, so there is no immediacy of his prior ownership. "Once" fairly implies his ownership was distant in the past, because it was. Readers need to know there is solid evidence that Hunter did not drop off that computer and hadn't seen it for years. soibangla (talk) 02:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I am not familiar with that legal concept. My understanding of bailments, is that a person who drops off their laptop for repair retains ownership, unless otherwise agreed or determined by statute. Are you saying that if I leave my car for a checkup, the garage can sell it because they now own it? I doubt that's true. TFD (talk) 04:42, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I have seen standard contracts in repair shops stating items not collected within N days are forfeited. And IIRC, Isaac said he claimed ownership by that means. soibangla (talk) 04:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

You might be right, but IIRC isn't a reliable source. Furthermore, since your theory is that Hunter Biden did not actually drop off the laptop, he might have still retained ownership. Before inserting your interpretation, please provide a reliable source. TFD (talk) 05:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

The fine print of the original signed repair order says that equipment left in the shop longer than 90 days becomes its property. In interviews, several experts on Delaware law agreed that the document would make the laptop legally Mac Isaac’s after that time, and once he took possession of the computer, nothing would legally prevent Mac Isaac from sharing its contents with the world. Even so, by his own account, Mac Isaac started to poke around before 90 days had elapsed.

[4] soibangla (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

As I said, if Hunter Biden did not actually drop off the laptop, he might have still retained ownership. I thought everyone agreed that we don't know this for certain. TFD (talk) 11:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

What if the contents included Taylor Swift music? Or other copyright information such as emails? Does ownership of a laptop also grant copyright ownership to all its contents? 194.207.86.26 (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

We don't need the descriptive "once" added in. The sentence "..that belonged to..", means past tense. GoodDay (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

That's begging the question. There is more than a single past tense in English. That's why the "once" is critical to convey the intended meaning. SPECIFICO talk 20:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Begging? Let's hope nobody considers it necessary to open a RFC on whether or not to include/exclude 'one word'. This page already went through one already, of that nature. GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

You need to address the substance of the complaint, not falsely suggest that the two different past tenses are equivalent. SPECIFICO talk 21:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The rest of you can toss it back or forth. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

CBS, back on Twitter after their "hiatus", tweets a laptop purported to have belonged to Hunter Biden (emphasis added). The major news networks are not declaring it to have been Hunter's, they are still hedging and so should we. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

And here's the Washington Post, using the phrase "Hunter Biden's laptop" numerous times in their analysis of the hard drive.

There is currently no consensus among all major news networks whether or not the laptop belonged to Biden. There are RS that will not say it. There are RS that already have. That's why there was a whole RFC about it.

The result per the close was that to not to describe Biden's ownership of the laptop as "alleged" in our own voice. That close was upheld even after a challenge at AN. Unless there's a CLEAR reason to overturn that consensus, the RFC result should stand for now. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLP: BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone We should be on the conservative side of this, as it is the responsible, cautious approach. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The main finding of the CBS report is that the contents were genuine, regardless of the words they chose to use in a tweet. They detailed files they found that could not possibly have come from anyone other than Hunter Biden. There are no BLP issues using content found in many, many reliable sources. It was his laptop - I really think it's time to move on. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

This thread concerns ownership of the machine, not whether the contents originated with Hunter Biden. SPECIFICO talk 21:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Best we go by the RFC result. Either H. Biden was at one time the laptop's owner or he wasn't. It can't be both. The RFC result? Biden at one time, owned it. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

That does not address the subject of this discussion. We are discussing whether to asssert, in Wikivoice, that Biden was the owner at the time it was brought to the repair shop. Please respond to the issues that have been raised in that regard. This is not about the RfC question. SPECIFICO talk 22:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Appears like a WP:STICK situation, to me. But, I'll let the others make that determination for themselves. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

That's the second time in nine minutes you've said you were bowing out of this discussion. Please don't get into personal remarks here. You've been asked to respond to the central issue under discussion. Anything else is beside the point. SPECIFICO talk 23:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to beat a dead horse even more here, but would wording like a laptop computer generally believed to belong to Hunter Biden be compatible with the result of the RfC? I only ask because that's what CBS News went with in the publication of their recent forensic analysis: Copy of what's believed to be Hunter Biden's laptop data turned over by repair shop to FBI showed no tampering, analysis says. (I didn't participate in the RfC, but I think this wording would probably accommodate both viewpoints on the issue?) Endwise (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

That would go against the RFC decision. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

No, the RfC (which was initiated prematurely and could have been clarified per WP:RFCBEFORE to make it more productive) was solely about and limited to the word "alleged". Full stop. SPECIFICO talk 18:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The RFC result was quite clear. Biden at one time owned the laptop. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Simply not correct. And you've actually dived into a more recent discussion about whether he owned it at the time it was delivered to repair or whether he "at one time" owned. So looks like you've contradicted yourself with respect to the question on the table here. SPECIFICO talk 18:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

You already made it clear that you opposed the RFC & its result. Sometimes these things don't go the way we wish them to. What's done, is done. The RFC result must be respected. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, and I agree with the sentiment. But there are a few problems with that wording.

The RFC result only explicitly disallows the use of "alleged," but mentions that arguments citing sources that did not doubt the ownership were ultimately stronger. The closer also mentions "believed" as language to avoid in their additional opinion offered after the close (below "closure nearing"). The close and the RFC were additionally scrutinized in a long discussion at AE.

In writing terms, "believed to be" seems like MOS:DOUBT, though it's not explicitly listed. The degree to which this affects the phrase that its attached to varies: simply saying something is "believed to be true" isn't very strong, especially without a source attached; saying something is "widely believed to be true" is much stronger, but probably requires a few citations to back up the use of that wording in WikiVoice. The variability there might make it difficult to reach consensus. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

CBS News report

The CTO of Computer Forensic Services has impeccable credentials.[5]

He says, "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."

But the two key emails were not created by Hunter, they were sent to him. soibangla (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

It might be helpful to post a link to the new source.

I noticed that CBS refrained from owning that conclusion, instead attributing the quote directly to the CTO of the company they commissioned. But I see no reason not to quote the CTO, given CBS does so in their report, and the content of the quote seems relevant to this article, and previous discussion on the talk page. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I have to wonder if Catherine Herridge (*cough*) quoted him in full context. Maybe he was talking about Hunter's porn, as opposed to thousands of emails he received rather than created? soibangla (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

That is purely speculation. CBS published those words, so CBS owns them. IF they retract them later, we can talk. But disputing their validity in this article on the basis of the article writer is way off-base. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

If he is making a sweeping assertion that everything on the laptop originated there, he would be wrong, which raises the question if his statement was in full context. soibangla (talk)

he would be wrong This seems to be your opinion vs his. He's a forensic analyst, he looked at the data himself under commission from a major news network - he's made his opinion on the hard drive/laptop based on this information quite clear. And again, you're speculating that CBS' reporting is shoddy, that they quoted him out of context.PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

"this data was created by Hunter Biden" Including everything in his inbox and received folder? soibangla (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Seems like semantics. But you'd have to ask him or CBS if you want full clarification of that remark - I'm unable to. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

It might be just semantics had the journalists paraphrased him, but they quoted him making a sweeping assertion "this data was created by Hunter Biden," though we know Hunter did not create emails he received and are on the laptop, including two emails that are the crux of allegations of malfeasance by the Bidens. In the final analysis, all the discussion of whether it was Hunter's laptop is an irrelevant red herring; what matters is its contents, hence the last sentence of our lead. soibangla (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Irrelevant red herring? It's the central point of the controversy. Anonymous US Intelligence Agents said it was Russian disinformation (without any evidence) and the story was suppressed on social media a week before the election. It was a stunning manipulation of public faith. The reasonable thing has always been a "so what?" to the data on the laptop. There's a lot of people who make good money off their name - that isn't controversial. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

"the central point of the controversy," which has been obliterated by whether it's Hunter's machine and he appears to be a very naughty boy, is whether any of the contents implicates the Bidens in corrupt activity, and that boils down to two emails, neither of which establish corruption. soibangla (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Can we now finally consider the ownership topic settled? Mr Ernie (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

See story headline soibangla (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't think so. This is one man's opinion, which get added onto the existing pile of RS that attribute ownership to Hunter. CBS, per their language in this very article, is still in the other pile of RS that don't. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

When you're using email (or text or whatever) services, your computer will of course end up storing files you didn't create manually. I think he just means that this was data that came about from Hunter's normal, daily use of the laptop, rather than anyone else putting them there/tampering with it: "There is such a vast amount of data that was accumulated over time that is personal in nature. Everything from pictures, to personal documents to photographs, and text messages, and and emails. And just the sheer volume of what we're dealing with it would be difficult, if not impossible, to fabricate," said Sean Lanterman, the company's incident response director. Lanterman said the data was accumulated over time in a manner "consistent with normal, everyday use of a computer." Endwise (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anything was planted there, just received as emails in the normal course of affairs but were not created on the laptop by Hunter. Sean Lanterman says "the sheer volume of what we're dealing with it would be difficult, if not impossible, to fabricate," except it is a known intel practice to insert one fake thing into a pile of real things, which takes us back to GRU stealing Burisma email credentials which would enable forgeries. soibangla (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

just received as emails in the normal course of affairs but were not created on the laptop -- These two things are compatible? When you use certain email service applications, the application will store the contents of the emails you receive (and send) on your computer. So these email files, contained within the data on his laptop, were created on his laptop, through the normal course of affairs in him using that email application. And the same for the texts etc. I'm pretty sure that's what Mark Lanterman meant in that quote. Endwise (talk) Endwise (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I will amend "created on the laptop" to "created by Hunter" to distinguish between what email systems automatically do without human action and what Hunter knowingly created with his keyboard. I find it difficult to believe a pro like Lanterman would conflate routine automated background processes with what Hunter "created." soibangla (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

This kind of language is probably pretty normal for him, and I doubt he (or his colleagues) would feel this kind of language is conflating anything with anything. They receive a large hard drive full of data, and they have to evaluate how it got there (e.g. had it been tampered with? etc.). And in their evaluation, the data on the hard drive was created by Hunter's normal, everyday use of the laptop, rather than through tampering or fabrication or whatever else. To me, reading his statement raised no eyebrows. Endwise (talk) 04:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

POV - Where are the statements by Hunter Biden? Why was the CN tag removed?

[6] It seems extremely odd that HB's statements regarding this subject aren't even mentioned in this article, from what I can tell. I still cannot find a single RS that explicitly confirms the laptop belonged to him, and when I tried to place a CN tag it was simply removed with no attempt at discussion [7]. This is a fraction of the POV issues I see here. DN (talk) 03:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Here is an article from the Washington Post, a RS, which uses the phrase "Hunter Biden's laptop" numerous times, and does not call into doubt the ownership of said laptop.

Also, here is the recent RFC where lots of discussion took place, and a result was determined. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 03:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm unclear as to how any consensus trumps WP policy such as WP:VERIFY, but more to the point, that seems to ignore the context in which "the phrase" has been said.

Now, in regard to Hunter Biden's comments on this subject, is there some objection to adding those with respect to the ones that carry weight as well as preferable placement within the article etc..? I'm happy to share my suggestions. DN (talk) 04:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

It would be totally acceptable to add Hunter Biden's own statements if they are in a reliable source. Andre🚐 04:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, I see no issue with that PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Could you explain what part of this article doesn't meet the criteria of WP:V, and where in the policy those criteria are? I'm familiar with the policy, but I don't see the deficiency here. All we as editors have to do is make sure information here is "verifiable," not that it is necessarily "true." We don't have to prove explicitly or definitively that the laptop belonged to Hunter - we only have to give voice to what the RS say. And per the RFC discussion, there are many, many RS that have weighed in on this. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The sources have already been mentioned several times, but let me bring some here for you.

"recovered from a laptop Hunter Biden had left at a repair centre" The Telegraph

"a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden, the president's son" The Times

"NBC News obtained a copy of Biden’s laptop hard drive" [8]

"a laptop once owned by Hunter Biden" The Guardian

"to crack the laptop of Hunter Biden" LA Times

"a hard drive in a laptop Hunter once owned" Financial Times

"Hunter Biden’s laptop" NYT

"Biden's laptop" Newsweek

"The contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop computer" WaPo

There are still some news sources who are using wording like alleged and purportedly, but the recent RFC found consensus that there is enough sourcing to justify not needing qualifiers. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Please, we need to be very clear about the question asked in the RfC. It was simply and exclusively whether to use the word "alleged". SPECIFICO talk 17:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

It was neither "simply" nor "exclusively" about that - most users who participated in that discussion seemed to believe it was primarily about the ownership of the laptop, and how to describe it in wikivoice (examples here, here, and here). The RFC was also titled as such: "RfC about ownership of the laptop".

The explicit interpretation about it being only over the word "alleged" wasn't brought up until later, after a contentious edit you made immediately after the RFC closed. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

It was clarified after the close that it applies to all qualifiers, with the closer stating "weakening of the ownership claim would be contrary to the intentions of the majority of the RfC's participants," so please stop ignoring that. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

No, that was one person's opinion on the talk page. TFD defined the question, and unlike in many other RfC's the question was not modified in the course of the discussion. The good news is that there will soon be congressional hearings and a lot more news covevrage and the Verification issues will become more clear and better resolution may become available. SPECIFICO talk 17:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

No doubt, when the Republicans take over the House in January 2023. We'll most likely be hearing more about Hunter Biden & further changes will come about on this page. PS - Someday, all these investigations from both sides will end, we hope. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay: What do you mean by investigations by "both sides"? Sides of what? Please respond by naming the two "sides".

Your statement seems to assume that there is some sort of controversy about this computer. In the world of RS, however, there is no controversy. There is an event that's been elevated by the conspiracy theories and salacious virtue-mongering of various provocateurs, and there is investigation by media and forensics specialists to determine what if any basis there is for the allegations circulated to the eager clientele of the promoters. SPECIFICO talk 18:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

House Democrats have the January 6 investigations ongoing, which likely will be ended in January 2023, by the Republicans. It's likely that House Republicans will want to start up an investigation concerning Hunter Biden. That's what I meant by "both sides". GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Please state the relevance of the Jan 6 bipartisan hearings to a "side" in the matter of the Laptop issues and the likelihood that more information concerning the laptop will emerge from the forthcoming Hunter Biden investigations, which were the subject of the post to which you responded about "both sides". SPECIFICO talk 19:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

If you're alluding to the two Republicans on the Jan 6 House committee, who also voted to create the committee? They've been censured by the RNC for their participation in the committee. Therefore the Republican Party appears to be opposed to the committee's existence. Anyways, we'll have to wait & see, in January 2023, what House Republicans will do. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

That is deflection. The point is that there is no connection between Jan 6 and the Laptop. Contrary to the assertion in your post above, which you have declined to substantiate. SPECIFICO talk 20:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I've made no such claim of a connection between the events that occurred on Jan 6, 2021 & Hunter Biden. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Citation needed tag was removed, because it went against the RFC result. Biden owned it & there's no way around that. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

We should add Biden's statements about the laptop. He gave an interview to CBS news (per CNN):

Hunter Biden told CBS News in an interview clip released on Friday that he has “no idea whether or not” the laptop belongs to him, but acknowledged that it was “certainly” a possibility, before raising several other theories. “There could be a laptop out there that was stolen from me,” Hunter Biden said in the interview. “It could be that I was hacked. It could be that it was the – that it was Russian intelligence. It could be that it was stolen from me. Or that there was a laptop stolen from me.” Mr Ernie (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

By all means add that. But just as with the previous president, WP:V means reliably sourced, not necessarily what the first family tells us. Unlike absolute monarchy, there is no assumption that statements by the head of state are conclusive proof of their truth. TFD (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed that attributions should be made clear, and not in wiki-voice. I'll see if there are any other comments HB has made about it via RS that might have some weight. DN (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Released Twitter emails

CNN has covered the internal twitter emails that Matt Taibbi received. CNN says that

in the initial hours after the Post story went live, Twitter employees grappled with fears that it could have been the result of a Russian hacking operation.

. This is another summary part from CNN:

It showed employees on Twitter’s legal, policy and communications teams debating – and at times disagreeing – over whether to restrict the article under the company’s hacked materials policy, weeks before the 2020 election, where Joe Biden, Hunter Biden’s father, ran against then-President Donald Trump.

. Is this worthy of mention in this entry? Forich (talk) 08:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes it is worthy of a mention, as the baseless suppression by social media outlets is a central part of the controversy. I will also note in the coverage of this that sources are not qualifying the ownership of the laptop. The CNN piece uses "Hunter Biden and his laptop" and Axios for example uses "the contents of Hunter Biden's laptop." Mr Ernie (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Source for "baseless"? SPECIFICO talk 14:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Not "baseless", it was the result of a debate among the content moderation team that decided to err on caution given what was known at the time. And yeah, we can add a sentence or two on coverage of Twitter's process. We can leave Elon and Taibbi's grandstanding out of it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments from in house counsel Baker shows they knew there wasn’t a valid reason to suppress, and Twitter later said it was a mistake. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

"Baseless" and "mistake" are not the same thing. Their decision was made through discussions "based" on what was known at the time. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Not to say you're wrong or anything, but do you have a link for that? me (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry not Baker, it was VP of Global Comms who asks “Can we truthfully claim that this is part of the policy?” Baker says they did not know if the materials were hacked. Therefore they suppressed the topic on the grounds of hacking without any actual evidence. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

This is WP:OR misinterpretation. The basis for their action is the circumstances that prompted it. Those circumstances are well-documented in RS, which do not report that various media outlets acted without cause or "basis". SPECIFICO talk 20:31, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Elon's "bombshell" was a fizzle and bust, which one can glean if you actually read the article and not just the headline. Some things were taken from the laptop and posted on Twitter. Twitter was asked to take some things down, and the twitter folk discussed whether the request was to be approved or denied. Per Taibbi - there is no evidence - that I’ve seen - of any government involvement in the laptop story. Zaathras (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

And Taibbi didn't give the context that those tweets sent by the Biden campaign to Twitter that Twitter "handled" were Hunter's dick pics, which violated TOS. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

It is a topic which is currently being covered extensively by media outlets across the world. Whatever your personal position on this issue may be, you can't deny that its a material part of the chain of events of the "Biden Files". Anyone who comes to this Wiki after reading about the Twitter Files and wishing to learn more about the subject would find it extremely weird that the name Taibbi isn't mentioned in it even once. Phrase it as "neutrally" as you wish, but it should be included. נוף כרמל (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Rest assured that Taibbi will get mentioned at some point, but we need to let the dust settle a bit as this is all BLP stuff. That has been the issue with our coverage from the beginning. Even mainstream RS have had BLP concerns which made them very cautious. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

These are legitimate sourcing concerns. As the use of primary sources for controversial content is strongly discouraged, and both Musk and (especially) Taibbi are extremely biased sources, we should only use secondary RS that establish due weight for which tidbits are worth mentioning. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Opinions do not have to be accurate in order to present them, they have to have received attention in reliable sources. The Marjorie Taylor Greene article for example reports her opinions even though they are wrong. Comments by Musk and Taibbi that have been reported in reliable sources meet rs for inclusion. I agree that we should not use the term "baseless" in the article, since it has not yet been established that Twitter had no grounds for excluding the information and we don't know whether they did so for partisan political reasons. If it is established, then Twitter will no doubt provide a justification (we were trying to stop fascism, look at what happened on 1/6, must stop Putin, etc.) which the article should then report. TFD (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I largely agree, but with the qualification that content from primary, self-published, sources (like Taibbi's and Greenwald's Substack accounts) documenting their views should only be used in the article of the author, not in other articles, per BLP. OTOH, if a secondary RS deems it worth quoting them, that can justify mentioning that exact quote in other articles here, and the RS, not Substack, should be used as the source. The RS mention creates due weight for mentioning exactly that quote, but no other content from the source. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Taibbi says on his substack, "...in exchange for the opportunity to cover a unique and explosive story, I had to agree to certain conditions" but does not say what those conditions were.[9] That's not what journalists typically do, it's what guns-for-hire typically do. It makes me wonder less about what he told us, which was not very persuasive, than what he didn't tell us. soibangla (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Iffy language from iffy source

I’m on mobile, and loathe to try to mark this up, but I have some presumably self-explanatory trouble with this edit:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy&diff=1091090654&oldid=1091089975

The editor, who appears to have retired over Wikipedia’s refusal to sharpen this particular axe, seems to have inserted a position that isn’t supported by one source; their other source is the Washington Examiner, a hyperpartisan rag unfit to be cited by Wikipedia. Result: we describe this controversy as “accurate.”

Do I have to sign posts in this mobile edit thing, or will a robot do it? Here are some tildes. —Moralis (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

That content does not appear to be in the current version of the page. SPECIFICO talk 20:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

It certainly is. Section, “Reactions.” —Moralis (talk) 07:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

"laptop computer that belonged to Hunter Biden" doesn't currently fly

Add me to the list of people finding the lede sentence to be problematic without more explanation.

While the laptop may belong to Hunter Biden, the current article never explains how we know that for a fact. It mentioned forensic analysis suggesting the *data* on the laptop may have originated from Hunter Biden, it cites Politifact's statement "over time, there has been less doubt" -- which is a long way from saying it's a fact. But the lede also explicitly says that the chain of custody is unclear, prompting the unanswered question: So how do they know Hunter ever really owned that particular physical machine?

If we really know it for a fact, then we should add text explaining how ownership was established. If ownership is merely tentative, we really should add some qualifier. I see "allegedly" was rejected at RFC, but what about "laptop computer believed / widely believed / concluded / generally aggreed to belong to Hunter Biden" or similar wording. Feoffer (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources don’t question it any more. See the recent CNN and Axios pieces linked above, in addition to the many at the RFC (here for convenience). They just call it Hunter Biden’s laptop. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

That is not responsive to the issues that Feoffer has raised. To wit, no source explains any basis for asserting that the laptop belonged to Biden. Of Feoffer's suggestions, I support "laptop computer believed to have belonged..." It's weaselly, but so are the sources. Does anyone object to that wording at this point? SPECIFICO talk 01:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I do. The sourcing is clear. That’s what we follow. Every source I linked unquestionably accepts the laptop belonged to Biden. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

A quick spot inspection of your sources fails to instill confidence. WaPo article uses the shorthand "Biden's Laptop" in headline, but the text is about "Emails purportedly from the laptop computer of Hunter Biden". A more-recent WaPo uses the phrase "laptop Hunter Biden supposedly left behind for repair". So it doesn't appear to be as open and shut as your list of sources might initially suggest.

Newsweek made your list, it's no longer a RS. You quote a Maggie Haberman piece, but she and her coauthors never assert ownership of the laptop, saying only: "If the investigation into Mr. Trump’s possible connection with Russia was convoluted or hard for Americans to grasp, this one is not. The documents inquiry is about boxes of papers, storerooms, souvenirs and “top secret” stamps —the **kind** of identifiable items that Mr. Trump has weaponized to bludgeon opponents, akin to Hillary Clinton’s private email server or Hunter Biden’s laptop." The Times is similar: "**stories** during the 2020 election campaign about a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden, the president’s son". Everyone understands Hunter Biden's Laptop was a political issue -- that doesn't mean source is saying the laptop was Hunter Biden's.

Looking over the sourcing you provide, it's clear the current text is not supported by RSes. Feoffer (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Discounting Newsweek and WaPo, that’s still 9 sources that don’t qualify the status of the ownership. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, would you like me to continue? Here's the next source you misrepresented: "Some of the key players in the group were already working together in New York City before the election to crack the laptop of Hunter Biden, son of the Democratic nominee, said former Overstock.com Chief Executive Patrick Byrne, who was a major funder of the effort. " Feoffer (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes it is telling that the LA Times wouldn't bother to correct something like that or add context if they disagreed. Here are 2 sources from yesterday - CNN "Hunter Biden and his laptop" and Axios "the contents of Hunter Biden's laptop." Mr Ernie (talk) 03:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

You're missing the point -- when you attributed the phrase "crack the laptop of Hunter Biden" to the LA Times and it's really a quote from a partisan, you've badly misrepresented the source. None of your sources say what you claim they do, you're just googling around for any article with the phrase "hunter biden's laptop" and thinking that solves your sourcing problem -- it doesn't. Feoffer (talk) 03:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Farcical. The context that the LA Times added to the claim by former Overstock.com Chief Executive Patrick Byrn is that "Byrne has increasingly spoken publicly about political conspiracy theories in recent years, particularly after leaving Overstock.com in 2019 over the disclosure that he was in an intimate relationship with Russian agent Maria Butina, who was convicted in the U.S. in connection with Russia’s interference in the 2016 election." All four mentions of the laptop in the CNN article, including the Taibbi quote, refer to the laptop "story" or "stories", and the Axios article mentions "a New York Post article about the contents of Hunter Biden's laptop." Carlstak (talk) 06:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I disagree and think the sourcing and RFC consensus is clear. Additionally this edit is a DS violation that you need to self revert. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The article also does not explain for a fact how we know that Hunter Biden is Joe Biden's son. Articles are supposed to reflect the facts reported in reliable sources, not fact check them. So the article Barack Obama doesn't tell us how we know he was born in Hawaii, the moonlanding article doesn't explain how we know it actually happened. Of course there will always be people who doubt generally accepted information, but it is not something that belong in this article. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:38, December 4, 2022‎ (UTC)

Argument by false analogy is the weakest form of advocacy. Rudy Giuliani did not intervene in Obama's birth, and most likely was not present for the moon landing photos, either. SPECIFICO talk 02:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not an analogy. The fact is that some people refuse to face facts when they conflict with their belief system. It's something that I find interesting, because even highly intelligent people can behave this way. TFD (talk) 06:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. "Purportedly belonged" would be more supportable language. –jacobolus (t) 06:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a matter which has been settled by a previous RfC. For those that didn't like the outcome, you can either try and start up a new RfC, or drop the stick. Rehashing the same arguments again and again and again because you disagree with the RfC outcome is not productive, and I don't think it is capable of achieving anything. Endwise (talk) 06:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The RFC rejects the term "allegedly", and rightly so. But no amount of stare decisis will stem the tide of brand new editors like me coming to point out the lede, in current form, contradicts itself: declaring in the first sentence that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden only to then quote Politifact in the second paragraph to confirm it could have been "copies of a laptop instead of Hunter Biden's actual laptop". Feoffer (talk) 07:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

My 2c, how about "most probably belonged to HB, however the chain of possession is unclear", I know it is not perfect, but aligns with the most probable truth and the rest of the article.

This article makes some good points [10]

This archive of The Mac Shop [11] shows News post from 2010-13 then nothing for 5+ years, interesting? Suspicious? 2404:4408:638C:5E00:7527:D2E8:A117:F6A (talk) 08:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I use "most probably" as HB cannot see it, and therefore cannot say 100%, yeah I used to own that, where is my porn, or such? Further, the The Mac Shop dude had email and phone details, if he called surely HB would of collected or sent a minion? maybe he dismissed it as fake/spam as he lost the laptop in Ukraine, hardly likely to turn up in DE? A whole bunch of smelly bits and not from the Biden's imo (4cents?)2404:4408:638C:5E00:7527:D2E8:A117:F6A (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The only "smelly bits" were the crack whores Biden was banging. Biden is/was a crack addict, no one can deny that. Lets not try to figure out what he did. Follow the majority of reliable sources. The election is over, there is no longer any need to bury this story. Its ok, let it go. --Malerooster (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

only "smelly bits" were the crack whores Biden was banging – this kind of offensive defamation of living people is far out of bounds of acceptable commentary in Wikipedia talk pages. Please desist. –jacobolus (t) 19:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I guess you haven't seen the videos that Biden recorded of himself doing this? No offensive defamation, just the facts. --Malerooster (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

If you spend your day watching pornographic videos of Hunter Biden, that is your own business. Please keep it out of Wikipedia talk pages. –jacobolus (t) 20:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Malerooster (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

We must respect the RFC result. For those who dispute that result? by all means start up another RFC. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Could you please review this thread. Nobody is suggesting not to "respect the RfC result". That's a straw man and it is not helpful. Many editors have said, repeatedly, that the RfC was framed solely on whether to remove the word "alleged". Full stop. It could have been framed more broadly. It was not. And everyone who commented was commenting on the question as posed. It is not constructive to accuse other editors of disrespecting WP process. That does not advance the discussion. SPECIFICO talk 20:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

You've been against the RFC result from the start, we all know that. You challenged it via the proper channels & that challenge was rejected. TBH, these continuing attempts to add doubts about Biden ownership or past ownership of the laptop, come across as further attempts to overturn, ignore or mis-interpret the RFC result. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Feoffer, it would be best to wait until after the Republicans take control (Jan 2023) of the US House of Representatives, before tackle this again. TBH, I think this 'dispute' among editors is getting close to borderline disruption. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Good Day, GoodDay :) . The RFC conducted last summer was very narrowly focused on the word 'allegedly', which is not under consideration by anyone anymore. The article, in its current form, has a problem: It says something, unsourced, in Sentence 1 that contradicted by a sourced claim in Paragraph 2. That's a problem, and you can't wish it away by pointing to the past. Feoffer (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Your adding that dispute tag, will only increase tensions among editors. I hope this matter doesn't end up at WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:AE or any other board. But sadly, I see it going in that direction, so I can only hope that none of you end up sanctioned in anyway. Just the same, I'm gonna let yas figure the rest out, for yourselves. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, it shouldn't make anyone tense -- there is a dispute, there was before I got here. We don't need to be "emotionally tense" over that -- it's a wiki, our readers know we're a perpetual work in progress. I don't come with any particular point of view, I just noticed the current lede contradicts itself -- I wasn't the first person to notice this, I wasn't the last. I'm completely agnostic about how it gets resolved -- I would have been perfectly happy to have easily found a source verifying our lede sentence -- but I can't find one and the sources being offered up to support that statement turned out to be quoting partisans and the like, not actually verifying that statement. Feoffer (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

You should've opened an RFC on the matter, rather then just repeatedly add the 'dispute tag'. By adding (then re-adding) the dispute tag, it merely encourages some who don't like the last RFC result, to re-air there arguments. When the Republicans take over the House in January 2023? the page's entire intro could end up with big changes. But anyways, you seem determined to have the tag there & I'm not in the mood to edit-war over it. Like I said earlier, sadly, I suspect this continued bickering of this one single topic (did he ever own the laptop or not), will end in disaster. Note: By re-adding the tag, you may have 'broken' the 1RR 24hr rule on this page. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes it was a straightforward violation of that particular DS. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: since you were the RFC closer. I think you should be made aware of the continuing disputes on this talkpage, in the last several weeks. Concerning your closure/decision. GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

GoodDay and Mr Ernie. The point that is seemingly being missed here is that it isn't just Feoffer that is disputing this. Rather than devolving into an edit war of removing and re-adding the tags, or perceivably using the possibility of DS violation as a means to silence dissent, can we all just admit that there is currently a dispute and discussion going on, and that until a consensus is reached we need more eyes on this, hence the tags. Muboshgu has previously suggested using DRN which I think may be a good option so we can get more objective input from uninvolved outside editors [12]. DN (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Rightly or wrongly, the dispute tag is basically doing what the "alleged" description did. It's creating doubts about Biden's ever owning the laptop. That's why the tag should be re-moved & kept out. DRN? I'll leave that up with the rest of you, if you all want to go that route. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

What’s the point of having an RFC if editors won’t respect the outcome? We can’t just have RFC after RFC until a select few editors get their preferred outcome. This RFC ran for weeks and was upheld after a challenge at AN. Let’s at least give it a few weeks. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

"It's creating doubts about Biden's ever owning the laptop." This seemingly assumes that doubt would not exist without the tags, but everyone is entitled to their own opinions. DN (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

There seems two intractable arguments (read POV's that will never agree) possibly divided into MAGA and anti-MAGA POV's.

The solution I proposed above (despite crack ho comments) is still valid and should meet consensus if the consensus was between three items, by preferred option, 1. HB definitely owned it (MAGA option 1) 2. It is highly disputed (anti-MAGA option 1) 3. most probably belonged to HB, however the chain of possession is unclear (both MAGA and anit-MAGA option 2 and would win any vote, based on preferred option) it defines HB owned it (>90%), is not controversial, it conveys the basis of truth, it summarise the article, all the tit-for-tat and mud slinging aside if editors stop pushing their POV and cannot agree to any resolution, one must be found, if you can propose better solution/sentaence, do so, if you want to stick to your POV it is of no use and so do not comment.2404:4408:638C:5E00:B099:F55F:A773:FF11 (talk) 00:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I do have solution. REMOVE the dispute tag, as it goes against the RFC result. GoodDay (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The old RFC was focused specifically on the 'allegedly'. But even if it wasn't -- you seem to think an RFC is binding pact, it's not. Consensus can change, especially when renewed attention brings new editors to an article who weren't even part of the original discussion. The editors from August don't own the article. Feoffer (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The closer clarified exactly that point after the close. Looking at the arguments again, it seems to me that any weakening of the ownership claim would be contrary to the intentions of the majority of the RfC's participants: although one participant opposing the use of "alleged" suggested using "believed" instead, most opposers argued that there is no doubt that Biden owned the laptop and would, I imagine, oppose any construction that suggests there may still be some doubt. So if I must put my foot down—as I apparently must—I would say that the consensus is against qualifying the belonging in any way, unless a new RfC determines otherwise. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm more concerned with your refusal to abide by the 1RR/24HR rule on this page. GoodDay (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Using the threat of a DS violation over and over again without acknowledging the possibility of a legitimate dispute and current active discussion is also concerning. The whole point is to try and reach consensus, not to bully each other. DN (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

If it's not going to be respected or enforced. Why does this page have it? GoodDay (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

No one has said or is saying DS shouldn't be respected or enforced as it is meant to help discourage disruptive editing not made in good faith that may otherwise interfere with productive discussions and changes to improve the article via consensus building. If anyone here decides that the editor in question deserves to be sanctioned, I should be sanctioned as well for encouraging these discussions, which I feel are still in line with spirit of WP:5P. I also deeply respect ARBCOM and the admins, and if they feel the need to come here and tell us to shut this discussion down I will respect that, but in my experience content related issues like this are not usually a major concern of theirs unless it is disruptive or uncivil. DN (talk) 05:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Thanks for the ping. My finals just began, so I don’t really have time to look at this closely and won’t for almost a week. FWIW, after skimming this section, my thoughts are as follows: 1) making too much of the RfC’s being about the use of the word “allegedly” is unhelpful. The underlying question was whether or not RS are sufficiently confident that the laptop is Biden’s that no qualification of his ownership is necessary. I found an affirmative consensus that this is the case. 2) There was no consensus on whether or not my close was a bad close. This resulted in status quo retention, but there was no affirmative consensus it was correct. Further discussion and clarification would likely be helpful, but not like this. (Trying to bludgeon proposed revisions away with consensus only works when the consensus is strong, and this isn’t.) My advice? Come up with two, maybe three, proposed ways of framing the issue in the lead, then start an RfC to decide between them. That will lead to a better product in less than time than whatever’s going on right now. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 10:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

This is probably never going to end, unless administrators step in. But anyways, I'm going to relax & watch how the storm ends. PS - I'm surprised an RM (like removing H. Biden's name) hasn't been opened, or better yet an AfD. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

This whole section is about the most ridiculous thing I have seen on Wikipedia. Has Hunter Biden (or anyone else who might know) ever denied the laptop was his? I can't find any source for that yet here we are discussing whether we can say it was his, despite plenty of references that say it was. Dibdabdob (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

"Emphatic no" meaning

The NY Times article from the edit summary (Revision 1125271680) doesn't touch on the claim that the "emphatic no" e-mail was in response to the "big guy" e-mail. The author of the Vox article doesn't state the claim strongly either, merely saying that it "would seem to suggest he turned down Hunter's offer", but the Wikipedia article wording states it definitively. Newsweek may have lower reliability, but the fact that they're quoting the e-mail author to me trumps what seems like a guess on the Vox author's part. Setting aside Newsweek, Bobulinski also said the same thing in an interview on Fox News. --notJackhorkheimer ^{(talk / contribs)} 02:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of where he said it, would you say Bobulinski emerged from this episode with his credibility fully intact? soibangla (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

So many IFs about this story

There are so many effing IFs about this story:

1. If not for BLP. This would all be so much simpler if there were no BLP issues that mainstream RS and Wikipedia editors (even more so) have to keep in mind. We have to be more cautious than news media, but we'll end up documenting this properly.
2. If not for the source. The New York Post is so terrible a source that we have almost deprecated it and can't use it for any BLP topics. We only link to it as an External link, possibly in violation of WP:ELNO. It's an extremely partisan junk source that specializes in Trump-friendly political spin, making it the perfect vehicle to push the story.
3. If not for the dubious chain of custody matter. This was shopped around for sale in Ukraine before reaching Delaware, and Giuliani was there at the same time trying to gin up a false counternarrative as a cover-up for Trump's misdeeds. How odd that he, of all people, ended up with it in the USA. There is evidence its contents were examined and tampered with before arriving in Delaware. How odd... The chain of custody issue cannot be ignored.
4. If not for the political origins of the story. The story originated with Trump's bad actors who prepared, launched, and then controlled the narrative using the Trump favorable New York Post. Now they control the narrative using Musk and the dubious Taibbi (that's a sad story). This is a hotbed of political spin directly related to Trump's first impeachment and now his current attempts to reinstall himself, against the Constitution and will of the people, as president, fuck the vote. It is also a hotbed of potential espionage intriques because of the chain of custody issue. Russian intelligence was involved in shopping this around in Ukraine before Giuliani got it. That makes the whole matter stink.

We cannot resolve this with a simple "the laptop belonged to Hunter." That's too simplistic, naive, and ignores the many IFs. Yes, it likely belonged to him, but there are so many reasons to be suspicious. The actual laptop isn't really the issue. It is the contents. There is good reason to be suspicious about the contents, and especially the way the narrative has been controlled by Trump's agents. Even if the contents were never manipulated, they are taking a real laptop and using it for dishonest and nefarious purposes. Anything from that side cannot be trusted as they lie about everything and are using Hunter's tragic life to unfairly smear his loving father. The release of the laptop story has always been a hit job. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I adamantly agree with the points you raise here. My previous attempts to address even just the possibility of a verification issue on the article page have been repeatedly and swiftly reverted, each with the same argument that the previous RfC close about the title had settled any and all debate about validity, reliability and NPOV. I believe Feoffer has also hit the nail on the head with regard to the issue of how sources are possibly being used out of context to make certain claims in wiki-voice. Perhaps the more efficient way to sort this out may be to utilize RSN on a claim by claim basis? My worry is that editors are starting to believe that just because a source mentions a subject, that is confirmation by the source in and of itself regardless of the context, which raises POV concerns. Cheers. DN (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

It's quite clear that there is no sufficient consensus to state that Biden owned the laptop in Wikivoice. Even at the RfC close review, several of the editors who sustained the close remarked that, on the substance of the question, they disagreed with the outcome. Only one editor in the current discussion above objected to modifying the "HB's laptop" text. It either should be amended now or a new RfC can be launched. This is taking up way too much editor time and attention on an issue that should not even have been raised in a BLP and on which a precipitous RfC should not have been conducted, per WP:RFCBEFORE, which currently has been amply satisfied. SPECIFICO talk 18:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with these points as well. I think the RfC close was well-meaning, but mistaken. Rather than try a new RfC that will rehash the same points, it's probably better to get WP:UNINVOLVED admins to consider the issue. We could debate the wording of sources at WP:RSN, or the nature of the implication at WP:BLPN, but I think this needs to go next to WP:DRN. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Some fresh eyes from highly objective and competent editors is always a good idea, I just hate to try to take up their time with something that is perceivably more of a content related issue rather than the more egregious violations they normally deal with in order to keep WP a civil and productive collaborative project. That said, DRN seems preferable IMO. DN (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I just noticed something, as I went back to look at the RfC: it was a WP:Non-admin closure. I'm not going to name or ping the closer here because I see no evidence of bad faith or incompetence on their part. I only bring it up because one of the examples of "inappropriate closures" is The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial, which this clearly is. This isn't "egregious", but it's a significant problem especially given how much we're going to be hearing about this laptop in the new year. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

There was already a close challenge of the close that was on the noticeboard for a while. Andre🚐 19:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Yup, at this thread here, and the WP:NAC was discussed. Many users agreed that the close probably shouldn't have been done by a non-admin, but there ended up being no consensus that the close was bad enough to warrant overturning and re-closing. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

What is an accurate way to word this? "A laptop that may have once belonged to Hunter Biden was allegedly turned into a Delaware shop after it had previously been shopped around for sale in Ukraine at a time when Rudy Giuliani had been there. The appearance of the laptop at the shop and the resulting stories and spin were controlled by Trump associates using the Rupert Murdoch-owned and Trump-friendly newspaper New York Post. Uncertainties about the partially unknown previous chain of custody raised concerns in the intelligence community about the trustworthiness and accuracy of the claims made by Trump about the laptop, its contents, and its ownership as the claims were made as politicized attempts to smear Hunter Biden's father and Trump political opponent, Joe Biden." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

jacobolus (talk · contribs) above suggested "purportedly belonged" -- that would be a simple and easy fix. If others feel that's too weak, we could also do "believed to belong". Feoffer (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I also prefer "purportedly" Andre🚐 19:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

For the nth time, current consensus is that no qualifier is needed. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I know that. However, consensus can change. The RFC is 2 months old. The story is back in the headlines for some reason. I'm not aware of any material change to the circumstances, but if one does emerge, we should adjust accordingly. The last I saw is that CBS does indeed believe the contents of the laptop to have belonged to Hunter Biden. Andre🚐 20:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Doesn’t that then strengthen and affirm the RFC result? Mr Ernie (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not advocating that the RFC should be overturned or that new information has arisen. Consensus can change, I'm not saying that it has. As far as I can tell, the RS are saying that the files on the laptop belonged to HB. Nobody really seems to be questioning that. If the files were somehow hacked from the cloud and put on a laptop that was dropped off at a shop, that wouldn't really change the situation too much. So I kind of feel like we're wasting time discussing the wrong questions. Andre🚐 20:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

A lot of text in this section so far, but no reliable sources. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The Bidens have never even denied the laptop was there.. Show me any credible sources with evidence the laptop was shopped to the Russians or Ukrainians.. There is none..ScienceAdvisor (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The "Ukraine material" section of this article is interesting. soibangla (talk) 21:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I recommend we just wait & see what happens (starting in January 2023) when the Republicans take over the US House of Representatives. If we're lucking? they'll not bother with Hunter Biden & his laptop or former laptap. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Uh, what? That's not one of the "if's" of this story. From yesterday, Comer wants Twitter employees to talk to Congress about Biden laptop story – Muboshgu (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

A majority of the sources being used in this article say allegedly or purportedly, but here are a some of the ones I was able to gather in only about 5 minutes of looking (in full context)

1 "The unverified emails were obtained by Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, purportedly from the laptop computer of Biden’s son Hunter, who was a paid board member of Burisma, a Ukrainian-owned private energy company, while his father was vice president in the Obama White House and oversaw U.S.-Ukrainian relations." VOAnews

2 "Trump allies obtained a laptop or copies of a laptop during the 2020 campaign that allegedly belonged to Hunter Biden, President Joe Biden’s son. Politifact

3 "Thousands of emails purportedly from the laptop computer of Hunter Biden, President Biden’s son, are authentic communications that can be verified through cryptographic signatures from Google and other technology companies, say two security experts who examined the data at the request of The Washington Post. Wapo

4 "We don’t know at this point how Giuliani obtained emails and documents that purportedly belong to Hunter Biden. But we do know that they don’t support Trump’s baseless accusations against Joe Biden." factcheck.org

5 "The story, which ran on the front page of the New York tabloid under the banner headline “Biden Secret E-mails,” accused the then-vice president of meeting Vadym Pozharskyi, a top adviser to Burisma, whose board Biden’s son had joined at the time. Allies of President Donald Trump seized on the purported revelation to argue that it proved Biden had abused his position to intervene with the Ukrainian government on his son’s behalf — and that he had lied when he insisted he had steered clear of his son’s business dealings." Politico

6 "The leaker in this case is President Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who provided a copy of a hard drive that contains photos and purported emails of Joe Biden’s son Hunter to the New York Post" Vox

I will stop here in the interest of time and space, but I could very easily keep this up for the rest of the afternoon with the amount of sources already currently being used in the article...DN (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

These pieces are mostly older, though... I think a more productive tack would be to look at the most recent discussions and the latest evaluation of the veracity of the material. The main argument made by those at the RFC that wanted to uncritically cover the material was that over time, RS accepted the laptop versus some doubt at the beginning. So, we would need to address that in a meaningful way. Andre🚐 21:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The best sourced characterization I've found is the Guardian's which says "almost no one disputes its authenticity". We could easily quote that in the lede and be done with the whole issue. Feoffer (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

CBS recently features the headline referencing "what's believed to be Hunter Biden's laptop". I suggest our characterization likes somewhere between the CBS's language and the Guardian's. Feoffer (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

What was the point of having the RFC concerning Biden's ownership of the laptop, if the result wasn't going to be respected? Ever since its closure, some editors have seemed to continue to go against its decision. Would those editors be happy, if the decision went the other way & some editors went against that decision? If another RFC on this matter is held? I hope participants will -pledge- to respect the result. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

If editors do not respect the RFC - by continuing to insert the word "alleged" or substantially synonymous wording - they may be warned and sanctioned for not abiding by a consensus. That doesn't preclude continued discussion of possible improvements to the article. The reason why this is being discussed now is because the so-called "Twitter Files" are in the news due to the reporting by Taibbi which is quite controversial. It appears to have offered no new information, however, so I'm not sure any reopening of the RFC or change to the consensus is necessary or proper. Andre🚐 21:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The dispute tag should be removed, then. It creates the impression of doubt in the opening. Having the dispute tag there, is basically the same as having "alleged" there. Also (again) the re-adding of the dispute tag appears to be a breach of 1RR/24hr. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't add the dispute tag, GoodDay. You may bring the editor who did to AE. Andre🚐 22:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I know you didn't add/re-add the tag. But, I do wish you or the others would remove the tag. WP:AE? I don't like settling disputes that way, but I do see other editors taking that route. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Please don't encourage others to edit-war over tags designed to encourage discussion. Feoffer (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

You're the only one who's edit-warred on this, by re-adding the tag within 24hrs. Therefore, you should undo your re-addition. If another editor chooses to report you (if you still haven't undone the breach) to WP:AE? they just might have a case. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree the tag should be removed, since the dispute was settled by the RfC. There will always be truthers and deniers but its not our role to fact check reliable sources. And Democratic spin doctors are no longer casting doubt on the provenance of the laptop, so it's really a lost cause. TFD (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Deletion discussion of interest

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twitter Files Investigation. Zaathras (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Fix via Guardian quotation of "almost no one disputes"?

This edit would resolve my concerns about the article failing WP:V and contradicting itself. DN, Val Jean, jacobolus -- would this work for you? Feoffer (talk) 22:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

"..almost no one disputes"? creates (like the dispute tag) doubt about Biden's ownership or former ownership of the laptop. That (IMHO) would go against the recent RFC result. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

GoodDay, blaming the tags makes no sense to me, as there were none when the discussion was started. Feoffer, do you feel "almost no one disputes" represents the consensus of RS as a whole? The context that consistently appears throughout the majority of the sources and content of the article all seem to air on the side of caution rather than explicitly verify that "almost no one disputes". In my opinion the DRN route seems like a better option. I'm more inclined to let that discussion lead us to consensus. DN (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

do you feel "almost no one disputes" represents the consensus of RS as a whole No, I am very new to this topic and cannot speak for how representative that characterization is. I'm just throwing out potential compromises. Feoffer (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

IF the DRN route is taken. All those who choose to get involved in it, should first pledge to respect the result there. A pledge that all should've taken, in the last RFC. GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

DRN is not the way to resolve this. We need fresh eyes such as BLPN or NPOVN or RSN or ORN would provide.

What's the point of holding anything at all? Some editors here, seem to be going against the RFC result & have been for weeks. One editor breached 1RR/24hr & refuses apparently to abide by that DS rule. So why is anybody going to choose to respect what occurs at DRN, BLPN, NPOVN, RSN or ORN? GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The only RFC I can find was specifically on the use of the word "alleged", which most agree is too vague, that is not the same as an agreement never to seek improvement to the article or the lead. Stop using this argument2404:4408:638C:5E00:B099:F55F:A773:FF11 (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but who are you? Your first two-ever edits to Wikipedia, are to this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

GoodDay, when you have to preface something with "Not to be rude, but..." lol. --Malerooster (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Obfuscation and rudeness does not answer or alleviate the point. Answering in such a way does not negate your continued reliance on this one argument to support your entrenched POV.2404:4408:638C:5E00:B099:F55F:A773:FF11 (talk) 02:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

There's lots of sloppy language in the press. Guardian is not the gold standard in that respect. That article refers to the "surfacing of Hunter Biden’s missing laptop" as if it were the Loch Ness monster, long sought and finally discovered. There are later Guardian articles, e.g. November 5, 2022, that do not say the laptop itself was clearly Biden's. At any rate, I would not rely on the Guardian alone in that regard. And the language you suggest is similar to what I proposed shortly after the RfC, a very reasonable accomodation of all views IMO, "a laptop believed to be Hunter Biden's" and that language was quickly decried and deleted. SPECIFICO talk 23:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

RFC ownership and possession.

As this argument is ongoing and the last RFC was very limited and targeted to meet a particular objection and force in some ways compliance to a particular POV I now start this new RFC with 3 options to try clarify the position of all.
Please indicate which option, by indication of the number i.e. 1, 2, 3, that most closely aligns to your thoughts on this matter and which is best to methodology to display in any of your future edits, this will also act as a guide to the lead sentences.
Option 1: I believe 100%, despite contrary sources and information, that Hunter Biden owned this laptop, he took this to The Mac Shop and therefore had possession of this at all times, and a chain of custody has been fully established until it reached the CIA and FBI and the leak to The NY mayor is easily explainable, Hunter is guilty, full stop.
Option 2: Allegedly must be used as I am not sure if he is guilty or not and why tarnish the other Biden's in this obvious Russian interference with another election.
Option 3: I think using most or highly probably is supported by RS's, the nature and timing of the revelations and the lack of contact and retrieval of these laptops are both suspicious in of themselves, the proven meddling with the contents of the laptop (at least 3 other devices were used to implant items onto this machine) means this phrasing is more appropriate.2404:4408:638C:5E00:B099:F55F:A773:FF11 (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

This is quite improperly formatted, and I see nobody calling for a new RfC at this time. Please withdraw for now. SPECIFICO talk

Badly formatted. "Allegedly" has been rejected by an RFC and no one is calling to restore it as an option. Recommend withdraw. Feoffer (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Seeing as the previous RFC result isn't being respected (IMHO) & the 1RR/24HR rule isn't being respected either (which by the way, an arbitrator at my talkpage, has clarified that re-adding the dispute tag is a breach & that an AE report would be the proper route)? Why bother with another RFC? If the precedent has been set to ignore/reject/re-interpret, etc. Then we'll be in a repeating loop. GoodDay (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I view the comment above thus, a solid 1 from SPECIFICO would not specify or clarify though (note: these certainly is users suggesting opening a new RFC). From Feoffer I take in stride and sort of agree with part, however, in essence that is what this ongoing dispute is about either via weasel words, tags or other and from GoodDay I take no notice of at all, being accused of the same violation themselves plus obvious and blatant intransigence to their POV.2404:4408:638C:5E00:B099:F55F:A773:FF11 (talk) 04:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Your RFC isn't going anywhere much, without an RFC tag & both Specifico & Feoffer are correct. It's badly formed. GoodDay (talk) 04:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, I deliberately did not tag, I was looking for constructive comments, (was not really after criticism of my style or lack of tags). My view is the two groups fighting over this, to nearest percentage point would align with with options 1 and 2 and both are indefensible and not the whole truth or too vague and in itself misleading, believe it or not, in this rare instance I am in some agreement with your view, tagging it disputed, dubious etc is misleading, however, not admitting it may of been outside his possession for possibly an extended period is also disingenuous. We do not have 100% truth or fact, such as fingerprint id, HB saying yes definitely was mine, so we need to couch a bit, imo >95% was his, >90% was stolen by fsb/non-rino 2404:4408:638C:5E00:4D2B:42FE:7355:8C5C (talk) 05:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

can someone rewrite this word-salad sentence for clarity?

The accuracy of the Hunter Biden laptop story resulted in increased scrutiny of Twitter and Facebook limiting the spread of the story by conservatives, who argued that their actions "proves Big Tech's bias". I cannot figure out what this sentence is trying to say. –jacobolus (t) 02:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean? I couldn't decipher it either, and I've already rewritten it as "The Hunter Biden laptop story resulted in increased scrutiny of Twitter’s and Facebook's actions in supposedly limiting the dissemination of the story by conservatives; according to conservative news tabloid, the Washington Examiner, their actions "proves Big Tech's bias". Carlstak (talk) 03:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Are you looking at an old diff? I fixed that three and a half hours ago. Carlstak (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

New Lead

This was proposed during the RFC as the new lead by Guest2625 (with a few small tweaks from me) and is worth discussion:

The Hunter Biden laptop controversy involves a laptop computer and the question of its ownership by Hunter Biden, son of the then presidential candidate Joe Biden, and if the data on the hard drive reveals unethical behavior. The laptop was seized by the FBI after being informed of its existence by John Paul Mac Isaac, a computer repair shop owner in Wilmington, Delaware, who claimed that it had been brought to his shop in April 2019 by a person saying he was Hunter Biden, who never came back for it.

Three weeks before the 2020 United States presidential election, the New York Post published a story presenting Mac Isaac's claims regarding the origin of the laptop. The Post also reported that some of the emails on the computer were allegedly compromising for Joe Biden. The incumbent president and presidential candidate Donald Trump tried unsuccessfully to turn the story into a so-called October surprise to hurt Joe Biden's campaign.

Social media and media outlets originally attempted to suppress the New York Post story. Conservative media outlets, however, promoted the story, leading most other major media outlets to also discuss the story. At the time of the Post story, the authenticity of the digital files relating to Hunter Biden on the computer’s hard drive were unknown. Since then, a number of the emails on the hard drive have been confirmed as genuine.

PolitiFact wrote in June 2021: "Over time, there has been less doubt that the laptop did in fact belong to Hunter Biden", concluding that the laptop "was real in the sense that it exists, but it didn't prove much", as "[n]othing from the laptop has revealed illegal or unethical behavior by Joe Biden as vice president with regard to his son's tenure as a director for Burisma..." PolitiFact states that it is possible that "copies of a laptop" were obtained, instead of the actual laptop. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

This is not going to be constructive for many reasons, among which are 1) Our discussion of how to frame ownership is unresolved. 2) The proposed text does not reflect the article text. 3) Changes need to be proposed and discussed bitewise, not in a gulp. 4) The proposed text is factually inaccurate and fails NPOV. I'll stop at 4. Please table this and withdraw or hat it for now. SPECIFICO talk 13:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

1 - takes that out of the discussion, 2 - we can update the article, 3 - WP:BOLD, 4 - point out factual inaccuracies please. and you frequently claim something fails NPOV without bothering to explain why. Be constructive. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• oppose proposal. please make changes incrementally and iteratively. Andre🚐 15:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

  What about just the first sentence, in some form or fashion? That eliminates the qualifier needed for the status of the ownership. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

"a laptop computer, its contents, and the question of its ownership by Hunter Biden" would be fine with me. soibangla (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

This also seems acceptable to me, given that later in the first paragraph, the ownership question is well-summarized with the Politico reference: "over time, there has been less doubt that the laptop did in fact belong to Hunter Biden."

In my opinion, that quote is a perfect encapsulation of the MANY discussions on this talk page. It succinctly acknowledges a couple of things:

1. That there was at one point widespread doubt about the ownership;
2. That over time, evidence of ownership by Hunter has grown stronger, and thus fewer doubts remain;
3. That although some doubts still remain (i.e. some RS still don't report as such), the conclusion that the laptop belonged to Hunter is the more reasonable one given what is known, even at the time of that report (June 2021)

POLITICO is incredibly careful with their choice of words, a practice which has led to their nearly-impeccable reputation in the political sphere. I believe this quote from them is a great inclusion in the lead. And in conjunction with a less-definitive wording proposed for the first sentence, I think it would make a lead paragraph we could all agree on. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

ec...Like this?

"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."

I would favor that, but tweak the ending like this:

"and whether the data on the hard drive reveals unethical behavior by Hunter Biden or his father."

Joe Biden should be included because that's the whole reason for the controversy. If Joe was not a major, very high-profile, Democrat, Hunter's problems would be a side issue, just like the problematic lives of the children of many celebrities. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer it to cut off at "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." Keeps it short - most of the contents of the controversy is described later in the lead, or in the body. Also, the controversy seems to now extend to social media companies' reactions to the story, and the tactical suppression of information. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Good points. I can live with that since we do cover that in the lead. This is just the first sentence. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with Val. This looks like progress. Well done. DN (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that is a clear improvement. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Responding here that I support this new lede as it still properly captures the uncertainty of ownership in the media, and in fact better representation of the topic (that the ownership is part of the controversy, much less than what the info shows). Masem (t) 21:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Per Masem, I think MrErnie has presented the solution to us on a silver platter.. GREAT work! Thank you thank you thank you. I've boldly used your first sentence so as to get the nasty disputed tag off the page, and I would support your entire lede as written Feoffer (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

So... has a sentence been agreed upon? GoodDay (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Seems most people like "The Hunter Biden laptop controversy involves a laptop computer, its contents, and the question of its ownership by Hunter Biden, son of then-US presidential candidate candidate Joe Biden." Well enough, at least. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

IMHO, the sentence shouldn't be changed (won't repeat why) at all. But, if a majority of editors are in agreement on the new write up? I won't bust a gut over it. Though, I think all participants from the related-RFC should be pinged about the change. GoodDay (talk) 03:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Barnards.tar.gz:, @Adoring nanny:, @ValarianB:, @LokiTheLiar:, @Basedeunie042:, @Zaathras:, @Softlemonades:, @Ortizesp:, @Pharaoh of the Wizards:, @Alaexis:, @Firefangledfeathers:, @Korny O'Near:, @Protonk:, @Writethisway:, @Guest2625:, @Iazyges: & @Thriley:. You've also participated in previous related-RFC's survey. What's your views on the 'new' lead? Note, everyone else from the RFC, has already chimed in on these latest discussions. Therefore, no need to ping them. GoodDay (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I like the new lede more for two main reasons

1. It discusses the issue of the (attempted) suppression of this information which is arguably a bigger controversy than the emails themselves.
2. It summarizes the authenticity issues rather than going into details about who analyzed what which do not belong to the lede.

Cheers. Alaexis_¿question? 06:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The proposed new lead seems fine, if we include the revised first sentence as given by @PhotogenicScientist. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Point of order

This talk page section is fundamentally defective for the reasons I cited above and others. It is way too much to discuss in an orderly fashion. It constitutes a mis-framing of the entire subject as if there were an intrinsic issue or problem that is described in this article. The opposite is true. The article is about the fallout from a bungled "dirty-trick" and failed "October surprise" by mastermind bungler Rudy Giuliani and the right wing media echo chamber to support Pres. Trump's reelection bid. There is no controversy. There is just ongoing forensic examination of a big bag of inconsequential and pathetic personal and business files along with whatever else has been artfully but unproductively added to them on the device taken by the FBI. This discussion needs to be replaced by detailed discussion of key issues, not a chaotic and incomplete discussion of a rather poorly written and incomplete proposal. SPECIFICO talk 18:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, the way you put it sounds very POV. I think it would help your case if you left out most of those descriptors and focused on neutrality in order to build consensus. Trying to control the structure of the discussion is just like trying to herd cats in my experience. DN (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The way we can all control process is to avoid the temptation to join in with an opinion on a small part of a huge and ill-formed proposal that will never be agreed in total. With an ongoing BLPN discussion and unresolved discussion of a number of granular issues, it is a matter of logic that the whole thing can't be evaluated in a single chunk.

Framing this page as if it were about a real substantive controversy leads to POV text that gives undue weight to all the debunked and irrelevant political strategies of the Trump loyalists who instigated this affair. I understand that you think that may sound POV to a reader who may not fully understand or have researched the facts of the matter, but that misapprehension is itself a reason not to bite off more than we can chew at this time. I have never seen a wholesale rewrite of a lead of any article, let alone one that's in active dispute on several key points. I hope everyone will avoid the temptation to engage piecemeal within this wholesale proposal and to do so instead in separate sections on issues they wish to address. In that way, the issues of concern can be resolved rather than bundled in a package that will never reach consensus. SPECIFICO talk 19:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The train on who owns the laptop has left the station. The next stage of denial - the claim that the files are Russian forgeries - is about to leave too. Let's stop arguing about issues that have already been decided in reliable sources. The next stage is that Biden supporters will argue that the files contain no new information and all the allegations have been debunked. How we report that will make for a more interesting discussion. TFD (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The matter is under discussion at BLPN, where the most sensible proposal is from @Masem:, who suggests "purportedly belonging to" - which addresses all known concerns as far as I can tell. What do you think's going to happen? An up or down vote on a multi-paragraph script? I've never seen an RfC work that way. SPECIFICO talk 20:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

There are currently 5 editors on board with the proposal that was made during the discussion in this thread which you've called "fundamentally defective." Are you really so opposed to progress that happens to happen outside of the "appropriate" channels, that you'd try to silence discussions as they happen? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• I am cool with the new compromise. Andre🚐 21:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
• Me, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
• This new change to the lede addresses my concern about the first line, as well. Excellent work. DN (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
• The current text is an improvement over the previous version. If we are to continue with this review of the alternative lead, it needs to be broken down into new subheadings for each sentence or two -- which is what's just happened with the first sentence -- to make the discussion manageable. SPECIFICO talk 00:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
  • The text looks okay to me, but it seems out of order that the change was made by a "consensus" of five editors within just a few hours. So guys like me, who have businesses to run, or those who have jobs to attend to, not to mention those in far time zones, are "disenfranchised" from the vote, so to speak, with no opportunity to offer our input. That's how the Republicans do it. Carlstak (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

    To be fair, I think you are still "enfranchised." You may revert the text to the previous version. Andre🚐 00:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

    @Carlstak: SPECIFICO talk 02:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC) It was just an edit after a little discussion. It's better, but not particularly wonderful. The only thing that's new really is that the editors who had been insisting on "Hunter Biden's laptop" apparently gave up defending that. You are welcome to improve or revert all or part of it. Your point is well taken. Unlike the "alleged" removal, this edit was not made after a six week long discussion. SPECIFICO talk 01:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Carlstak: Do you have an objection to the text you reverted? It seems like quite a broad spectrum of editors agree it's an improvement. Feoffer (talk) 02:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't have an objection to the text, but I have limited hours on WP, as I'm sure others do as well. It's as if as soon as someone saw a developing consensus, they rushed to implement it, without waiting a decent amount of time.I felt disenfranchised without having had a chance to consider it and offer my two cents. Perhaps some other editors might feel the same. If other editors disagree, I'm not going to make a big issue of it. Carlstak (talk) 02:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

If you don't have any objection to it, why not just feel relieved that the issue was resolved without you having to expend any more time or thought on it? None of us own anything that goes one here - we're all trying to collaborate with others to make something. If something got made by others that you don't dislike looking at, where's the harm?

... except maybe in the time you've already sunk into discussion, but that's just sunk cost fallacy. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I reacted to the feeling of being left out of the process, okay? Carlstak (talk) 04:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I hope you can understand you weren't being left out. The word 'wiki' stems from the Hawaiian word for "quickly". I put up the disputed tag, and so when MrErnie proposed a suggestion that got the support of a lot of different people, while also resolving my concern, I had a duty to boldly update the page with Ernie's verbiage to reflect that I felt a solution had been found. Please don't interpret it as disrespect. Feoffer (talk) 08:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Carlstak: It would be better to make a further amendment to the new text rather than to revert the entire thing. It was better in some respects and not as good as others. Generally all-or-none changes don't advance the text as well as incremental adjustments. SPECIFICO talk 02:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

It's just rephrasing the text that was rejected in the RfC. Most participants in the RfC have other interests, but if you want to rerun it ad naseum, it requires another RfC to overturn. TFD (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

So you object to the edit that changed the lead sentence, more or less agreeing with Carlstak's concern? SPECIFICO talk 03:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: it would be proper to ping all the editors from the previous RFC-in-question & get their consent on any changes to the topic-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces respectfully, I don't see it that way. You may recognize me from the "the RFC result stands" side of the debate. I think the non-committal version of the first sentence isn't in contradiction with the RFC - it simply states what the controversy is about, in probably the blandest terms possible. Later in the first paragraph of the lead, we have POLITICO quoted saying "over time, there has been less doubt that the laptop did in fact belong to Hunter Biden." Read as a whole, the first lead paragraph does not call into question that Hunter Biden owned the laptop. In that way, we're not describing the ownership of the laptop as "alleged" or "purported" in wikivoice. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. Your position is similar to people who doubt the official version of 9/11 or Obama's place of birth. Don't you see the irony? TFD (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

TFD, please cite the sources that state "There is no doubt that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden"...DN (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources say the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. Sure there are crackpots who think it is a Russian plant, just as there are people who believe Obama wasn't born in the U.S. or the moon landing was faked. But it's no our role to factcheck reliable sources. Maybe you are right and the earth is flat. But students relying on your claims would fail their exams. TFD (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

First, you've completely mischaracterized me. "My position", as I even took the liberty of reminding you, is that the laptop belonged to Hunter. Second, unfortunately, there is SOME doubt out there in the world about this ownership. You and I may not consider it REASONABLE doubt, but it is doubt. We on Wikipedia have to work with what we have - and what we have is the WHOLE BODY of RS, and the other editors here who interpret them with us. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

If the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden, the article should not create doubt. TFD (talk) 05:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 05:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I've pinged the rest of the RFC participants. They deserve to know about any changes proposed or made, to the sentence-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 04:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Ahh, we're back to discussing the RfC that should have resolved this satisfactorily, but was instead closed by an unsuited non-admin, then hit a wall at the close review which defaulted to the bad status quo. Lovely. The laptop(s) were, and remain as of 12/06/2022 (that's 'Murican format), in a state of questionable provenance. That there is doubt about the ownership and the contents is undeniable, and the article should reflect that. Zaathras (talk) 06:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

To repeat a bit, the use of one word "alleged" was too narrow an RFC, the point of continual ownership is more nuanced, aside for the source offering new clean copies to the FBI and others, so the copy of a potential ssd from an apple device that probably at one time belonged to HB cannot be definitive, however disputed tags should not be used as too vague, a third solution needs to be found. 2404:4408:638C:5E00:4D2B:42FE:7355:8C5C (talk) 06:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

"Nearly" vs "Less than" 22,000 emails

I made this edit to the lead, changing wording that seemed to editorialize too much over the number of emails the Washington Post authenticated, to what I thought was a more neutral reading. It was reverted and replaced with another editorialized phrase - "Less than 22,000..."

The current wording seems worse from an NPOV perspective, ESPECIALLY considering WaPo uses the exact same phrasing I did: "Of those, Green and Williams concluded that nearly 22,000 emails among those files carried cryptographic signatures..." SPECIFICO, what was so wrong with my edit? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with nearly, as that's what the source uses. Less than to me seems like an odd way to phrase it, and usually isn't how things like this are naturally phrased. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

OP, as I said in my edit summary, this was discussed the first time you made this change. If you haven't brought it to the talk page prior to reinstating that same change, it's a violation of the page restriction. However I have reverted it. SPECIFICO talk 21:31, December 5, 2022‎ (UTC)

Which page restriction, exactly? The 24-hour BRD? It's been a hot minute more than 24 hours, and there was a talk page discussion right up there. "I don't like it" is not a valid reason for reverting another editor's contributions. Please explain your rationale for your proposed edit. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The source clearly says "nearly" not "less than". Feoffer (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Right? But even if it didn't, putting odd qualifiers next to numbers which subtly imply an actual number higher or lower just seems against Wikipedia-style writing. PhotogenicScientist (talk) PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with PhotogenicScientist. DN (talk) 04:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Nearly is in source and does not imply that that is it or less than. More may be found with access to valid keys or further forensics 2404:4408:638C:5E00:4D2B:42FE:7355:8C5C (talk) 06:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Interesting and illuminating information

In my opinion, the way "consensus" was determined above to change the wording of the first sentence in the lede of such a contentious article is a farce. Putting that aside for the moment, it seems appropriate to also address the last sentence of the article text, which says:

Joan Donovan, the research director of the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy at Harvard University, said that "This is arguably the most well-known story the New York Post has ever published and it endures as a story because it was initially suppressed by social media companies and jeered by politicians and pundits alike".

This was cited to an article by Kaitlyn Tiffany that appeared in The Atlantic. The last words of her article are:

Even though this sequence of events was a bit dry, it was useful all the same. A video of the exchange was viewed millions of times on Twitter that Thursday, under the caption “Brian Stelter just got destroyed by a college freshman!” It was featured two days later on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show, and Carlson was giddy while describing it. “There are still a couple of kids at the University of Chicago who are awake enough to say, ‘Wait a second, what are you talking about? Disinformation?’” After playing the video, he cracked himself up.

What cracks me up is the knowledge that Tucker Carlson (eww) and Hunter Biden were actually good buddies who asked each other for favors not so long ago, according to this article of May 19, 2022 in the Washington Post: "A look at the time Tucker Carlson asked Hunter Biden for a favor | The Fox News host often ridicules the president’s son, but years ago, the two were close." It starts like this:

Tucker Carlson and his wife were looking to get their son a leg up in his college application to Georgetown University when they turned to a well-connected Washington friend who had an even better-connected father.

"I realize you don’t really know Buckley", Susie Carlson wrote via email in 2014 to Hunter Biden, a Georgetown graduate and the son of the then-vice president. "Maybe you could meet or speak to him and he could send you a very brief resume with his interests and grades attached."

Tucker Carlson offered that his son was a good squash player and an excellent fly fisherman. "He loves Washington for all the right reasons, I think", Carlson added, "and really wants to go to school here." When Biden agreed to write a letter of recommendation, Susie Carlson added a heap of praise: "Tucker and I have the greatest respect and admiration for you. Always!"

LOL. I intend to add a bit about this interesting and illuminating information to our article. Cheers!

Oh, I left out the most important part from the article:

Some emails between Tucker Carlson and Biden, saved on a device copied from a laptop that Biden purportedly left at a Delaware computer repair shop in 2019, have been previously reported. The Washington Post has verified many of those emails through a forensic analysis and corroborated additional messages, including the correspondence with Carlson’s wife, with a person familiar with the communications. Carlstak (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Why would "this interesting and illuminating information" you intend to add be suitable for this article? soibangla (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this WP:NOTFORUM? This feels like WP:NOTFORUM. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't like my expression, but it's about improving the article. In one of his latest missives of , Carlson has tied the laptop's contents to the Taibbi marketing gimmick "revelation", so it's germane to this WP article about the "controversy". Actual journalists had good reason to be suspicious of the "Hunter Biden laptop" and its contents. Carlstak (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

We don't have to amplify anything Tucker Carlson puts out, considering WP:FOXNEWS' talk shows are considered unreliable sources. Also, that source from an "actual journalist" you linked is a newsletter.

If you want to propose an addition to this article, it's in your best interest to do so concisely and convincingly. The people who peruse AP2 articles are likely the type to not be swayed by long-winded arguments or partisan rhetoric. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 03:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

You're quite right that we don't need to amplify anything Tucker Carlson puts out, so I'm going to delink that. I only linked it to show that I wasn't just making it up, not suggesting that I would actually use it in an addition to the article. Nicholas Grossman "is" a journalist, but I wasn't referring to him specifically, although that's how it reads. I confess that I've reacted emotionally here to what seemed to me to be an arbitrary and hasty change to the lede. Carlstak (talk) 04:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted edit which seemingly ignores recent efforts and discussions

[13]...TFD, in the interest of consensus, please explain your recent revert. Cheers. DN (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

TFD provided their opinion here. It's nice to see some consensus gaining some traction, but we should give everyone a chance to be heard. There's been an active war over this content for, what, 5 days now? 1 more day to let previous discussion participants join back in seems fine.

Not saying everyone should get a chance to be HAPPY, mind you. I still like the current lead sentence, and so do 9(?) others now? It'll be tough to change that, I think PhotogenicScientist (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The outside editors who responded to the RfC have gone away and we have reverted to the tendentious wording from before. i suggest you revert or we will again have to waste the time of outside neutral editors. TFD (talk) 06:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

As a civil libertarian, I support TFD, who is rightfully aggrieved. However on the substance of the matter, including the recent reinstatement of the old version with "HB's laptop" in it. However the current discussion at BLPN is solidly upholding the BLP privacy right of Biden and the needlessness of stating "HB's laptop" in the lead. Could somebody figure out a good way to point our RfC visitors to the BLPN thread, which they need to review before sharing their !votes. I don't know the appropriate location or format for that. SPECIFICO talk 21:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

For goodness sake leave it in the form TFD reverted to. Now that an RFC has been opened on the matter? I reckon the dispute-tag's existence makes more sense. PS- Bringing BLPN into this? might be seen as an attempt to influence or over-ride a possible RFC outcome. So, let's leave BLPN out of this. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Nothing overrides BLP on this site. And your snide aspersion, along with the rest of that post, should be stricken. SPECIFICO talk 22:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

So, what will happen if option 1 (of TFD's RFC) is chosen? GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

As long as paragraph 2 seemingly contradicts sentence 1, a continual stream of new editors will show up to reject it. That's true of ANY article. Feoffer (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

If option 1 is chosen, it will be adopted. GoodDay (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't get that your question was rhetorical. You know where I stand -- I don't care if it's adopted as long as it has an inline-citation per BLP. I don't care if it's Biden's laptop or not, I just want a lede that doesn't contradict itself, making the entire project look absurd and foolish. Feoffer (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Repeatedly, you've made it quite clear, what your position is & what you want. But we don't always get what we want, on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 05:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

GoodDay, do you really not see that Paragraph 2 appears to contradict Sentence 1??? Is that really work you can be proud of presenting to our readers? Feoffer (talk) 06:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The laptop belonged to Biden & that's my focus. I've no interest in paragraph two. PS - If you're concerned about paragraph two? then fix paragraph two, so that it shows that H. Biden owned the laptop. GoodDay (talk) 06:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I've no interest in paragraph two. Well that's your problem right there! You're not caring about the reader experience. No wonder you don't see the problem in the lede. If you're concerned about paragraph two? then fix paragraph two I've legitimately tried! The very first thing I did was try to debunk paragraph 2. I legit can't find any sources to support alterations of paragraph 2. I even asked BLPN to look for sources, and they told me to stop looking at paragraph 2 and to start looking at Sentence 1 as a BLP vio. Feoffer (talk) 07:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Whatever the RFC chooses for the lead? that's what the lead will be. I can't help you with the rest. GoodDay (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for disclosing you have no concerns about the contradictory lede. There are partisans who push a pov, and there are wikipedians who care about our readers' experience. We both see who is who. Feoffer (talk) 07:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

You're free to believe what you want. GoodDay (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Moratorium on editing or discussing the laptop ownership

When this current dispute is over. I think it might be best that this page have 'at least' a 3-month moratorium placed on it, concerning anything to do with ownership of the laptop-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Disagreed. Unheard of AFAIK, and not in the spirit of WP:5P IMO. DN (talk) 04:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be best for all editors. A lot can change in three months & we could end up with an entirely different intro. It was used before, concerning the naming of the Republic of Ireland & worked out quite well. GoodDay (talk) 04:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I've heard of move discussion moratoriums, not editing or discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The lead of Jerusalem had a significant moratorium, if I recall correctly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

It depends on the coverage. Mainstream media may decide that the story is too interesting to bury, in which case we could not ignore it. If the only coverage is from the right wing echo chamber, then of course there would be nothing to add. TFD (talk) 07:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

There was something like this applied locally at certain articles where infoboxes were contentious. From what I can remember admins placed a moratoriums on opening discussions asking if the article should have an infobox. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think a moratorium like this would work on a topic that's still evolving. What if a smoking gun came out tomorrow proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the laptop belonged to Biden -- we'd have to address it. Feoffer (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to come out and (shock) oppose the moratorium idea, because although 2 months might not really need to be enough time to wait for a new RFC, technically there is no official time limit, and there's no rule of thumb on what constitutes a change of information or circumstances, under which the new CBS reporting might qualify. If there is a 3rd RFC, I might consider supporting the moratorium. Andre🚐 22:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

If TFD's RFC result is 'option 1'? I'm near certain there'll eventually be another RFC. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Your instincts are essentially correct -- WP:V and BLP take precedence. It's a waste of time to argue for option 1 -- you can't include unsourced contentious material on a BLP no matter how many !voters you get. Feoffer (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Never a good idea to go against consensus. Would be very messy to report multiple editors to WP:AE, because they chose 'option 1'. Meanwhile - Why hasn't this page been nominated for deletion, or at least nominated for renaming? GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

RfC about ownership of the laptop

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)

Survey

• 1 - As we should respect the previous RFC's result. GoodDay (talk) 07:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• 1 Agree with GoodDay. TFD (talk) 07:43, 6 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)

Why not take care of the "ownership bit" first & worry about bold titles later. GoodDay (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

We can do both simultaneously and save us some time. Surtsicna (talk) 16:54, 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.
• 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)
• Version 32 Andre🚐 18:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but Option 3 isn't an option in this RfC, but it can be discussed below. It's a much better option. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Fixed Andre🚐 18:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• 2 - The origin, New York Post, is currently listed as Deprecated generally 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 [14] 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)

  I stand corrected, it is generally unreliable, thanks. I feel the point is still clear. DN (talk) 02:19, 8 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)

  Thanks Carlstak. I honestly needed a darn good laugh ;) GoodDay (talk) 02:47, 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)

• 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): Politico: "Hunter Biden’s leaked laptop files... the New York Post’s coverage of the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop" Al Jazeera: "a New York Post article detailing materials found on a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden" Mother Jones: "how to deal with material from Hunter’s laptop... salacious videos and pictures from Hunter Biden’s laptop..." etc. The Telegraph: "story based on emails from a laptop belonging to Mr Biden's son, Hunter." The Times: "New York Post story revealing the contents of a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden" 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: 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.[15] Do note though that in that article, CBS news went with the headline "what's believed to be Hunter Biden's laptop data", but they otherwise worded the article so as to avoid commenting on its ownership. With all of this, there really doesn't appear to be a problem in terms of sourcing for us to use the wording in option 1.

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)

• 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)

  I am at a loss for how we can't go from its HB laptop, then to say it belonged to him?

  Because we have sources, IN THE LEDE, that say it might not have been his laptop, just a copy of his data. Feoffer (talk) 05:19, 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)

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)

How would you phrase the question then? TFD (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd post to BLPN asking for help bringing the sentence in line with WP:V and if no source was forthcoming after a few days, I would remove the offending content and treat its restoration as a behavior issue. Feoffer (talk) 22:15, 6 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)

• 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)

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)

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:

1. 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
2. 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.
3. 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:

1. This isn't even a real controversy. This article should be trimmed, or just deleted.
2. The article should call the laptop as Hunter Biden's. No sidestepping, no creative wording around it.

Discussion

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)

I had to think about what Surtsicna was saying, but I agree that he makes a good point. SPECIFICO's version looks good to me (on late Spanish time, although I'm not in Spain.;-) Carlstak (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2022 (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)

You believe whatever you want. GoodDay (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

"...you can't publish unsourced contentious claims about living people in the United States". Are you suggesting that their could be legal action against Wikipedia, concerning this topic? GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

That admin’s opinion doesn’t overrule consensus from the RFC. I would restore now but I’m on mobile and have trouble formatting. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd do the same, Mr Ernie. But having Feoffer revert me twice already, is quite frustrating enough. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 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)

Masem requesting further clarification above provided PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:10, 8 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)

EBRD simplified to 1RR only

It looks like a non-admin has created the edit notice (which they should not have done) with the more arcane and counterintuitive Enforced BRD restriction over the more conventional WP:1RR one. A restriction (EBRD) which almost everyone seem to have ignored (i.e. failing to wait the required 24 hours between reverts). As for the mandatory accompanying discussions, I don't know, I haven't checked. Doesn't matter, I've simplified things by converting it to 1RR only, so no need to worry about those other components.

Since there is an WP:RfC currently running, I'll note that the status quo ante version is usually the version that gets displayed until that procedure is concluded. So I'll leave it at that. Note that I encountered this in passing at WP:RFPP/I (permalink)—well, kinda a second time—but am unlikely to be available to further assist with this (because WP:AP2 is a drag!). So, if there are violations, please report em to WP:AE or WP:AN/WP:ANI, you know how it glows. Giving the violating party a chance to self-revert before reporting is customary (unless habitual). Thanks all! El_C 06:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@El C: Would I be allowed to restore the status quo ante? GoodDay (talk) 06:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Possibly. Again, WP:1RR-only (or as I sometimes call it, naked 1RR) rather than EBRD is currently in effect, so that's the limit. As mentioned, when there's an RfC over competing versions, usually the longstanding one is the one that gets displayed over the contending one until the RfC process is done. But, like WP:ONUS and WP:BRD (the original BRD, not the weird E-one), that's only a recommendation. If it was enforced, it'd just be Consensus required, which I don't think is, well, required at this time. El_C 06:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Wish folks would've waited until 'after' the Republicans took control of the House (in January 2023) before changing or attempting to change the intro or putting in a 'dispute tag', etc. Likely best that I not restore the status quo ante, as past experience at this page, tells me it'll likely be reverted 'or' changed. GoodDay (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@El C, Awilley, and Doug Weller: El C, I was surprised to see this change. The template was adjusted recently, but the page restriction itself was placed by Doug Weller in July, 2022. The 24-BRD page restriction was invented (but not patented👧🏻} by Awilley during his tenure as an active DS Admin. 24-BRD was a very valuable innovation, because it targets incipient edit-war adjacent behavior without unduly restricting active editors. Among the benefits of this is that it enables active editors to revert unconstructive edits, by either inexperienced or drive-by POV editors, who tend to come and go on DS pages with some regularity. At the same time, it prevents these active editors from using a free allowance of 3RR to insist on their own edits, without due collaboration.

I don't believe it's the case that the 24-BRD has recently been widely ignored. I've seen what appear to be weaponized allegations of that without diffs, but I don't see widespread recent reverts of the same material by a single editor without discussion.

I believe that the RFPP was an overreaction to some ongoing silly behavior concerning content that's under active discussion. It is inconsequential, and it doesn't matter which version is in the article for the next several weeks. But changing the page restriction will have a lasting detrimental effect, in my opinion. The 24-BRD is in effect on many of the most active pages in the American Politics area, and it has worked very well with minimal confusion and without needing much editor or Admin time and attention.

I request that you restore the 24-BRD restriction placed by Doug Weller. Thanks, and thanks for your prior period of active volunteer activity in this area. SPECIFICO talk 13:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

There was at least 'one' editor who twice breached 1RR/24HR. Doing so on Dec 4 & again on Dec 6, via 'adding & re-adding' the dispute tag, both times within 24hrs. If required, I can provide the diffs. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

El C, I request that you not restore the 24-BRD restriction & keep the current 1RR rule in place. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

It's okay, GoodDay, I will not. But I get it, SPECIFICO, you like EBRD (←no project page btw) because it is arcane and confusing but you yourself have a good grasp of it, and WP:AP2 is an area where, let's be honest, you should have been banned from multiple times over. But regardless, there's long been a consensus among admins going back years to streamline and simplify all the beyond-1RR restrictions (well, there's two, the other is CR, which does have a project page).

Like myself, it took Awilley a few years to realize that imposing his own custom sanctions, EBRD being the pinnacle of these, tend to work poorly. I don't think Doug was too aware of all of that (i.e. operating with old info), but at the event, I looked at the article edit notice (here), added by a non-admin.

So, it's done, SPECIFICO, irrespectively. A revert from now on is just a regular revert, no more exotic definitions. To quote the policy: whether involving the same or different material. You get one revert a day. Not one for this and one for that and one for the other thing. The normal rules of engagement are creeping back into the American politics topic area, though it might take a while and the path may not be fully linear. El_C 17:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@El C The bit about EBRD not having a project page is a good one, and it actually really sucks. As a new user, who's been informed that I violated this page sanction twice now (which I made good faith efforts to correct after being warned), I had ZERO resource to inform myself on this supposed sanction policy. And I looked everywhere. No information at WP:BRD, or WP:EW, or WP:1RR, or WP:AP2. I was left wondering where the actual policy I violated was.

And when I asked SPECIFICO to point me to it, their answer was simply "ask the Teahouse or Village pump."

In my opinion, this restriction is just not well-documented enough to be implemented, or reasonably enforced. It's incredibly editor-unfriendly. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

PhotogenicScientist, I doubt WP:TEAHOUSE regulars would have been able to clearly explain EBRD to you, so it was rather underhanded of SPECIFICO to have sent you there. Again, it's a custom WP:ACDS page restriction created by a single admin, who then went on to add it to multiple AP2 pages without ArbCom's consent. So, its bad legacy persists. It should be streamlined to the simplified ruleset of WP:1RR, or in extreme cases, WP:CRP (both having project pages). Which was agreed upon years ago. That means removing it rather than continuing to add it. The point is that the rules for the American politics topic area should not be made even more impenetrable and byzantine than they already are. El_C 17:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Man, no kidding. Thanks for the background. Reading WP:CRP, there seems to be a large amount of overlap with 24hr BRD. I don't see a reason for 24hr BRD to exist considering CRP is better-documented anyway.

And yeah, Teahouse wasn't much help. And by the time I came back the next day and saw Good Day's question there, the thread was already archived, so I gave up...PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Highly agree with this as someone who is regularly confused by different page sanctions Anon0098 (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

And rather than face this universal opposition to EBRD here head on, SPECIFICO is now trying to get it restored away from the public eye, at User talk:FormalDude#Edit notices and restrictions, pinging the creator of EBRD to that user talk page and so on. SPECIFICO, you need to stop with these underhanded tactics. Light is the best disinfectant — maybe try living up to that maxim. El_C 18:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

You've twice called me "underhanded" without basis. I'm surprised to see an Admin do that, or to publish any behavrioral opinions about other editors on an article talk page. My understanding is that we are expected to notify editors when mentioning them in locations they may not be following. SPECIFICO talk 19:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't call you, yourself, underhanded, I called your conduct that. El_C 19:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

That reply is unworthy of you, El C. SPECIFICO talk 19:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, enough. The fact that you still haven't been banned from WP:AP2, after a mountain of reported violations, is kind of astonishing. I'll leave it at that. El_C 19:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Arcane side discussion about procedure (a.k.a. admins waving sticks at each other) ~Awilley (talk) 06:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@El C: I don't think you're supposed to modify page sanctions placed by other administrators. The sanction was placed by Doug Weller, not FormalDude, and when asked whether the sanction was meant to be 1RR or 24-hr BRD, Doug clarified that he did in fact intend for it to be BRD. [16] ~Awilley (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC) Wow, Awilley, still defending your own custom sanction to the end, I see. And even using Doug for that. That's low. El_C 19:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC) @El C Huh? Using Doug? I don't think I had any part in Doug placing the sanction. I was pinged here and I took the opportunity to clarify a situation I happened to be familiar with from the thread at AE. ~Awilley (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC) Okay, maybe you don't know about Doug. I'm not gonna say anything about that, not least because he's a friend. You want to contest how I operated here, take it to WP:ARCA, where you may well succeed, as they're not too fond of me there at present. In any case, my log entry is here. El_C 19:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC) Oh, I was unaware that yet another AE complaint against SPECIFICO is currently live @WP:AE#SPECIFICO. Again, I haven't been going out of my way to undo Awilley's terrible custom sanction that he forced on everyone and whose staying power seems to be more to do with inertia than anything else. As mentioned in my opening above, I encountered this in passing at RfPP, saw that the article notice was added by a non-admin, and acted accordingly. Not to be a broken record, but the confusing, project page-less EBRD should be removed from rather than added to even more pages. El_C 19:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC) Nor have I been going out of my way to add or defend the sanction. I removed it from a majority of articles probably a year and a half ago and haven't done much else since then. I wasn't aware of Doug Weller's surgery. I hope he makes a speedy recovery. I don't care about this enough to take it to ARCA, but I still don't understand your justification. Are you saying that you are authorized to overturn another admin's discretionary sanction because: 1. The other admn said it was fine for other admins to do that before going in for his operation, 2. You're invoking an Arbcom rule that allows you to reverse discretionary sanctions when the admin who placed them is incapacitated, 3. The sanction isn't valid because it doesn't have a project page, or 4. Your confusion about who placed the sanction grants you the authority to modify it? I'm happy to remedy #3 by creating a project page sometime in the next few days. ~Awilley (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC) Then by all means, reverse me, Awilley. Add back the convoluted custom sanction that you, yourself, created. Add it to near-universal opposition here. I won't revert you. El_C 20:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC) RE: I'm happy to remedy #3 by creating a project page sometime in the next few days. Awilley, you being the creator of that custom sanction, you being the one who added it to multiple AP2 pages without ArbCom's consent at the time and despite opposition from your fellow admins — I submit that, if a project page is to be created for EBRD, you should not be the one to do so. El_C 20:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC) @El C: Are you intentionally dodging my question? ~Awilley (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC) No. What is the question, spell it out. El_C 21:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC) The paragraph above beginning with "I don't care about this enough to take it to ARCA, but I still don't understand your justification. Are you saying that you are authorized to overturn another admin's discretionary sanction because:..." ~Awilley (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC) No, but you know that's not how EBRD was downgraded to 1RR here by me. What you're asking seems to be more along the line of: will I reverse myself now. No to that again, but you could do it, though again as mentioned (below), to near-universal opposition and while quasi-involved. I've tried to help here; I'm not sure what you're trying to do (work bureaucracy for your EBRD thing?). I've already devoted 100-fold to this page than I originally intended. So do whatever, I'm done. El_C 21:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC) For goodness sake, Awilley. Don't re-add the 24Hr BRD. Already one editor has/had been ignoring it by 'twice' re-adding a dispute tag, which an arbitrator has already told me, was a breach of the 24Hr BRD. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC) @GoodDay Don't worry, I'm not re-adding anything. I'm not dumb enough to wheel war with discretionary sanctions. And I apologize to you and other editors who just want to improve the article and are distracted from that by a couple of admins shaking sticks at each other. ~Awilley (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC) Awilley, it won't be a WP:WHEELWAR when I expressly say that I won't revert you. You should be more concerned with: 1. The near-universal opposition to it here (everyone but SPECIFICO). 2. You being quasi-WP:INVOLVED as both the creator of EBRD and the one whose been advocating for it relentlessly over the years. El_C 21:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm reluctant (perhaps afraid) to restore the status quo ante intro. This shows that a stronger DS over this page was required. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• I just read all this on my siesta, and now I have to smoke a big spliff to recover. Why not just declare a general amnesty and start all over with a clean slate for everybody?;-) Carlstak (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Start all over again, would be cool. But a 'few' editors seem determined to oppose the sentence "...belonged to Hunter Biden". GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  RE: "declare a general amnesty". I'd be in favor of some kind of "reset" if editors here think it would be helpful. Revert to some older version that isn't too objectionable; full-protect the article for 24-hours to reset everybody's revert counters, declare that there is no status quo (so people's initial edits simply count as Bold edits rather than reverts to some earlier revision), and then encourage people to edit carefully and try to find a consensus. I'm not familiar enough with the history of this article to know if that would be helpful or if it would just disenfranchise one side because there is no status quo. ~Awilley (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, that would disenfranchise one side, as the current status quo gained consensus by a long and painful RFC 2 month ago. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, that RfC. This is starting to make more sense. I have appointments for the next few hours but I'll look into it more tonight. ~Awilley (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Here is the history, briefly, since the RFC was closed (the closing statement contained this quote - "editors opposing the adjective produced a plethora of recent RS that did not doubt the connection.") SPECIFICO almost immediately substituted "believed to have" in place of "alleged." The discussion was clear this was not in line with the RFC, and the closer clarified that no qualifier is necessary. A bit later SPECIFICO opened a review at AN, which closed as no consensus to modify the RFC. Now Feoffer, who didn't participate in the RFC, has opened a thread at the BLP Noticeboard. I want to note that nobody in the original RFC used their !vote to object on BLP grounds. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, if it was WP:CRP, then the longstanding version would be fixed until there would be consensus for the contending one. In this case, until the WP:RFC process is formally closed. But EBRD tries to do a bit of CR and a bit of 1RR, and largely fails in both.

I think it's been at least a year since I added CR to a page (it used to be a much more common practice), and I'm one of the most active AE admins on the project in all areas (I mean, just glance at the log). As mentioned, there's just been an understanding for years now that beyond-1RR DS need to be used very sparingly, if at all.

Another thing that was decided at the admin discussion I allude to (2019, I believe) is that, similar to seeing if WP:SEMI works before going a step higher to WP:ECP, WP:1RR needs to be tried first before going heavier. But this was not the case here. Rather than trying 1RR first, what happened was that beyond-1RR (EBRD) was imposed in the first instance. Which is problematic all on its own. El_C 20:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe @Doug Weller has an opinion as to the value or priority of the EBRD restriction existing as its own subtype versus being part of the clearer-bright-line 1RR. Frankly, all this arcana about the different restrictions is beyond me, and I don't care which one is used. What I don't understand is. If everyone agrees that a user wasn't following the restriction, and they were warned, isn't there reason therefore to go to AE? And if editors are opting to "give that a pass" and omit the AE case, is it the confusing restriction that was the problem, or the lack of enforcement more generally? If something is wanted to be enforced one should file the appropriate report or at least tap someone on the shoulder, and if every admin had declined to enforce it sans case, maybe that means the violation was not so clear rather than the restriction. Andre🚐 22:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I’ve only opened 2 AE cases - both about violations of 1RR in this topic area. In both cases reviewing admins thought the alleged violations were trivial, and in one of them an editor I don’t know called for me to be sanctioned for hounding. So you’ll have to excuse the utter lack of desire to go back there. I think all sanctions should be lifted and we can all go at it royal rumble style until there’s only one editor left standing to write all the content. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I came within an hour (yesterday) of reporting an editor to WP:AE, for twice breaching the 1RR/24Hr DS. But another editor came along & totally changed the intro to this page, while there was an ongoing RFC concerning the intro, happening & so I got fed up. Thankfully, the DS has been strengthened to now just be 1RR. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

This is all a bit hard to follow, but I'm happy with 1RR. Doug Weller talk 10:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Full protection

With all the reverting activity that happened earlier today and the switch to 1RR, I've full-protected the article for 24 hours. In addition to "resetting" everybody's 1RR timers, I hope you all will use it as an opportunity to "reset" your approach to the conflict. After the protection expires I recommend cautious editing with an aim to find compromise and consensus rather than enforcing any particular revision. ~Awilley (talk) 07:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Recommend reinstating the status quo ante, then protect the page for a month. GoodDay (talk) 07:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Obligatory link to m:The Wrong Version (humorous). On a more serious note, if I knew which version that was I'd be tempted, but doing so would be overstepping my authority. ~Awilley (talk) 08:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

As I've noted at the WP:AN report you set up. My major concern is that we 'might' end up setting a bad precedent for future RFCs, in terms of ignoring, over-turning, re-interpreting etc, results we don't like. GoodDay (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

As GoodDay has mentioned, we have consensus. We have an RFC from a few weeks ago that needs to be reinstated. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

You're right. And after this imposed cooling-off period, we have reason to revert the page to that version, until such a time that a new consensus is established. That's explicitly allowed under the 1RR restriction: "Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions." PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Just to reiterate -- reinsertion of BLP violation is unacceptable. Feel free to use "almost no one disputes", but if you're greedy and go for stating ownership as undisputed fact, when you know it's disputed, you're gonna have a bad time, trust me. Feoffer (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

But "almost no one doubts" is dubious, because it's an editorial conclusion, which we regard as Original Research. Also, if we estimate that public opinion is split 50/50, then more than almost nobody may doubt it. Have there been scientific public opinion surveys? That would be helpful. Possibly, as I once proposed, we could say "widely believed to have belonged..." we know that is true and verified by reporting that describes Republican and Repbulican-leaning media statements. SPECIFICO talk 20:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The point is "almost no one disputes" is sourced and would NOT be a BLPvio. It's not my place to get into the weeds of whether it would be UNDUE but it would be sourced. Feoffer (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, fair enough, Feoffer. But Guardian is a single mediocre source. Really, the WEIGHT of the entire narrative about this matter is that the physical device itself has not been scrutinized and was only significant in that it was the vessel for files that the Post linked to the Biden-Ukraine stories. The press has devoted resources to forensic examination of the files, which are available to it. The device itself is in the possession of the FBI and we do not know what they have determined about the provenance of the machine. It will someday be reported, but not likely soon. SPECIFICO talk 22:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

If the consensus turns out in a way that you don't like. Then you go right ahead & try to stop its implementation. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I recommend you strike the "you're gonna have a bad time, trust me" part of your comment, because it sounds like a threat of some kind. Andre🚐 20:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's meant to be. There are consequences for repeatedly inserting unsourced controversial material into BLPs. Now, do those consequences come from me? No. I'm no admin and they know that. But when you see somebody about to get bit by a snake, you oughta give a hollar and say "ya know, you really don't wanna be doing that". Feoffer (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you but there is no issue in restoring consensus text sourced from many reliable sources that was closely scrutinized in an RFC. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Warnings are allowed but this is not a clear-cut case, so you shouldn't use such a warning tone. Instead, let's engage constructively on the merits of the article topic. Not make threats. Please and thank you from another user giving a hollar ya really don't wanna do that. Andre🚐 20:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I've yet to see a definitive statement that attributing ownership of the laptop would be a BLP violation. Moreover, that addition would in NO way be "unsourced," as has been REPEATEDLY pointed out. There are plenty of RS that make the same attribution. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm concerned about Feoffer's 3:59 post today, under the "Miscellaneous" subsection. He said "...you can't publish unsourced contentious claims about living people in the United States". That seems to suggest that Wikipedia might face legal action. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

That's not something you should be concerned about, it just explains the spirit and origin of BLP -- it's larger just another wikipedia policy, BLP-compliance is a moral and legal duty. Don't, like, worry about being sued by Hunter Biden or anything -- just hold yourself to the journalistic standards expected by the Foundation. Feoffer (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't think it was a legal threat. I think this is a key issue that should be discussed though. PhotogenicScientist says that the sources clearly say it was Hunter Biden's laptop. And indeed many sources refer to it as his laptop, though they don't clear up the problematic provenance of the laptop. But the recent CBS reporting is that "Copy of what's believed to be Hunter Biden's laptop data turned over by repair shop to FBI showed no tampering." Does that mean the laptop itself from the shop was confirmed? I don't think it does. It says that the copy of a laptop's data is legit. Andre🚐 20:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

To help clarify, my objection comes from the fact that I have asked repeatedly for RS that explicitly confirms the laptop has been confirmed as belonging to HB, to no avail. Just because a source uses the phrase "Hunter Biden's laptop" is not in and of itself confirmation. Context matters, that's how sources are deemed reliable and determined to be neutral or POV. It's not a high bar to get past if the consensus of RS exists. Once reliable sources explicitly confirm that and stop using the terms alleged, purported, believed etc...my concerns will be quelled. In other words, if/when sources stop casting doubt I will no longer see an issue here and happily take this article off my checklist. Until then, I suggest everyone WP:AGF...DN (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The issue is that you get to set the criteria of "explicitly confirm" here - your personal level of assurance must be satisfied, apparently, to get you on board.

Plenty of RS have already been provided. But let's take a look at the reporting of the Washington Post.

• Oct 14, 2020: "emails purportedly obtained from a laptop that Hunter Biden, the son of former vice president Joe Biden, had supposedly left behind for repair." The story was newly breaking, and they did not attribute ownership.
• Mar 18, 2022: "Hunter Biden allegedly showed up at a computer repair shop with three water-damaged laptop computers" along with "When the Post first reported on its possession of material from Hunter Biden’s laptop." They pointedly describe the dropping off of the laptop as alleged, yet do not call the ownership of the laptop into question.
• Mar 30, 2022: "HEADLINE: Here’s how The Post analyzed Hunter Biden’s laptop." The article we're all familiar with. Also, again with "Thousands of emails purportedly from the laptop computer of Hunter Biden" they pointedly still cast doubt on where the data came from, yet do not cast doubt on the ownership of the laptop on which the data was found.
• Apr 12, 2022: "When the New York Post first reported in October 2020 that it had obtained the contents of a laptop computer allegedly owned by Joe Biden’s son Hunter." Using alleged when reporting the history. "material that’s alleged to have been on Hunter Biden’s laptop" Using alleged with describing the material. NOT using alleged to call it Hunter Biden's laptop.
• Most recently, Nov 23, 2022: "the laptop Hunter Biden supposedly left behind for repair". Again, the only doubt they still express is how the laptop got where it did. Not 1 use of "allegedly" to describe the ownership in this article.

Now the question: Do you believe the Washington Post is a good enough Reliable Source? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with your evidence showing what you claim it shows. In fact, all of this evidence is evidence for the usage of "purportedly" or "allegedly" type-language. Your argument that these sources do not call the ownership of the laptop into question is flawed. They do not endorse the laptop's ownership. WP:HEADLINEs are not reliable. Andre🚐 22:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Don't take my word for it, then. Read the articles yourself. That's why I provided links.

Context matters. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Your sources offer evidence against your argument. The sources are all from the Washington Post and every single one uses supposed/purported/alleged-type language to carefully couch their assertions. None of them confirms the ownership of the laptop or comprehensively vets the data. The entire argument made seems to hinge against simply the construction "Hunter Biden's laptop" existing. That this is sufficient to imply a full acceptance of the chain of ownership of the laptop is not a claim supported here.

• [17]: materials found on a hard-drive copy of the laptop Hunter Biden supposedly left behind
• [18] aptop computer allegedly owned by Joe Biden’s son Hunter
• [19]only the limited revelation that some of the data on the portable drive appears to be authentic.
• [20] he laptops were dropped off at Mac Isaac’s repair shop. Mac Isaac is legally blind and was not able to identify Hunter Biden by sight. One of the laptops, though, bore a sticker for the Beau Biden Foundation, an organization dedicated to Hunter’s late brother.
• [21] equests to make the laptop hard drive available for inspection have not been granted... The FBI supposedly obtained the hard drive...

Andre🚐 14:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The sources are all from the Washington Post and every single one uses supposed/purported/alleged-type language to carefully couch their assertions. You're right - they do. I pointed out as much in my breakdown. When there is an assertion they don't know for sure, they use that language. That's because WaPo is a reliable source - they choose their words carefully, they report the facts, and they issue retractions if they get something wrong.

And in carefully choosing their words, they repeatedly say "Hunter Biden's laptop." Possession by grammar may not be enough for you personally, but it apparently is for the Washington Post. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

DarkNipples, what does “Hunter Biden’s laptop” mean? To me it could not be more clear or unambiguous so I personally don’t understand why we have such a disconnect. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

"Possession by grammar and adjacency in sentence construction" isn't an acceptable standard of proof in my view Andre🚐 14:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The apostrophe-s can also indicate association without connoting ownership. It is widely used as a naming convention. So, Finian's Rainbow, Ménière's disease, Pike's Peak, Montezuma's Revenge, etc. Using "HB's laptop" is not the same as saying, and does not entail "laptop that belonged to HB". Searching "belonged to Hunter Biden" demonstrates this. From what I see in the top search results, only PBS makes that statement. SPECIFICO talk 15:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Of all the grasps at all the straws... one of two primary function of "apostrophe s" in the English language is to denote possession of the following noun. You're intuitively aware of this, like every other English speaker. Your edge cases simply aren't compatible with this laptop.

Here are some top results from Google about using "apostrope s" in English. Please familiarize yourself. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

We're obviously all aware of apostrophes indicating possession, but they may also indicate simple association. Grammatical possession isn't the same as legal possession. For example, "Lincoln's enemy" doesn't imply that Lincoln owned the enemy and it was in his possession physically. "Jeff's ex" is an ex that associates or relates to Jeff, but not physically owned by Jeff. Andre🚐 15:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Your example is the cat's meow. The King's Speech. SPECIFICO talk 15:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Both examples involve another person or being. Can you come up with any involving a mundane object, where 's denotes mere association rather than ownership? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Pascal's triangle, Pascal's wager, Boyle's law, Gaucher's disease Andre🚐 15:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

These are not mundane objects - they are officially-named concepts or conditions.PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

"Use an apostrophe to show possession, but be aware that “possession” may not always mean “ownership”: it may simply suggest an association"[22] For example, the "student's test" Andre🚐 15:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

That's one writing guide from a minor college - not exactly an authoritative source. Here's a source of similar standing that makes no mention of the association use case. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

This is the same kind of flawed logic. A source not making a mention of something isn't a rebuttal of that thing. For example, [23] Something associated with a thing Andre🚐 16:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah, a dictionary source. Here's another dictionary that also does not consider the association use case.

You know why the overwhelming majority of sources talking about apostrophe s don't mention association, and you're having to look specifically for ones that do? Because it's an edge case that is rarely used. The common usage in English is to denote plain possession. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

That's really not the case. There are several examples given in the Free Dictionary, and I can come up with many more common examples of a relationship or association indicated through the usage of an apostrophe, which just means "of or relating to". A "children's hospital" for example, is not a hospital owned by children, it's a hospital for children. A "man's suit" could be a suit owned by a man, but it could also be a suit for a man that is still not yet owned by said man but being tried on at a store. Seattle's best coffee is coffee that is the best in Seattle, but not owned by Seattle municipal gov't. The car's location' is a location of a car, but not an ownership relationship. Andre🚐 16:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Yet in none of the examples you've provided do we find the combination of (1st) a specified person and (2nd) an object. Because wherever you see an example like that, it's describing ownership. I.e. John's car. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

No, there are still many examples with a person and an object that are not indicative of ownership. For example, let's say the suit was designed by a fashion designer or a work of art that was painted by someone. It would be that designer's suit or that person's painting, even if owned by someone else. Andre🚐 16:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

In the first case, "suit" wouldn't be a single suit but rather that design of suit. Unless you're arguing that "Hunter Biden's laptop" doesn't refer to one laptop, but to a type of laptop designed by him?

In the second case, a phrase like "DaVinci's painting" correctly contains the information that the painting at one time belonged to DaVinci. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

In the first case, it is totally possible for a fashion designer to design and tailor a single, one-of-a-kind suit, and it would be that person's suit in perpetuity even if they never owned it at all, like if it were produced on commission for a company or buyer. They designed the suit and are associated with it, but not through owning it or possessing it. They could design the suit and never touch the physical suit, because someone else was in possession of the actual unit. It would also be that company's suit even if they didn't ever own it, but simply branded it. Even wearing the suit could associate you with the suit. For example, John Travolta wore a suit in 1977 in the film Saturday Night Fever. It will forever be his suit, John Travolta's famous white suit, even though he never owned it whatsoever, he just wore it in a movie. It was owned by the production or the wardrobe department, but it's more his suit than wardrobe's suit due to his enduring association to it.

In the second case, DaVinci could also have produced the portrait on commission of a person. Let's say Lorenzo de Medici gives da Vinci a commission to paint a portrait of him. It's Lorenzo's portrait by ownership, it's also Lorenzo's portrait based on his likeness being depicted, and it's da Vinci's portrait because he was the painter. If we reverse the ownership, all the apostrophe constructions are still valid. It's Lorenzo's portrait because he is depicted, even if da Vinci did it for fun and owns it. Andre🚐 17:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

PLEASE end this academic discussion. It's becoming an abuse of this talk page. Keep it simple. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

As Valjean has said, these examples are academically interesting, but have little relevancy to the use case with this laptop. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, look, I will agree to disagree if we tire of this, but let the record show that the John Travolta example IS a very close analogue to the Hunter example: the Hunter Biden's laptop construction may simply refer to Hunter's infamous laptop, the laptop infamously associated with him. I do think it's material to the question and not an unproductive tangent. I will note that I have previously stated that we have to abide by the RFC consensus. If there is a topic under discussion and open, I wish to discuss it. If it is a closed topic, I have not flouted that. Andre🚐 17:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

A laptop associated with Hunter Biden. I wonder where they met? Mr Ernie (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Jeez, what kind of wordfuckery is all this I wake up to find here? At an academic level, it's interesting, but I don't see it getting anywhere. How about applying Occam's Razor? The simplest and most common meaning is usually the most obviously intended meaning. If an object was owned and used nearly exclusively by one person, then it is usually described as theirs. The laptop was owned and used by Hunter, ergo it is natural to describe it as his laptop, IOW "Hunter's laptop", and that says nothing about whether it is in his possession anymore or about its provenance after it left his possession. Those are other matters that must also be mentioned and dealt with here. Hunter's laptop was used by him for some time and contains a digital record of much of his life during the time it was in his possession. (Hence the description of this event as "The most invasive data breach imaginable.") Then it left his possession when he apparently took it to a repair shop. (Even if it was a different person impersonating him who took it to the shop, it was still Hunter's laptop they took there.) It can still be described as his laptop. It will forever be "Hunter Biden's laptop". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, there's no doubt that it's "Hunter Biden's data" inasmuch as said data was confirmed. Andre🚐 16:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly regarding these last 3 hours of discussion. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Very well stated, thank you. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The central issue

Let's get back to the crux of the issue. Does anyone here assert explicitly that

"Hunter Biden's laptop" is identical with "Laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden". ?

There are various sources being cited that say the former. Very few declare the latter. And none document the latter. Some have taken care to verify some of the files. None has been able to verify the device, which has never been publicly available to advance resolution of the issue. Moreover, the subject of the claims that are being promoted by politicans and media outlets relate to the files, not the device. SPECIFICO talk 16:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

It means substantially the same thing. The shorter description is easier. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

To me they are different. The first is ambiguous because it can describe a laptop that Biden was associated with. The second asserts that the physical laptop belonged to him. There's no doubt that it appears to be his data, but we don't know how it got there. Andre🚐 17:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

We are unable to WP:VERIFY the "Belonged to" in the weight of RS. Use of "Belonged to" is editors' own inference or interpretation of language that does not mean the same thing. In articles or contexts for which the content is uncontroversial, immaterial, or SKYBLUE WP editors often make such inferences when paraphrasing our sources. In a sensitive BLP that entails numerous content and policy issues, we should not do that."Substantially the same" is a slippery slope. SPECIFICO talk

Throwing out links to policy without explaining why they're relevant helps nobody. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:13, 9 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.

There's a couple sources that directly say the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden (I added the bolding). I really struggle to understand why so much editor time needs to be wasted with this topic. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, those articles have previously been cited. In fact, I referred to the PBS one above today. But they are selected, not sufficient. They don't represent the weight of mainstream RS, let alone the best ones whose reporters have covered this intensely and who have hired experts to assist in their investigations. It would help if you'd offer your response the question of this section, to which Valjean replied above. SPECIFICO talk 18:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I have no particular objection to these sources, they are reliable non-opinion sources, and they do say that Hunter Biden once owned the laptop, so this would be suitable to me, to say that Hunter Biden once owned the laptop Andre🚐 19:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Have we finally settled this? That the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden? GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I would hope so. There is no doubt it was owned by and used by him. The questions arise after he lost/surrendered possession of the laptop that will always be known as his effing laptop, and no one else's. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

We just need to separate the issues and stop trying to resolve everything about each issue (ownership vs provenance/chain of custody) in one sentence. So can we just say the ownership is a settled matter and move on now? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I have in the past ceded the ownership question due to the RFC closure, and I'm willing to do so again so that we can move onto other issues based on the 3 sources just given by Ernie. Andre🚐 19:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 December 2022

2603:3017:1050:8000:400E:5B68:92A1:F6A2 (talk) 13:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

just wondering when you will be updating this page

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:06, 8 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.

Neither of those is unethical. Some prostitution is illegal and some drug use is illegal. Depends on circumstances. SPECIFICO talk 20:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

No I certainly agree but I think that’s making a point Valjean or others disputing the RFC may not agree with. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:02, 9 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'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)

Aside: It's very amusing seeing the pretend outrage at Hunter Biden using drugs and prostitutes, from people who think that Donald Trump should be reinstated because Twitter didn't follow its written policy on Presidents using the platform to coordinate a coup attempt.

Yes, the same Donald Trump who cheated on his wife with a porn star. That one. The one who is besties with Ronny Jackson, of magic candy fame. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

We share the same view about Hunter. He should not be in that sentence. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:24, 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)

I ain't predicting what will or won't occur in the coming months. Merely pointing out things might change, be it on this page or other related pages. GoodDay (talk) 02:57, 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)

  Right Andre🚐 05:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  When in doubt, quote and attribute. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  A direct quote is probably best because if we paraphrase it could either sound like either we were whitewashing or casting aspersions. TFD (talk) 04:03, 10 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)

Mother Jones article

A new article: We Found the Guys Behind the Hunter Biden Porn That Elon Musk Won’t Shut Up About Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 17:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Article title and laptop contents

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)

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)

Duplicate citations

I've noticed that some citations, notably citation 1 (the NYT article "What We Know And Don't About Hunter Biden And A Laptop"), have multiple entries (I think there's two other separate entries for that one). I'm heading to sleep (yeah, it happens sometimes) and thus can't do much about it currently, so I just thought I'd let y'all know about that issue. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 02:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll be happy to fix this. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:15, 12 December 2022 (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)