Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:50, 11 February 2023

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hunter Biden laptop controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 August 2021. The result of the discussion was redirect.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative views Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Joe Biden Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Journalism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics: American Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Delaware Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Delaware.

Is it accurate to say this all started with the tabloid (New York Post) in the lead?

With regard to this recent edit , please share your opinions here. Thanks. DN (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the lead should summarize the core facts, and the origin of the matter was the NY Post scoop. The opening sentence needs to say something like, The Hunter Biden laptop controversy originated in a NY Post article published in October, 2020. That establishing sentence should precede the existing lead text. SPECIFICO talk 14:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

We just went through 'two' RFCs concerning the lead. Let's not go through a third one. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's leave the lead 'alone' for a few weeks, at least. Please. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the prior discussions and no RfC is proposed. It's an uncontroversial improvement, but since it's been reverted there will need to be a brief talk page ratification before it's reinstated. You'd do well not to escalate straightforward copyedits and NPOV narratives as if they were controversies requiring RfC or other drama. SPECIFICO talk 23:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't lecture me about drama, please. GoodDay (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Seems like an improvement to me -- I haven't heard anyone make an argument against it. Feoffer (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Here's an argument. Let's not push "...belonging to..." further down the lead. We've just been through 'two' RFCs. Let's not start up another 'lead' content dispute. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

So you would be OK putting this text in the second sentence?

In October 2020, a controversy emerged involving data from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden that was abandoned at a Delaware computer shop.It began with a NY Post article based on data the newspaper obtained from Rudy Giuliani.

That addresses your concern about keeping "belonged to" in the first sentence. Without one of these two additions, in either the first or second sentence, the subsequent reference to the Post makes no sense. SPECIFICO talk 00:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd rather no more alterations to the lead, for the time being. But, if the NY Post bit is put in following the "...belonging to Hunter Biden..." sentence? That would be a tad better. GoodDay (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

OK Please if you could please make that edit, it will set up the mention of the Post later in the paragraph and make for a good self-contained opening paragraph. SPECIFICO talk 02:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think it’s correct, and it depends on how you define what the controversy actually is. As Valjean and JzG have said Rudy was shopping around his copy of the drive well before October 2020. The FBI also obtained the actual laptop even before that. If the controversy is the accusations that there were allegations that the Bidens were behaving inappropriately based on information from the laptop, well that didn’t start in Oct 2020. If the controversy is the attempt to smear the laptop as disinformation and the suppression of the story on social media based on that, then yes that would be accurate. Let’s all pretend we had never heard of this before and give the entire lead a fresh read. Does it correctly portray what the controversy is? I think we need to be more clear about defining the controversy, or perhaps find a better description. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Please read the article and the sources cited in the body. The whole wide world pre-existed October 2020, but the set of facts and narratives that gave rise to this article's content as a separate notable subject began with the Post story, and there is nothing in your post above to the contrary. SPECIFICO talk 01:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

We wouldn't expect the article on the Watergate scandal to begin, "A June, 2020 article in the liberal Washington Post sparked controversy involving an alleged break-in at the DNC HQ." The Dreyfus affair doesn't begin with Zola's article.

And before any editors say, "These are not comparable, because they were major scandals," let me assure them I am not saying this mini-scandal is major but that articles about major scandals can provide a template for how we cover minor ones.

At this point, who broke the story is a minor detail, worth mentioning but not in the first sentence. The wording might make readers question the story because of its provenance. But reliable sources have authenticated the existence of the laptop.

I am surprised that any editors would be defending the subject of this article. While I am not a moralist, I don't see it as exemplary to spend vast amounts of money on illegal drugs and strippers, while ignoring child support and income tax. And if drugs and strippers meant more to them than supporting their children or Big Government, at least they'd negotiate a frequent flyer plan or quantity discount. Just out of curiosity, do any of the other editors spend most of their income on strippers and illegal drugs? TFD (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't have to do with major/minor. It has to do with, like, this is not a "scandal". Do you have a source calling the laptop story a "scandal"? Your recent tendency to present wild inapt analogies in lieu of reasoned arguments is rather orthogonal to article improvement. The current text mentions the Post out of the blue later in the paragraph. This would be fixed by the small improvement I have highlighted in green above. SPECIFICO talk 03:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I more or less agree that there's no need to mention the NY Post in the lead and that it's not a particularly important fact. But I don't understand your moralizing. There's nothing illegal or unethical about strippers in many jurisdictions, nor do we have any reliable sources alleging that Hunter was involved in anything illegal involving strippers or sex workers. A pic of someone smoking a pipe isn't proof of illegal drug possession. So, remember that WP:BLPCRIME presumes Hunter's innocence until we have some evidence in reliable that he was guilty of a crime. Not to mention, unfairly besmirching his reputation per BLP. The tax thing, it is said that there were federal people considering whether Hunter was involved in some kind of a tax crime, and we can talk about what reliable sources have said about it, without implying guilty. "Ignoring income tax" is far beyond what any reliable source says and is a clear-cut BLP violation. Andre🚐 03:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Andre, it's already in the lead paragraph. But it's not explained. The proposed sentence needs to precede or replace the current Post mention. SPECIFICO talk 03:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

TFD, It doesn't have to do with major/minor. It has to do with, like, this is not a "scandal". Do you have a source calling the laptop story a "scandal"? Your recent tendency to present wild inapt analogies in lieu of reasoned arguments is rather orthogonal to article improvement. The current text mentions the Post out of the blue later in the paragraph. This would be fixed by the small improvement I have highlighted in green above. SPECIFICO talk 03:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

A "huge" scandal. But more about various government agencies colluding to hoodwink voters than anything about sex and drugs, per that columnist. On a side note, I have no idea what orthogonality is, only that all strippers are not equal and we shouldn't speculate further on the true nature of these ones. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

It's an op-ed that was published in the Washington Post editorial page so it's WP:RSOPINION. But there's also another article in Jacobin that Kmccook recently added that considers the Twitter Files a big deal. However, these minority opinions need to be contextualized. Andre🚐 20:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not proposing a change of any sort here, just showing SPECIFICO a source that calls this story a scandal. Whether a scandal is viewed that way or otherwise is always going to be an opinion. As to the proposed change, I have my thoughts. But they'd just slow things down. No objection, anyway, And yes, TFD, I used to spend most of my income on illegal drugs, but that was before we met. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Your google machine can locate a website that calls just about anything just about anything else. When you start with a fringe POV and end up hanging your hat on an opinion piece at AEI (let alone a screed by Marc Thiessen, who apparently found no mainstream outlet for it, it suggests you might reconsider your assessment of whatever you're trying to demonstrate. SPECIFICO talk 23:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't feed my machine any fringe POV, just "hunter biden scandal", which seemed to be what you were so interested in seeing. If you don't want it now, fine, but Andrevan's right, it was published in The Washington Post. I'm sure you've cited that opinion section before. Not that it matters, of course. Also of little consequence, I agree that Thiessen seems evil, but think you're using "orthogonal" wrong. Have a nice day! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm never defending the subject of this article -- I just note that we MENTION the NY Post reporting in Sentence 2, but we don't actually introduce it until the second paragraph. Readers will figure it out, but there's room for improvement of some sort there. Feoffer (talk) 03:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Specifico's jumping on the word scandal is a distraction from the discussion. The English language has multiple terms to describe the same thing and it's only an issue when deciding how to use them in the article. Andre's comment that we cannot say Hunter Biden used illegal drugs is also disingenuous, since even his Misplaced Pages article says he "was discharged from the U.S. Navy Reserve shortly after his commissioning due to a failed drug test.... received...a waiver due to a past drug-related incident....it was unlikely that the panel would believe his explanation given his history with drugs." Time has an article, "Hunter Biden On Making His Own Crack, Living with His Dealer and His Family’s Effort to Keep Him Alive" and Joe Biden even discussed it during a presidential debate. And I don't think the fact that strip clubs are legal means there's nothing wrong with spending huge amounts of time and money on them. And I didn't say he violated tax laws, just that he was not paying his taxes on time which is not in itself illegal.

All of this shows a reluctance on the part of some editors for this article to accurately reflect what has been written about the controversy. But this is not a fake news story invented by a tabloid and a forged laptop created by the Russians. TFD (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Hunter Biden smoked crack in the past and went to rehab. I believe George W. Bush also had some stories of his past drug use, which he admitted long before becoming President. Admitted past drug use is not evidence of a chargeable crime. To the extent that there are sources that describe this, we can talk about it, but I don't see a source that he's been charged with crimes stemming from a laptop. As far as your contention that there's something wrong with spending time on strip clubs, it's irrelevant so there's no point arguing that point. As far as the misinformation, the misinformation is in claiming that the Hunter Biden laptop contains corrupt dealings with Burisma and Ukraine and Biden the elder. But it's also true that nothing has come from the laptop that ended up with any public information that Hunter Biden was guilty of a chargeable crime, and probably will not, House GOP nonwithstanding. Andre🚐 00:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

TFD, It was you who introduced "scandal". Others just responded. SPECIFICO talk 01:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Given I don't find an adult's addictions all that newsworthy, I really can care less about what pictures were found. Further the pictures revealed no new information.

On the start of the controversy, I think we can improve the lead by clarifying timelines, however the timeline starts with Hunter Biden forgetting his laptop. No forgotten laptop, No NYPost story. Slywriter (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Not really. It was the public story that started the "controversy". By your logic, we could say it began when Steve Jobs met Wozniak. The critical element of controversy (if any) was public discussion. SPECIFICO talk 04:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

So you can care less about the pictures found? Had the Post not picked up the "story" it would not exist either. Seems like a classic "chicken before the egg" argument I will gladly pass up. I was basically looking to establish consensus on PROVENANCE in this discussion. I'm still hoping for some confirmation by the FBI as to the authenticity of the actual hardware. Until then, the lead sentence is still POV IMO, but Scottish has made their decision, which I will respect, despite not seeing the "rough consensus and the support of the large portion of more recent sources" to that effect. DN (talk) 04:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: What do you recommend we add or subtract from the lead? GoodDay (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

(Ec)An adult with a known drug problem having a laptop with pictures of drug use is tabloid gossip, not encyclopedic content. As for the rest of your statement, that's nice but not worthy of further discussion after 20 threads and 2 RfCs. I believe the lead is the question here, so let's not get off-track.

As the Laptop being abandoned lead to numerous events, it's quite relevant. FBI, Rep Operatives, NYPost all stem from that moment. The October Surprise portion is specifically the NYPost. Anyway, 1st sentence vs 2nd sentence explaining NYPost is not that far a bridge to cross. Slywriter (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Our second sentence now properly introduces the Post story, rather than just referencing it. With that fix made, I think it's fine to keep sentence 1 as is. Feoffer (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Feoffer, Third sentence needs copyedit. It's missing a word or something. Slywriter (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I noticed! I'm not sure what sentence 3 ("Hard drive data...") is trying accomplish -- as far as I can tell, it could be chopped from the paragraph 1 and we'd never miss it. Feoffer (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Slywriter, it doesn't matter what you find newsworthy, what matters is what news media find newsworthy. "An article...should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." It also doesn't matter if SPECIFICO and Andre condone spending a small fortune on crack and strippers instead of paying child support, taxes and other debts, but rather the weight of opinion on these actions in reliable sources. Anyway, if these actions are not in themselves unethical or illegal, then there is no BLP reason for excluding them. TFD (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

There is, because BLP says not to write an unduly negative tone or attack pages. It damages the reputation to focus on these issues. And there really isn't significant weight in reliable sources nor have you explained how it's related to the laptop, nor have you offered a source for the idea that Hunter was spending a "small fortune... instead of paying child support" Andre🚐 18:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

It hasn't been determined, if this page falls under BLP. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Any content dealing with a living or recently deceased person falls under BLP, regardless of what article, talk page, or any other page it appears on. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: an editor recently left a 'edit-warring' warning template on my talkpage, concerning this article, even though I didn't edit-war. If you're an administrator? I recommend you keep a close eye on this page. We can't have anybody trying to 'scare' folks away from this article. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm... I actually agree with your sentiment here, and while I do assume good faith in your edits such as this , there were some odd inconsistencies at times... , . Perhaps we can agree that creating discussion and consensus is a priority, and that "scaring folks away" should not be tolerated? DN (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Best to keep things quiet on this page for awhile. GoodDay (talk) 05:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Distributed Denial of Secrets is not a reliable source.

The paragraph on Distributed Denial of Secrets is not a reliable source has other comparatively minor issues, but number one is that it's an unreliable, user generated source. It's a wikileaks style source, which is listed by wikipedia as unreliable. As a primary source it lacks verifiability and as a secondary source it lacks editorial oversight. Further. Cyberscoop quoting Ddos's unreliable analysis doesn't help. It's fundamentally no differant than if wikipedia quoted a source quoting wikipedia original user generated research. Although it does call in to question Cyberscoops own reliability, depeding on low quality sources. Amthisguy (talk) 07:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. It was briefly discussed in this section (now archived). I didn't find any of the arguments for the source compelling. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I already updated the paragraph, per WP:BLPRS. It hasn't been challenged yet, but it may very well be. Reviewing the other thread, it does appear there is rough consensus that the source is self published, which per WP:SELFPUBLISHED, is a policy violation:

"Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." (Emphasis in original)

There is also clearly no consensus that it's a high quality source, which would need to be the case for the claim it made.

And in reference to specifico's comment in the other thread, the policy based reasons for the exclusion of the source have been clearly articulated if they weren't already. Amthisguy (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Amthisguy: What comment please? SPECIFICO talk

This one. "I see no basis whatsoever to exclude that RS and I do not see anyone articulating any reasoning othere than that they personally had not heard of it -- a standard that would exclude most RS and indeed most of everything extant in the known universe." link Amthisguy (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

submitted for your consideration

Draft:House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family

Please feel free to dive in. soibangla (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Dive in to what, a Miscellany for Deletion filing on it? You have a routine story of "we found documents in an old office, let's follow procedure and notify Archives" here, there's nothing of substance. Mar-a-lago is a story due to a) the subject's past disregard for presidential norms, guidelines, policies, and federal laws, and b) the fact that agents had to enter the premises to seize documents. Trying to create a page out of this is the epitome of WP:FALSEBALANCE being done at the article-level, rather than in-article. Zaathras (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused. Is this some kind of merge proposal? Sorry, I'd rather not assume anything here with all due respect. DN (talk) 04:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Recommend we just relax. If anything major occurs in the coming days/weeks, then it'll be dealt with. GoodDay (talk) 06:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, this is live now: United States House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family soibangla (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

James Comer feels like the second-likeliest typo after James Comet for James Comey, but the more believable. That'd be OR and UNDUE in the article. But here? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I reckon so. Sorry, but I don't have a Rod Serling quote for this, in response to the discussion heading. GoodDay (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Are attributions not allowed in the lead?

With regard to this revert by Mr. Ernie . The edit summary reads "Hunter Biden signed for it and there are no other credible explanations". Where does the cited source state this? The citation is clear "Data from a laptop that the lawyer for a Delaware computer repair shop owner says was left by Hunter Biden in 2019". It also says "In a statement, an attorney for Hunter Biden said "there have been multiple attempts to hack, infect, distort, and peddle misinformation regarding Mr. Biden's devices and data." Should this be included as well to avoid POV? Seemingly nowhere does this source seem to even mention the signature, as Mr. Ernie suggests...DN (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Would it not be better, just to let this page settle for a bit? Unless or until major events occur, in the coming days/weeks. GoodDay (talk) 06:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

No, wikis aren't pineapple upside down cakes -- they never need to "settle". We will never stop updating this article or trying to improve it. The proposed changes aren't an improvement, but nobody's ever going to stop updating wikis. That's the nature of a wiki. Feoffer (talk) 09:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hunter Biden's attorney is partisan and wouldn't be a useful addition to the lead paragraph. So far, we haven't heard any serious rebuttal to the idea that a laptop with data belonging to Hunter Biden was abandoned at a Delaware computer store. There's still a lot of room for improvement in the lead, but attributing the abandonment to the owner's lawyer wouldn't be an improvement. The furthest we could go would be attributing it to the computer store owner, but even that seems unnecessary. Feoffer (talk) 09:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

That attribution needs to be reinstated. Like the cited CBS source, the WEIGHT of mainstream narratives attributes the dropoff bit to the statements of Mac Isaac and his attorney. The edit summary for the revert of the attribution is pure WP:OR, which is unacceptable for sensitive BLP content. Edits that stem from a WP editor's preconceptions, or from an editor's casual acceptance of non-RS narratives cannot be justified for article content, let alone BLP content. Moreover, in his various video appearances on Fox and elsewhere, Mac Isaac carefully frames his story in terms of his blindness and other factors that preclude a definitive BLP statement about Hunter Biden. See (hear) for example this audio of Mac Isaac himself SPECIFICO talk 12:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The current version simply states the reality that the laptop was abandoned at the repair shop. This avoids the need to give a weak attribution about who dropped it off. The reader is free to speculate - it could have been Hunter, a ghost, or even a Russian spy. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

RS do not state that they know that anyone "dropped it off" because the laptop was first revealed when the Post story broke, via collaboration with other Trump-affiliated operatives. "Dropped off at the repair shop fails verification in RS. It does not address the issue and the reinsertion of that unverified content, after the attribution was conformed to the statement in the cited source, is a disallowed BLP violation. SPECIFICO talk 16:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a silly thing to discuss. Laptops are not able to ambulate by themselves. A motive species, most likely a human, maybe Hunter Biden, maybe a Russian disinformer, maybe a FedEx delivery driver, maybe a professional laptop planter, or maybe a laptop retriever dog, took the laptop to the repair shop. Since editors don't seem to believe the Hunter Biden signature is well sourced enough, and therefore we can't say in wikivoice that Hunter dropped it off, we just say it was abandoned to keep it simple. The rest of the details are appropriately reserved for the body. The FBI took possession of the laptop in 2019, therefore they knew about the laptop before the Post story broke. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The issue is this. Puerile attempts at humor insult every editor who takes the time to read them.They fail our standard for BLP content. Unless there's substantive sourced support for saying the thing was abandoned -- which RS do not say in any form the origin needs to be attributed to the statements of the partisans from whom they originated. SPECIFICO talk 19:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Do we really need to know who dropped it off? It was dropped off, enough said. For the time being, I don't see it as something for folks to obsess about. PS - I think we can agree, it wasn't teleported there. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to tell anyone who asks it was the laptop retriever dog. In fact, I may tell people who would never even think to ask. We'll see which doggone accepted narrative prevails by June! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Please read my comment immediately above. We do not know that it was "dropped off". And your WP:OR is not relevant to the discussion and is certainly no justification for unverified BLP content. We do not know that it was "dropped off". For one counterexample, it could have been sourced in Ukraine or the US by Republican/Trump affiliates and placed with the sight-impaired man in the shop. Please read the cited source and refrain from deflections such as teleport in lieu of Reliable Source verification. SPECIFICO talk 16:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

it could have been sourced in Ukraine or the US by Republican/Trump affiliates and placed with the sight-impaired man in the shop. "placed with" is equivalent to "dropped off", is it not? Feoffer (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

No, not at all. It could have been placed with Mac Isaac, meaning planted with him so that he could falsely claim everything he said to Fox Media and in his conspiracy theory-filled video interviews. I'm disappointed you would not understand the issue here. We have no RS cited that has been prepared to state that the device was "dropped off" = "brought to the shop as a repair customer." Placed is not the same as dropped off. If failed to clarify the distinction above, I believe I have done so now. SPECIFICO talk 22:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

In my dictionary, though, a drop-off is just the act or an instance of making a usually brief deposit or delivery. Doesn't matter who or why. Anyway, I fixed an incriminating typo in your second sentence, hope that's cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

On April 12, the laptops were dropped off at Mac Isaac’s repair shop. from The Washington Post. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Best we leave the content-in-question as is, for the time being. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like you're discouraging debate again...It seems like some of us are saying we should not use attributions in the lead. I am trying to AGF, but I get the feeling we are using Wikivoice in this manner to lean into a POV as to placate our far right readers and editors, not because it is what RS state. If that is inaccurate please correct me and explain the logic that is being used here. DN (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, some editors may believe an attempt is being made or trying to be made, to push a certain PoV on this page & thus end its NPoV status. I too, am trying to AGF. So you see, it's best we don't 'go there'. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Godday, behavioral complaints may be filed at AE. Not by ignoring or making your WP:POINT by disregarding a simple VERIFICATION issue. SPECIFICO talk 19:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

You've misspelled my name. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Requesting verification of recent edit

@Amthisguy: Regarding this edit you recently made. I do not find the wording you attributed to the cited NY Times reference. Could they perhaps be from a different reference that needs to be used? Please take a look. SPECIFICO talk 16:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

At the bottom of the article there are 2 editor notes/corrections. They load after the main article text, and aren't showing up on the wayback machine archive, but they are there. On the top it also mentions that it was updated on Dec. 8th, that's the correction it's reffering to. Amthisguy (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh. Weird it didn't show up on a page search for me. At any rate, it reads a bit strange in the article, because Biden has equivocated and carefully avoided outright claiming the device was not his. So the wording from the Times sounds as if it is rebutting something that was not said. Thanks for the explanation. Interestingly, that Times article does not Verify "abandoned" but instead says "dropped off", which would be consistent with a delivery from a Trump ally for the purpose of setting the stage for the FBI and Fox Media notifications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 16:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I only meant to rebut his claim that it could have been stolen. Amthisguy (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see. But since he (honestly or not) says he doesn't know whether it was stolen, the addition comes off as showing that he claimed it was indeed stolen and that it was proved false. SPECIFICO talk 18:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

This article is an example of why Misplaced Pages is a failure

The very first sentence of this article has a statement which is false, yet it is apparently the "consensus" that it should be there. I corrected it and the fix was reverted very quickly. The laptop in question may have been owned by Hunter Biden. It may have been taken by him to the repair shop. It may have been abandoned by him. Yet, no proof has ever emerged that definitively shows any of those three statements to be true, and no proof is cited in this article. There is proof that a hard drive with data supposedly copied from the laptop's hard drive contained data that was Hunter Biden's. Similarly, there is proof that same data has other data that is clearly non Hunter Biden's on it. And, an analysis has shown that there were potentially incriminating emails sent to Hunter Biden in that data. The emails are real, but no evidence has been found that Hunter Biden received or read those emails (all verification is about the sender, not the receiver). That's the truth. Why doesn't Misplaced Pages care about the truth?

The lede of this article must use a word such as "claimed" or "believed" or "asserted". A definitive statement is, effectively, a lie. RoyLeban (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

We've been through two RFCs on this matter. We really don't want to go through a third one. Best to drop the stick, RoyLeban. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

As I stated below, and as Feoffer noted, I was completely unaware that there were any RfCs at all. I assumed it was a malicious editor who had inserted the false statement. You are assuming bad faith and making this into an unnecessary personal attack. RoyLeban (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

the RfC isn't even archived. what GoodDay said wasn't an attack, it was advice. one that I concur with Anon0098 (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

We just follow what the sources say. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I have a hard time reading that statement coming from you, and for good reasons...DN (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Several editors have spent months, seems like years, battering each other bloody over this. We had an RFC last summer that concluded the laptop once belonged to Hunter. Just when you think the article has reached some semblance of stability, someone barges in, flips the table over and rewrites the lead. Seriously, this may be the most brutally debated article in Misplaced Pages history. soibangla (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

RoyLeban, while you're making an argument in good faith, we've had several RFCs and the consensus was to say Hunter did once own the laptop. Consensus can change but you haven't provided any new evidence or sources. So as of right now while I welcome a user around since 2009 popping by to contribute, you had best back away from the dead horse carcass on this narrow point, though there are undoubtedly other improvements to make. Misplaced Pages doesn't specifically care about truth but rather verifiability. Andre🚐 23:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

This article is an example of why Misplaced Pages is a failure . This is a very unique case and a lot of things had to come together to create this failure. A non-admin closed the first RFC and later acknowledged the close did not represent consensus. At the close review, discussion was derailed when someone tried to overturn on the basis of bigotry against the closer's demographics rather than a valid reason -- so the admins promptly rejected overturning it with extreme prejudice. Then you add in that the Hunter Biden camp doesn't actually deny that the laptop might be his, and that CBS has forensically validated a "clean copy" -- it becomes increasingly tempting to be lazy about meeting WP:V and instead just sweep the remaining doubts under the rug. Feoffer (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Feoffer: You've misrepresented my request for a close review in what amounts to a serious

@SPECIFICO:, I offer you the biggest on-wiki apology I have ever given! I do not believe I have EVER made any mistake as bad as the one I just made. I am embarrassed to have recorded that wrong in my mind, and I'm embarrassed for how that mistake has colored everything I've ever said to you and every word I ever read from you. Thank you for correcting me. I'm deeply sorry. Feoffer (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

An actual apology on Misplaced Pages? This is unprecedented! Has there been a disruption in the spacetime continuum? soibangla (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

It's proof that WP is not broken. By the way, you stole my line, soibangla, but I give you permission to use it, with attribution.;-) Carlstak (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Well let's not go crazy -- yes, I mistook one username for another, but RoyLeban's concerns aren't invalidated by my misreading. But damn I do feel bad about the error -- sorry Specifico! My only defense is that I had been reading small-print 1940s-era newsprint all day every day during the week, so maybe eyestrain was a factor in me overlooking the true author of the anti-Christian comment. Feoffer (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Some responses:

• GoodDay - Unfortunately, RfCs are flawed. A tiny, tiny number of generally uninformed but interested people vote (or don't vote, if you prefer that term) on a "consensus." What Misplaced Pages needs is RfT (Request for Truth).
• Mr Ernie - This article is not following the sources, at least not in the lede. Can anyone point to a single, unbiased source that says any of the following is definitively true? (a) the laptop exists and unquestionably belonged to Hunter Biden, (b) Hunter Biden personally dropped off the laptop at the repair shop, (c) Hunter Biden personally "abandoned" the laptop at the repair shop, (d) all of the data on the laptop unquestionably belonged to Hunter Biden, (d) all of the data provided by Rudolph Giuliani unquestionably came from Hunter Biden, (e) emails included in the data were unquestionably received by and read by Hunter Biden. The answer to all of these is NO. Therefore, the lede says something which is unsourced (and also false) and that material should be removed.
• soibangla and Andre wrote, respectively, "We had an RFC last summer that concluded the laptop once belonged to Hunter" and "we've had several RFCs and the consensus was to say Hunter did once own the laptop" — this is not how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. What you claim happened would be considered original research. The fact is that the sources do not support the statement in the lede (see above, and this article itself), and that is what an RfC is supposed to figure out. At best, it is unknown if the laptop was Hunter Biden's, the data is real, etc. At worst, it's part of a Russian disinformation campaign. What we do know for sure — based on the sources — is that there is not definitive proof that the statement in the very first sentence is true. The lede violates Misplaced Pages policy.
• Feoffer wrote "Then you add in that the Hunter Biden camp doesn't actually deny that the laptop might be his, and that CBS has forensically validated a "clean copy"" —

1. People who do not have an agenda of disinformation try not to state things as true that are not definitely true. We all know Rudolph Giuliani and the Russians don't have those scruples. This is unfortunate here.
2. Much, maybe most, of the data in the data dump (which may or may not have been on the purported laptop) is clearly Hunter Biden's data, but there are many of ways it could have gotten in a data dump. The existence of some valid data does not prove that all data is valid. That is a logical fallacy. (It also doesn't prove any data is invalid.)
3. CBS did not validate a "proven clean copy". CBS explicitly said that they "believed" it to be a clean copy. There are unquestionable chain of custody issues — for example, in the intervening three years, bad actors could have carefully scrubbed a doctored data dump to make sure that there were no longer any telltale indicators of editing after March 2019. Forensic analysis of emails have focused on validating that the emails were actually sent as indicated, not that they were actually received by or read by Hunter Biden. That's not the fault of the forensic analysts — there is no unforgeable way to prove that an email was received or read.

I don't think this is general laziness, as Feoffer suggests. I think it indicative of a critical flaw in Misplaced Pages itself. The fact that an unsourced and untrue statement is in the first sentence of this article about a "hot button" topic is as big a violation of what Misplaced Pages is supposed to be as there is. And, apparently two RfCs have let it stand.

When I happened to come across this page and saw the first line, contradicted by the article itself, I figured some anti-Biden editor had inserted an incorrect, obviously biased statement, one not supported by sources. So, naturally, I fixed it. At the time, it didn't even occur to me that two(!) RfCs had let that statement stand. To make sure I'm clear, I am NOT saying that the laptop did not belong to Hunter Biden and that the data on the supposed "clean copy" is not completely his data. I don't know that. What I am saying is that, as of right now, nobody knows definitively one way or another, and there is also no reputable, unbiased source that states it as fact, and that therefore the article should not state it as fact.

I am aware that we are not going to fix Misplaced Pages here, but can we manage to fix this article? RoyLeban (talk) 10:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

A majority of editors have expressed support for a compromise that refocuses the lead on the laptop data, which has been verified to belong to Hunter Biden, rather than the physical device, which as yet has not been authenticated. Nobody cares about the device's provenance anymore -- the data is what matters. The present wording and sourcing suffices, but the right advocate could easily generate a consensus for a lead centered on the laptop data verified by CBS.
No POV would LOSE, all POVs would win without distracting the reader with spurious doubts over the physical device -- that's like asking: Yes, it's a genuine Hunter Biden email, but was it really printed on paper handled by Hunter Biden??? Who the heck cares?!? There's a simple solution here, and it's to stop arguing about the "paper" and focus on the "data". Feoffer (talk) 11:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The compromise doesn't work because:

• The first sentence includes the phrase "data from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden", when this is disputed.
• The first sentence includes the phrase "that was abandoned at a Delaware computer shop", when this is disputed.
• The data has not been verified as belonging to Hunter Biden; it has been verified that it appears to belong to Hunter Biden. Some of the data is verifiable and probably has been verified (e.g., emails that he sent that others have received), but not all of it. There is no reputable source that says that all of the data (even on the "clean copy") absolutely belongs to Hunter Biden. And that's because no analysis can prove ownership of documents in a situation like this. It just isn't technically possible. Even CBS knows this (see here: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hunter-biden-laptop-data-analysis/), emphasis mine: Computer Forensics Services' chief technology officer, Mark Lanterman, said he believes it's clear the data was created by Hunter Biden." And remember this is the copy with a three-year chain of custody problem, not mentioned in the article.

The article should not state something as fact which cannot be proven (and for which, not surprisingly, no source exists that states it unequivocally as fact).

The idea of focusing on the data is fine, but the phrasing doesn't do that, and the lede still should not state as fact things that are known not to be facts. RoyLeban (talk) 11:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The status quo is not the proposed compromised. The compromise proposal is to defer all mention of the physical device to lower in the article and focus the lead sentence on the data. Feoffer (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused. I'm responding to what people wrote here. The RfCs are referred to in the past tense. If they have been closed, why has the article not been updated. Also, it seems to me that my edit was very much in the spirit of the compromise, with the caveat that it does not state definitively that the data was Hunter Biden's, because that is not known. RoyLeban (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

If you go look at the last RFC, the "compromise" proposal ('laptop data') was a late-added option five. The rfc was closed on "status quo", NOT the compromise proposal -- but closer explicitly opined that the compromise proposal might garner consensus. I agree the situation is a little outrageous. The compromise would be one way to move forward. Another way forward would be to get any RS from the past six months ever denying or opining that the device belonged to Biden -- I've looked and I can't find anyone seriously debating against that point. Feoffer (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

What you claim happened would be considered original research. The fact is that the sources do not support the statement in the lede I recommend you actually review the RFC Andre🚐 18:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I stand by my statement. The sources do not support the statement in the lede. RoyLeban (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Roy, to answer your questions, starting with a:

"The existence of emails about getting Buckley Carlson into Georgetown has been known for some time, thanks to a laptop once owned by Hunter Biden that was obtained by Donald Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and pushed to media in 2020." from the Guardian.

"Further details about those activities were found in documents obtained from a hard drive in a laptop Hunter once owned. from the Financial Times.

Republican lawmakers and their staff for the past year have been analyzing messages and financial transactions found on a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden. from PBS.

From The Guardian, which states House Republicans and their staff have been studying messages and financial transactions found on a now notorious laptop that belonged to Hunter.

for b - the article doesn't say that.

for c - the article doesn't say that.

for d - the article doesn't say that.

for e - the article doesn't say that.

You also say At worst, it's part of a Russian disinformation campaign. Can you provide a source that has evidence of that? And no, I'm not talking about that Natasha Bertrand Politico piece, which goes out of its way to state While the letter’s signatories presented no new evidence.... There's also a Vox piece which states And no evidence has emerged to back up suspicions from former intelligence officials, backed by Biden himself, that the laptop’s leak was a Russian plot. and Some commentators did go too far in asserting that this was part of a Russian plot, when the evidence hasn’t emerged to back that up. There was a lot of misinformation early on in this saga that has become deeply rooted, which is part of why this article is so hard to update. Roy, where are your sources? Mr Ernie (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

With respect to your four references, none of those articles are acceptable sources on ownership of the laptop. They are passing references which are merely repeating what has been said elsewhere (by unacceptable sources). Things don't become true because they are repeated, no matter how often. Can you point to an acceptable source that actually states with authority, and with evidence, and not as a passing reference, that any of a through e are true?

With respect to b through e, this article clearly implies (b), (c), and (e). As an example, the last paragraph of the first section reads " Two forensic analysts who independently examined the data for The Washington Post authenticated 1,828 and 22,000 emails" without the important qualification that only incoming emails could be authenticated and such authentication did not prove that they had been received by Hunter Biden or read by him. Yes, the WaPo and CBS all gloss over this (reporters don't understand it), but it's explained in the details. You are write that the article does not state (d) but it is easy to misread, plus bad actors are claiming it to be true — the article should be clear.

I did not state that it is part of a Russian disinformation campaign, but there are plenty of sources that say that it is, and we absolutely know that this is the sort of the thing Russian agents do, plus there have been numerous reports that Rudolph Giuliani and Trump himself have been compromised. We also know that there are at least two different versions of the data dump, which is very suspicious. There are clearly bad actors somewhere, so the fact that those bad actors are Russian agents, or affiliated with Russia, is not much of a stretch. This issue is already addressed in the article (the word "disinformation" appears 18 times and the word "Russian" appears 27 times). I am not proposing changes to that at this time as my focus is on the inaccurate and unsourced lede. This is the Talk page, not the article.

RoyLeban (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree there are still many unknowns about this whole thing, but that has not stopped a narrative from solidifying in certain circles: "the laptop has been proven to be Hunter's, the NYT finally admitted everything on it is real, therefore the NY Post was right all along and it's been proven it wasn't a Russian disinfo op." Some editors appear to buy into that narrative, I do not. That said, there was an RFC about Hunter's ownership, though I hasten to add I was not present for that discussion. soibangla (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

A "narrative solidifying" (great term, that) does not mean anything. The fact that there are people who believe, without evidence, certain things, does not make them true. Echo chambers repeating the same unproven, unverified statements does not suddenly make them true. The FACT is that it is a claim, not a fact, and the lede, and the article, should reflect that. There's really no debate here — with no source that isn't just an echo, the statement cannot be made. I am astounded that anybody would argue otherwise! RoyLeban (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

To add another point, there are millions of people who believe Donald Trump's lies that the 2020 election was "stolen". Does the article on the election start by repeating that lie? No, it does not. In fact, it states that it is a lie. In this case, we don't know the truth, and we should not pretend that we do, no matter how many people say so. I would also object if the article started with a statement like "...a laptop falsely claimed to belong to Hunter Biden...". Although I suspect that may be true, it is also not a proven fact, and there are no sources which state definitively that it is not his laptop (though there are reputable sources that state that some of the data in some of the data dumps appear to be forged). RoyLeban (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

There are no sources who present a single shred of evidence that the laptop or anything associated with it are Russian disinformation. Most of the sources who even suggest it go out of their way to say there’s no evidence so far. It’s always fun to debate but if you aren’t going to present sourcing to support content improvement suggestions then we are kind of wasting our time. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

This may be one of the few points we agree on, but it doesn't change the fact that there is some serious cherrypicking going on from the cited sources, and the Russia aspect is being used as a strawman/red herring. DN (talk) 05:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The article already talks about the possibility of a Russian disinformation campaign. None of those edits came from me. The only edit I have ever made to this article has been reverted. My personal opinion is irrelevant here.

My suggestion for content improvement was in my edit and is in the comments above. State, accurately, matching reputable sources, that the laptop is claimed to belong to Hunter Biden, that the data is claimed to be his, etc. Going beyond that is stating something for which there is not a reliable, unbiased source which is not simply an echo. For example, a reliable source would detail evidence proving the claim. Such a source does not exist. RoyLeban (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

If you don't like the RFC decision? Then bring your comlaint/challenge to the appropriate board. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

This is not about any RfC decision (although it is quite obvious that process is flawed). It is about the inaccurate, unsourced lede that does not belong on Misplaced Pages. If you think there is an appropriate board to bring this to, feel free to suggest it. Absent that, it seems like this is the best place to find editors willing to assist in fixing this. RoyLeban (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:DRN? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ soibangla (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

We already had two RFC on this matter. Your not liking the results, isn't going to overturn them. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

You haven't read what I've written or you are ignoring it. I didn't even know about the RfC's. I assumed it was the work of a malicious editor. Why else would the lede state something that was untrue, unsourced, and contradicted by the article itself? That said, the result of the RfC is that the current lede and what is supposedly "consensus" is a clear violation of Misplaced Pages policy. And it's also a false statement. RoyLeban (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Two RfCs that discussed the issue ad nauseum are conclusive evidence that no policy is violated as no consensus can overrule policy. It is also consensus, so no quotes needed. As the last was closed by an admin, there isn't even the "taint" of non-adminstrator closing. So instead of repeatedly stating the lede violates policy, show sources that provide evidence that GRU or the Easter Bunny dropped off the laptop. Funny thing about any claims that it's not his laptop is they also lack any coherent narrative of how the laptop wound up there (and let's not forget the two other laptops that were picked up). Slywriter (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Two RfCs that discussed the issue ad nauseum But you do notice that there's an apparently unending stream of new editors showing up at this article asking us to improve it. When I first got here, the lede was far worse -- we just cited ownership outright without any inline sourcing! I can live with this status quo, i've "dropped the stick". But this discussion will keep occurring until we improve the article to the point that casual readers no longer show up to complain about it. Feoffer (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

There's an unending stream of new editors & IPs showing up at Donald Trump's page, with complaints that it doesn't meet NPoV. This page isn't unique. GoodDay (talk) 03:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Anons complaining about balance is one thing, but but we've got veteran editors with two decades on Misplaced Pages showing up and complaining the current text doesn't meet oneWP:V. Our current status quo is a Win-Lose, in that it meets our concerns but fails to satisfy the good-faith concerns others have raised. You and I should be looking for a "win-win" text that makes everyone happy. Feoffer (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

If you dislike the latest RFC decision, then challenge it at the proper board, etc. GoodDay (talk) 06:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

That would be a WP:STICKy situation, we've come a long way and I can live with the current version. But if we're chefs -- our customers keep sending their food back... we can do better. Feoffer (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps a six-month moratorium on this topic should be put in place. GoodDay (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

It sure would be convenient to force an obviously false statement to remain on the page for six months, huh? RoyLeban (talk) 10:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, bring your complaints/challenges to the RFC decision, to the appropriate board. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

This is not about any RfC decision (although it is quite obvious that process is flawed). It is about the inaccurate, unsourced lede that does not belong on Misplaced Pages. If you think there is an appropriate board to bring this to, feel free to suggest it. Absent that, it seems like this is the best place to find editors willing to assist in fixing this. RoyLeban (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Slywriter wrote "So instead of repeatedly stating the lede violates policy, show sources that provide evidence that GRU or the Easter Bunny dropped off the laptop" but that isn't how either Misplaced Pages or the world works. To put something in an article, it needs to be sourced — we don't need to find a source that provides some alternate statement to remove it. Since there is no reliable, unbiased non-echo source for what is in the lede, it shouldn't be there. To paraphrase Feoffer, as long as the lede has an obviously false statement, editors like me will come along and object. This will never stop until the lede is fixed. RoyLeban (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The "I'm going to keep complaining here, until I get my own way" approach, isn't productive. In fact, it could be seen as disruptive. Again, bring your challenges to the RFC decision, to the appropriate board. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

GoodDay, you appear to be willfully misquoting me! Others have said I am not the first editor to notice the inaccurate, unsourced information in the lede. I will not be the last. It will not stop until the lede is fixed.

Also, I am not complaining. I am trying to help people understand what is wrong. I am frustrated that people are arguing for something that is not proven and for which there is no source. I admit that it is hard for me to believe that it is not politically motivated.

To repeat, as if there's an echo in here, this is not about any RfC decision (although it is quite obvious that process is flawed). It is about the inaccurate, unsourced lede that does not belong on Misplaced Pages. If you think there is an appropriate board to bring this to, feel free to suggest it. Absent that, it seems like this is the best place to find editors willing to assist in fixing this.

RoyLeban (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The impression I'm getting is that you're not listening & perhaps the rest of us should simply ignore you. The changes you want make to the intro, won't be accepted. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Is there a reason to turn this into a personal attack? RoyLeban (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I get annoyed when an editor refuses to accept the result of an RFC. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I get annoyed when it appears that editors are allowing their political biases to override NPOV. Obviously, I don't know if that's the case with you, and I have avoided accusing anyone. My annoyance, and yours, is not an excuse for a personal attack.

I also get annoyed when people mischaracterize what I have said, as you have just done, but I won't make a personal attack. I'll just point out that you are mistaken and encourage you to read a bit more carefully.

Finally, the lede is going to get changed. There is no source for what is there, and that is a very important rule on Misplaced Pages. It's just a matter of how long it takes. RoyLeban (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is pushing any political bias & the lead concerning who the laptop belonged to, won't be changed. The RFC result will be respected. Any repeated attempts to go against that result, may only be seen as disruptive behaviour. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@RoyLeban: if you don't like the decision of both RFCs & you're going to continue to complain about those decisions? Then officially challenge those decisions at WP:AN. Repeating your complaints here, isn't accomplishing anything. GoodDay (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I sincerely don't recall when RfCs began to mean more to what went into an article than things such as RSN approval. I don't know when the bickering between editors become more important than the context in which reliably sourced material was produced, but it needs to stop immediately. If I took a majority of these cites to RSN to pass the smell test almost all of them would fail, but since I don't want to put administrators through the hell of trying to convince editors here that they don't actually understand what makes a source reliable for what it says, I feel stuck with trying to not appear like a leftist Biden-zealot/cuckoo bird. It's not their job to control content. It's our job to get it sorted, and we have failed miserably here. I will say, as I have previously, that it is very likely more editors like RoyLeban will show up and say the same thing that the rest of us have been, but failed to take to RSN. This article is not paying attention to it's own cited sources. DN (talk) 05:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

There's several RFCs that haven't gone the way I wish they had. An RM & RFC at Queen Camilla's page didn't go my way. An ongoing RFC at Trump's page isn't going my way. Best thing to do? accept the results & move on. Same with this page & its RFC results? the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. At some point, the time comes to let go & move on. Either that or make an official challenge at WP:AN. GoodDay (talk) 05:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

AN is more for personal than practical matters. This is not personal. DN (talk) 05:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed on both counts: WP:AN is not the place for this, and editors arguing for the false statements in the lede are ignoring what the cited sources say (and don't say).

I feel a bit like I should start arguing that the laptop absolutely did not belong to Hunter Biden, that it was absolutely created and planted by Russian agents (and I can easily find sources that say that, sources that are just as unreliable as the sources that say the laptop absolutely belonged to Hunter Biden). Backing this up is the proven fact that there are at least two versions of the data dump, and at least one version had data in it that was not Hunter Biden's, but was claimed to be (and nobody has established who created that false data). And maybe then we can "compromise" at the right place in the middle, that the truth is not known. RoyLeban (talk) 11:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

"The existence of emails about getting Buckley Carlson into Georgetown has been known for some time, thanks to a laptop once owned by Hunter Biden that was obtained by Donald Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and pushed to media in 2020." from the Guardian.

"Further details about those activities were found in documents obtained from a hard drive in a laptop Hunter once owned. from the Financial Times.

Republican lawmakers and their staff for the past year have been analyzing messages and financial transactions found on a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden. from PBS.

From The Guardian, which states House Republicans and their staff have been studying messages and financial transactions found on a now notorious laptop that belonged to Hunter.

If you believe that The Guardian, Financial Times, and PBS are unreliable sources then you can go make the case at WP:RSN to get them deprecated. Otherwise our article is going to follow what they report. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, you are mischaracterizing what I wrote. I hope it is that you just skimmed it and it is not deliberate. So please read this carefully. None of those four citations are a source for what you are claiming. None of them provide evidence, explanation, or anything which explicitly states that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. All of them make a passing reference to "a laptop owned by Hunter Biden." They are echoes of other statements, not reliable sources for this particular question. You need both a reliable source (and The Guardian, Financial Times, and PBS are fine) and a citation from them which addresses the claim itself, not an article with a passing reference. This is Citation 101. I do not believe such a source exists. If I'm wrong, prove it. If nobody can find a source for what is in the lede, then the lede must change. RoyLeban (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

RoyLeban, while I largely agree with your position, the unfortunate fact remains that this matter has been (mostly) settled by several RfCs and we have to move on. As in real-life American politics, there are those who accept election results when they do not go as expected, and there are those that screech and wail when they lose, and blame the process. That sentiment is largely mirrored among Misplaced Pages editors, where those who try to keep these sorts of articles balanced and reasonable are the ones who accept the results and move on, while the others who want to make the article as negative and tabloid-ish as possible scratch and claw for every negative and tabloid-ish word they can, even when in a distinct minority. In this case, it didn't go the way you wanted. Best to let it go. ValarianB (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

yes soibangla (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The RfC process is flawed (I won't repeat what I wrote above). What we have here are three potential points of view:

1. The article should state that the laptop absolutely BELONGED TO Hunter Biden, despite the lack of a source
2. The article should state that the laptop absolutely DID NOT BELONG TO Hunter Biden, despite the lack of a source
3. The article should state that it is CLAIMED that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden, or some similar language.

Isn't it interesting that nobody is arguing for (2)? When I see this, it is hard for me to believe that there is no political motivation. Clearly, the only NPOV position is (3). RoyLeban (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Setting aside the past RFC closure for just a sec and considering this issue just by itself -- "claimed" would be too weak -- the "best" source uses the language "believed to be". Could you, Roy, support as improvement a change that focuses the first sentence on the data rather than physical device? Feoffer (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that change would be an improvement. It is not my preference, but it removes the inaccuracy and no longer states something that is not sourced. Clearly, a lot of the data in the data dump is from Hunter Biden, though it has not been proven that all of it is from him, and that issue is addressed in what is currently the third sentence. The second sentence would still be problematic (the phrase "The laptop was abandoned" is not proven, is not sourced, and there are huge questions and chain of custody issues). I would recommend removing the second sentence entirely. RoyLeban (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

At least three editors have advised you to bring your complaints/objections etc, to the proper boards. So far 'here', you're not gaining a consensus for what you want. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, if you want my advice, the way forward would be to continue building consensus for language that focuses on the data. Questions about the device itself are a red herring, like asking if the leaked "Pentagon Papers" were actually printed on DOD paper-products or not. Feoffer (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Feoffer, thank you for your thoughts. The reason it is important to talk about the device is that there are editors insisting that the device must be mentioned, and it must be said that it belonged to Hunter Biden, despite not providing a single source that provides proof, evidence, an explanation, etc. And they have made ridiculous statements like I need to provide a source for some other theory in order to remove the unsourced statement. It is getting harder to assume good faith. RoyLeban (talk) 07:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand every word you say -- When I first got here, the article didn't even have a source. My first comment mirrors yours. There's a lot of battleground on this page. But despite it all, there's a win-win to be found -- probably by just focusing on the data. Feoffer (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing has been provided in this thread, two RfCs have sources as do the numerous ancillary theeads. Drop the stick and skip the subtle accusations of bad as your continual claims of no sourcing are false. Slywriter (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I can live with our status quo -- but that said, let's all keep our eyes out for a source that forensically authenticates the device itself, as it would be an important improvement. Feoffer (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Slywriter, nobody has stepped forward, in the article or here, with a source that provides evidence, forensic or otherwise, that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden, that Hunter Biden dropped it off, that Hunter Biden abandoned it, that all the information in the data dump came from that laptop, or that all the information in the data dump belonged to Hunter Biden. It is a claim, repeated over and over again, and repetition does not make something true, nor is such repetition a source that meets Misplaced Pages's standards. Surely, if the statement is true, as the lede currently asserts, a source would exist. Go ahead, prove me wrong. All you have to do is find such a source, one that is reputable and reliable, meets Misplaced Pages's standards, and explicitly provides information and evidence about the statements above. Despite repeated requests, before and after I got here, nobody has provided such a source. And, no statements by political operative and serial liar Rudolph Giuliani don't count. He's not listed as a reputable source.

In contrast, there are multiple sources that state that most of the data in the data dump belonged to Hunter Biden, with appropriate information, detail, and evidence. Similarly, there are multiple sources that state that some of the data in one of the versions of the data dump was forged. These things we can consider well sourced facts. What isn't clear is where that data dump came from. There is no reputable source that presents evidence that it came from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden, only sources that repeat that claim.

This isn't a high bar, but it is the bar required by Misplaced Pages. Absent a source, how can anybody justify the statement in the lede?

RoyLeban (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you that there is not a source that explicitly and expressly states that Hunter Biden's laptop was indeed confirmed to have belonged to him. However, there are a number of sources that accept it as his laptop and describe it as such. It's not just implied that it's his laptop: they say it's his, they just do so lazily and without firm confirmation. I among others agreed at the RFC that we should describe it as his "purported" laptop or "alleged" laptop, but, 2 RFCs and an overturn review have determined that there is a consensus for referring to it as his laptop. Whether or not we agree with this argument, that is the current consensus. If you wish to pursue a new RFC or a new discussion to change the consensus we would need some new information, absent that, it is best to let this lie and acknowledge that it can't be helped at present. Andre🚐 03:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Andre, by that standard, Trump won the 2020 election and it was stolen :) If, in fact, the repeated statement was true, you'd think somebody would be able to find a single source(!) that are not simply repeating the statement. A "consensus" (and, yes, I'm deliberately putting that in quotes) cannot override Misplaced Pages policies.

If another RfC is the way to go, this section of the Talk page demonstrates that, despite repeated requests, none of the people who insist the lede should say it definitely is/was his laptop have failed to come up with a single source to cite. And I'm only asking for one source — really, an article like this that is such a hot button issue should have multiple sources for key statements.

One source. That's all that's needed. Why is it so hard?

RoyLeban (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@RoyLeban I've linked these before, but it is possible you have overlooked them. Here are 4 sources that say the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. There are many more than refer to "Hunter Biden's laptop" or something similar. I've added the bolding to help you find the wording.

"The existence of emails about getting Buckley Carlson into Georgetown has been known for some time, thanks to a laptop once owned by Hunter Biden that was obtained by Donald Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and pushed to media in 2020." from the Guardian.

"Further details about those activities were found in documents obtained from a hard drive in a laptop Hunter once owned. from the Financial Times.

Republican lawmakers and their staff for the past year have been analyzing messages and financial transactions found on a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden. from PBS.

From The Guardian, which states House Republicans and their staff have been studying messages and financial transactions found on a now notorious laptop that belonged to Hunter.

Mr Ernie (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I mean, no, I don't agree, RoyLeban, really at all. There are countless sources about the 2020 election being not the way Trump claims. There are many sources, linked by various folks on this page, that indicate that Hunter Biden owned the laptop - though as I said, they do not establish a clean chain of custody or provenance or a forensic verification of ownership and there are doubts. But again, there were several RFCs and a consensus found (one that I did not agree with). Another RFC is NOT the way to go unless you have some new information. Otherwise this is WP:IDHT Andre🚐 18:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Mr Ernie and Andre insufficient citations do not suddenly become sufficient if you repost them! What you are saying is lots of people are assuming that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden, and lots of people are repeating the fact that other people have made that assumption, and that's enough. Well, it's not! It's just an echo chamber. It is not plausible that there is not a single reputable and reliable source for this claim, yet we're all supposed to believe it as absolutely true.

Since, repeated requests for such a source have turned up nothing, I suspect that such a source does not exist.

Present such a source, and we will add it to the lede of the article, and I will admit I was wrong. But, if no such source can be found, the lede has to change.

To be clear, the source has to:

• Be reputable — meet Misplaced Pages standards
• Be reliable — a news article, not an opinion piece (or an article that just references opinions)
• Present evidence — e.g., list facts, quote people with actual firsthand knowledge, not people who are just speculating

The lede says it's a fact, not "believed to be" or "claimed" or "lots of people are saying." An appropriate source needs to make it clear that it's a fact, not an opinion, not an assumption, not that people "believe it to be," etc.

An article that presents evidence on both sides of a controversy is, by definition, a source for both sides of the controversy, not one side (i.e., no cherry picking).

All of this is extremely straightforward — it's the way Misplaced Pages works.

RoyLeban (talk) 09:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I get everything you're saying -- this is a very special set of circumstances. If we could find ANY RS or partisan seriously saying "it's not his laptop!", things would be different. We really can find a way to make a better article but "claimed" is a total non-starter. "believed" isn't much better. At the same time -- this lede IS suboptimal, as it might suggest forensic authentication of the physical device itself. Within those parameters, there's room for much-needed improvement (I think) Feoffer (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

That is actually not the way Misplaced Pages works, RoyLeban. But it has been explained to you why, and we're into WP:IDHT. Andre🚐 19:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Andre. I've heard what you've said, but you're wrong. You're saying that it's ok to put unsourced information in an article. And then when people ask for a source, you can argue one isn't necessary because everybody is assuming the statement is true? Can you point to that policy?

There's a line in Shakespeare "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." It applies here. The people arguing so strongly that no source is needed are doing so because no source exists. RoyLeban (talk) 06:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say no source was needed. I said that the RFC by consensus determined the sources provided were sufficient. I happen not to agree with that consensus but that is how things work on Misplaced Pages. I advise you to self-revert or you may find yourself being submitted for sanction at AE or ANI. Andre🚐 07:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

You have effectively said no source is needed. Since you are so confident that the statement in the lead is a fact, not a belief, then surely you must have a source. Why won't you provide it? RoyLeban (talk) 02:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

This is at the point where I'm soon not going to be able to continue participating in good faith, RoyLeban, so let's try it one last time. In the sources provided by others, statements along the lines of "a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden" or "once belonged to" Biden or statements such as "Biden dropped off at the repair shop" etc., are made. An RFC was begun in which I, among other, opined that this was not sufficient remove the "purported"/"alleged" language. I did NOT agree that this should be removed but a consensus of editors DID find that it was sufficient. Misplaced Pages makes decisions based on WP:CONSENSUS and there were not 1, but 2 RFCs and an overturn review discussing this. WP:CCC, but you have failed to provide new evidence or new arguments and your tone is bordering on inappropriate. As I've stated already I do not believe it was firmly established that Hunter Biden's laptop belonged to him but if it didn't, he's sure taking his time about providing evidence that it was not his. Meanwhile, RS have decided to describe it that way. I do not agree with this but we have to write what RS say and abide with the consensus. And so do you. Andre🚐 02:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Nobody has ever provided a single source for the statement "a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden". Never. Somebody repeating a statement that somebody else made is not a source, no matter how many times it's repeated (if that was true, then Trump won the 2020 election!). The statement had to originate somewhere. Where did it originate? This question is fundamental. Misplaced Pages's consensus process does not say that sources are not required, nor does it say that people misrepresenting what a source says is allowed.

How do you propose that Hunter Biden provide proof that the laptop wasn't his? Provide a receipt for some other laptop? It is hard, if not impossible, to prove a negative. That is why it is so important that there be a source for the positive statement (that it was his laptop).

You might also want to read Truth by consensus, which explains how consensus doesn't get at the truth.

RoyLeban (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's standard is reliability and verifiability, not truth. Misplaced Pages: Verifiability, not truth. material from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden Andre🚐 04:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish:, IMHO, this entire discussion should be hatted, as it's becoming a time sink. RoyLeban can bring his complaints about the RFC result, to the appropriate board. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not the one to hat a discussion that relates to my RFC closure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Outdenting

May I recommend editors WP:OUTDENT, once their posts reach 10 indents? That way, discussions won't be squeezed up against the right side of the talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 04:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Matter of preference, eh? Well, I'd rather see you spell out numbers under 13. I don't understand your discomfort with the right side of the page, but whatever, let's make it ten. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Russian disinformation misinformation

In an interview with The Australian, Douglas Wise, a former intelligence officer and one of the infamous "Russian disinformation" letter signers, stated All of us figured that a significant portion of that content had to be real to make any Russian disinformation credible. He also said it was "no surprise" that the emails were genuine. He also stated that he had no regrets signing on to the letter. The article opens The former top US intelligence officials who suggested - wrongly it turned out - that Russia could have been behind embarrassing and potentially incriminating files found on Hunter Biden's laptop before the 2020 presidential election, all believed "significant portions" of the content "had to be real". (emphasis mine). I am not that familiar with The Australian, but it has a green rating at at the RS list with the description "The Australian is considered generally reliable." The author is Adam Creighton. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, I'd rather see a non-paywalled version of the citation, as I do not put much faith in this selective quoting. ValarianB (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Right click the link I provided, copy it, and paste it into the navy blue background box at archive.today and you will be able to read it. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

You're twisting Douglas Wise's words and trying to tie them to the article author's characterization ("wrongly it turned out") of the subject matter. ValarianB (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Nah, he prefaced it with "the article opens". The article is the article author here, for all intents and purposes. But that doesn't explain in the slightest what he (Mr. Ernie) wants us to do with this information. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

This is the first RS that I've seen that directly states the Russian disinformation narrative was wrong. It's also another source that says it was Hunter Biden's laptop, which is somehow still being disputed. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, you are misrepresenting what a source is saying, and also conflating "Hunter Biden's laptop" with "the contents of Hunter Biden's laptop". ValarianB (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with your first accusation and refuse to comment on any hypothetical conflation. Mr. Ernie is fairly representing the source, just paraphrasing, also fairly. There is still precisely zero semblance of a proposed amendment to the article, which is mildly troubling, and rather a hint of indication of intent to "prove them wrong", which has always been the worst part of this infinite sadness. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Not true, and accusing me or anyone else of the intent to "prove them wrong" is an uncalled for attack. My proposed amendment is the change I made that got reverted. I've said that several times already. Feoffer has also made a proposal. RoyLeban (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't call my line about a mere hint of indication an "accusation", much less an attack. But if it is, it's pretty clearly "leveled against" Mr. Ernie, not RoyLeban. You haven't been here long enough for me to speak with familiarity about your motives (if you even have them). Whatever's going on with you and Feoffer is not my business. Just ValarianB and the aforementioned OP. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, fair enough. I'll strike out the first sentence. RoyLeban (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The claim that there is/was a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden isn't being disputed — it is an unsourced claim. The fact that the phrases "Hunter Biden's laptop" (like in the title of this article) and "laptop belonging to Hunter Biden" are being repeated is not a source! Repeating a statement, no matter how often, is not evidence that that statement is true. An actual source that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden would provide information and evidence about that supposed fact. Despite repeated requests, before and after I got here, nobody has provided such a source. And, no statements by political operative and serial liar Rudolph Giuliani don't count. He's not listed as a reputable source.

In contrast, there are multiple sources that state that most of the data in the data dump belonged to Hunter Biden. Similarly, there are multiple sources that state that some of the data in one of the versions of the data dump was forged. These things we can consider well sourced facts. What isn't clear is where that data dump came from. There is no reputable source that presents evidence that it came from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden, only sources that repeat that claim.

RoyLeban (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm writing to add the incredibly obvious statement that anybody who was trying to create disinformation in the form of a data dump would start with as much real data as possible, and there are many ways the real data could be obtained by bad actors. So, the fact that a significant portion of the data is unquestionably real is not a surprise in the least. We also know that there are at least two versions of the data dump, and one version of the data dump had information which was out of place, likely forged data. Whether this means that the whole thing is a product of a Russian disinformation campaign (or not) is not something that any of us could know. But, at this point, I have not seen any source that says it is definitively real (and, certainly, it is not possible for all versions to be real, so something odd was happening). The Australian article is mostly a report of an interview with one person, Douglas Wise, not a news article or investigative piece, and it is all over the map (e.g., Wise is also quoted as saying "Russians or even ill-intended conservative elements could have planted stuff in there"). RoyLeban (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

What's wrong with a notable reporter working for a reputable newspaper basing his story on an interview he conducted with a relevant expert with pertinent firsthand knowledge? Anyway, in case you missed it, "Hunter Biden's laptop" is also in the reliable source itself. I agree, a headline doesn't count for . InedibleHulk (talk) 03:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

A few things about the article:

• Douglas Wise has background information, not any first-hand information about the purported laptop or the data dump. So, the article is, essentially, a report on Wise's opinions, not facts.
• The reference to "Hunter Biden's laptop" here is referential (an echo), and there is nothing the article that provides any evidence of the purported laptop's ownership.
• The statement that other media has accepted the laptop as belonging to Biden is not evidentiary. Conclusions reached by people at media properties are not evidence. It's not the same as evidence they publish. As I've said elsewhere, if there's a source with evidence, someone should provide a link to it. Why is that so difficult?
• I appreciate the fact that Wise brings up the chain of custody problems.

RoyLeban (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• If we were duking it out in a court of law, my friend, I'd also want to see some evidence. A timestamped security video showing his face clearly as he drops it off would be great, a fingerprint match on the keyboard or even just a sworn deposition of ownership from a verified Twitter account. But we're obviously not getting that depth of gotcha and usually don't for most things Misplaced Pages covers. Here, verifiability beats "truth" and we rely on the reliable source writers' opinions on what is or isn't a fact of the matter. Here, the mainstream consensus is that yeah, this was Hunter's Biden's laptop. Unlike a lot of times, simply accepting this part of "the official narrative" wouldn't really hurt you. You could even still choose to disbelieve it, either quietly or openly. But you've gone on long enough trying to convince people who've read enough that they should see things your way, just because alternative explanations are plausibly out there. Lay back for now, like I did about 9/11, and if you happen to find something damning or exonerating on your vacation, then hit us up! I, at least, will be glad to peruse it. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  One source. That doesn't seem like a very high bar. In contrast, it is extremely difficult, sometimes impossible, to prove a negative. This is why misinformation and disinformation can proliferate like it does. Whether it's intentional or unintentional misinformation, once it's out there without proof, it may be impossible to prove that it isn't true. Here, I'm not even trying to argue that there wasn't a laptop, or that there wasn't a laptop owned by Hunter Biden — I'm merely stating that, without a source, the lede shouldn't state something as fact. I continue to be astounded that anybody who has edited Misplaced Pages for any length of time would argue otherwise. RoyLeban (talk) 10:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

In the "failure" section above, Mr. Ernie showed you (at least) four more, at least twice. You simply deemed them "insufficient" and said reposting wouldn't change your mind, so I won't. I also won't repeat that evidentiary standards are much laxer on this site than you want to believe. I will repost Lay Back and you can take that advice or leave it. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

None of the articles linked to by Mr. Ernie assume that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. None of them even attempt to provide any evidence, good, bad, or otherwise, supporting that statement.

Yes, it is frequently the case that evidentiary standards are laxer on Misplaced Pages than they should be. But, when somebody (like me) pushes back and points out that an article does not support a statement, the proper action is to find a linked-to article which actually supports the statement. That's all I'm asking for. Instead of providing such a source, the argument is that an actual source is not necessary because lots of people have already assumed it's true and lots of people are repeating that. Where is the policy that says that's ok?

I have added a citation needed to the lede. If, as is claimed, the statement is a fact, it should be easy to provide a citation. I look forward to seeing it.

RoyLeban (talk) 07:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, all of the sources provided by Mr. Ernie assume this was Hunter Biden's laptop, whether by using that exact phrase, saying it belonged to him or whatever other means an average reader should consider assertive. You're certainly not the average reader, and part of me salutes you for that! But on the other hand, I can't match your endurance any longer any this; you win. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, over my 2 decades plus editing Misplaced Pages, I have noticed that editors who have a lot of free time on their hands tend to get their way, even if they're wrong. I can point to articles that are still broken, many years later, because I didn't have time to fight with an editor who, for example, said that "Misplaced Pages doesn't have timelines" (it probably has hundreds of thousands). One of those editors ended up permanently banned from Misplaced Pages, but not before they screwed up many articles. Because the lack of a source is so egregious here, I decided I'd check in once a day on this article. Guess that's some endurance :) RoyLeban (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

FBI involvement with social media censorship of the story

Good article on Fox News this morning detailing the FBI's role in censoring spread of the story on Twitter: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/elon-musk-chose-me-report-twitter-files-disturbing-things-learned-fbi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.10.80 (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece. DN (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Unreliable and fringe, unusable in any event. Andre🚐 03:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Wrong side of the aisle. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

this one went viral for about a day

How a Hunter Biden conspiracy theory grew, from lone tweet to a big megaphone soibangla (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. 2 quotes that I think are pertinent here are (emphasis mine):

It started with a tweet on Jan. 12 by an anonymous account — a photo of a rental application by Hunter Biden, plucked from the hard drive of his laptop left behind for repair in a Delaware shop in April 2019.

Devine, author of the book “Laptop From Hell,” which is about the device left at the repair shop

Now we've all enjoyed the fun of the last few months debating if the laptop was Biden's or if it was "dropped off" or "abandoned" or whatever, so hopefully this WaPo Fact Check can finally put all this to bed. The most interesting point of that Fact Check to me though is the bit about CEFC / Chinese energy company paying $4.8 million to entities owned by Hunter Biden and his uncle for a business deal that collapsed. That ought to be more notable. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Let’s pause for a moment and scrutinize the form. The Hunter Biden laptop has been the subject of much scrutiny. The Washington Post asked two security experts to examine 217 gigabytes of data on a hard drive, purportedly Hunter Biden’s... Emphasis (and italics) mine. When too many cooks (Glenn Kessler and Adriana Usero) can spoil even a single article/paragraph with such bet-hedging noncommital wishiwashiness, it's no wonder its readers don't know what to think, either. Anyway, again, "purportedly". Let the games continue. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Topic bans needed

RoyLeban, Feoffer, and now Zaathras have reinserted the citation needed template into the first sentence. Do these editors need to be reported to AE for the disruptive behavior that’s been ongoing for far too long now or can any admins who happen to be watching just directly apply a topic ban? I think the good faith was exhausted months ago. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:AE is thataway. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish do I need to self revert so that another editor can make the inevitable edit or are we good to enforce the firmly set consensus this way? Mr Ernie (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

You would be best off self reverting and reporting at AE, providing the history of RFC, RFC closure review, BLPN discussion, another RFC, and all the discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Sigh Zaathras has reported me at the edit warring noticeboard. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Mr. Ernie himself will be heading to Arb Enforcement momentarily if he does not self-revert. The 8 bulleted points at WP:3RRNO do not cover his claimed reason for violating 1RR.. Zaathras (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

This feels oddly familiar - Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy/Archive 5#A disputed tag has nothing to do with consensus text. @Slywriter. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you did get away with it before. I assumed at the time that reasoned discussion would lead to better self-reflection on your part. By the time it didn't, an AE filing would have likely been closed as "stale". So, good that we have your established pattern of disruption now. Zaathras (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed Mr Ernie. This is growing tiresome. If you hadn't reverted? I would've. To maintain the status quo. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Leave my name out if it -- My stick is dropped, I didn't reinsert anything, I proposed a creative solution that might finally resolve this longstanding dispute. We gotta break outta this battlegroundy mindset and just try to make the article better. Feoffer (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Or all split up and make a dozen or so articles better, let a new class hover menacingly over this nothingburger for a few months, see if they go crazy. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish accused me of being disruptive for making my second edit ever to this page in the history of time. Mr Ernie is doing the same thing here. This is false information, essentially an attack. Requesting a source, even repeatedly, on a talk page is not disrupting Misplaced Pages. In fact, I am following the guidelines for not being disruptive by trying to reach consensus on the talk page — consensus that a source is required to put something in the lede of an article, especially something which is contradicted by the article itself. Compromises have been suggested, but they have been ignored. Until yesterday, I did not make a second editor to the page after my initial edit which was intended to fix an obvious problem that I assumed was the work of a malicious editor.

Part of my edit yesterday was the addition of well-sourced information that I feel belongs in the article, and for which no explanation was given for it's removal. This is an inappropriate revert by ScottishFinnishRadish. The other part was a request for a citation for unsourced information. As Feoffer pointed out, I am (at least) the 14th editor who has stumbled into this, so it's going to keep happening until it gets fixed. If I give up to the editors who are insisting no source is needed, then somebody else will come along. I figured I might as well see it through.

This is the first time I have ever seen the response to a citation needed be the deletion of the tag rather than the provision of a citation.

On the subject of a topic ban, it is inappropriate, but I understand why it's desired — if you can't win an argument with logic or facts, then ban discussion so you can't lose. And the argument that "good faith was exhausted" before I had even seen this article is preposterous!

I am trying very hard to be polite and assume good faith, but I will also admit that it is hard when there is continued insistence that no actual source is needed, since there are so many people assuming the supposition is fact and repeating it.

I am going to restore the change that ScottishFinnishRadish reverted without cause and without explanation. If somebody wants to call that a revert, fine, it's my 1 revert for today. For now, I won't put the citation needed back.

RoyLeban (talk) 06:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

From WP:VERIFY (copied here 01/22/2022, underlined emphasis mine)

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.

Attribute all of the following types of material to reliable, published sources using inline citations:

• all quotations,
• all material whose verifiability has been challenged,
• all material that is likely to be challenged, and
• all contentious matter about living and recently deceased persons.

The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly, ideally giving page number(s)—though sometimes a section, chapter, or other division may be appropriate instead; see Misplaced Pages:Citing sources for details of how to do this.

Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it.

Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page. You should also be aware of how Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons also applies to groups. RoyLeban (talk) 06:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I've reported GoodDay for a 1RR violation (discussion) which also included a completely disingenuous rationale for reverting my attempt to clean up citations (he claimed that cleaning up citations is a "big change" which requires consensus). A revert like this and an attempt to ban discussion of the need for a source for a statement are making it harder and harder to AGF. RoyLeban (talk) 08:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I did not yet make the other change I said I would, the addition of the additional information from the WaPo article which ScottishFinnishRadish inappropriately removed without justification or explanation. I put it in the lede paragraph, and I now think it belongs later in the article, so I will get to it later, perhaps tomorrow. RoyLeban (talk) 08:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

FWIW - RoyLeban reported me to the wrong board, but anyways I've reverted my revert, since. I am concerned though, that since January 15, 2023? Roy has shown WP:IDHT, WP:SPA, refusal to drop the stick & WP:BLUDGEONING behaviour. GoodDay (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Requesting a hat for this. It does share some useful guidelines but it's mostly distracting. DN (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Consensus required restriction

Due to the recent edit warring on this article I've applied the consensus required restriction which states that: an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page. For clarify, this includes content which has already been challenged unless there is an existing consensus which clearly supports the challenged content. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Callanecc: FWIW, may I point out the RFC (at the top of the talkpage) & its consensus. Note - The RFC-in-question was closed by an administrator. GoodDay (talk) 09:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Yep, saw that with regard to What is clear from the discussion is that the language that assigns ownership of the laptop (or the data) to Biden still has rough consensus and the support of the large portion of more recent sources. Is that the bit you're referred to GoodDay or the bit about not invalidating the earlier RFC on the lead (was that this one or an earlier discussion @ScottishFinnishRadish?). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Callanecc: I'm a stickler for respecting RFC results, no matter what the closure is. So yes the RFC closed by ScottishFinnishRadish, barely two & a half weeks ago, is the bit-in-question. PS - With the new page editing rule in place, I'm hoping it'll stop the attempts to undo the RFC decision-in-question, etc. GoodDay (talk) 10:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Put me down for thinking topic bans and editing restrictions aren't helpful. New users keep showing up to complain that our article should be better -- I don't think ordering them to be silent is the path to a better article. I expressed concerns about an earlier version of the lead that didn't have any sourcing, and all my concerns were addressed to my satisfaction -- I can live with this lead! But it's still clear that some readers, without any particular partisan ax to grind, think this article needs more polishing. We are chefs, and people keep sending our food back -- we should take that as a call to improve the article, not to silence those who call for us to do better. Feoffer (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Umm, decisions on Misplaced Pages are primarily made by consensus, which is accepted as the best method to achieve Misplaced Pages's goals (WP:CON). Nothing in the consensus required provision prevents that or requires silence, in fact, it requires discussion and collaboration to determine an the solution. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your good faith proposal. You're an admin, I'm no one important, I bear that in mind. But my personal assessment is that article has attracted enough independent complaints from non-partisans for us to accept there's room for improvement. Its not my place to say precisely what an 'improved' article would look like, but I doubt squelching the negative feedback from our readers or otherwise 'locking in' the present version will help us get to a better article. Feoffer (talk) 10:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) All editors are equal when judging a consensus - admins just have extra functions to prevent disruption (including edit warring). Our edit warring policy says that edit wars are not conducive to building a consenus. The restrictions on this page are designed to push editors towards discussing changes and establishing a consensus rather than edit warring their version. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, Callanecc. Since the RFC closure, I haven't seen any big number of editors complaining about its result or seeking to change it. GoodDay (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes we all see what we want to see without knowing or even caring if it is objectively true. So why imply such assumptions? Time has yet to tell how future editors will judge this article, and not just RoyLeban. People usually only come to complain if something is wrong, and rarely to come to give out pats on the back, but that is only an assumption on my part, a POV, if you will. It doesn't add much to the conversation, but is it useful? DN (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Feoffer when he says "topic bans and editing restrictions aren't helpful" I'm apparently the 14th editor to come along and assume the inaccurate, unsourced (still!) lede shouldn't be there. Like me, I assume most of them thought it was put there by a malicious editor, or just a mistake. When I pointed out that I wouldn't be the last editor to come along, and that the lede would eventually have to change because it has no source and is contradicted by the article itself, GoodDay wrote "The impression I'm getting is that you're not listening & perhaps the rest of us should simply ignore you", as if I am the problem, a clear misinterpretation of what I wrote, and a misunderstanding of reality. Sure, you can bludgeon me to death, you can trick an admin into blocking or banning (I have never once received any ban, block, etc., in over 2 decades). And then you can sit back and wait for the 15th editor to come along. I am not the problem. The problem is the people who have refused to cite a source for a statement in the very first paragraph of the article.

I am also bothered by the fact that a significant (and ridiculous, clearly non-consensus change) was made exactly one hour before the recent restriction was added by Callanecc, with no warning on the page itself for the poor 15th editor to come along (as we know here, one can be accused of bad actions that happened months before even having seen this page). Now, if anybody reverts that change, they look like the bad person, when the reality is that Mr Ernie is well aware that the citations are non-responsive. I'm talking about this change . None of the citations address the issue in question. None of them provide any explanation, evidence, or even insight into the phrase "a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden". Not in the least. The closest we get is that the Rudy Giuliani (known for serial lying, frivolous lawsuits, Four Seasons Total Landscaping, and the fact that he can no longer practice law) had possession of it at some time. Adding those citations with the edit comment "adding requested citations" seems to me a bit like thumbing one's nose, as nobody has requested those citations, and I do not think they improve the article as they are all peripheral, not even primary reporting like other sources cited later in the article. Callanecc, may I suggest you revert that change?

With respect to Callanecc's comment "The restrictions on this page are designed to push editors towards discussing changes and establishing a consensus rather than edit warring their version", I want to point out that I, at least, have not been edit warring. I've made three changes total to the article. But I think that the rejection of the citation cleanup I did here which was reverted by GoodDay shows that some editors are acting like they own the page. Those same editors are refusing to establish a consensus and also refusing to accept that consensus can change.

Throughout this entire exchange, I have repeated one thing, over and over again. I know I sound like a broken record, but here it is. Find one source that actually says that the laptop belonged or belongs to Hunter Biden, and I'll accept it. This is an extremely low bar. I think it is unacceptable to argue that even this low bar is not required for a statement in the lede which is contradicted by the article itself. Here is my proposal:

1. We give editors who believe the sentence belongs in the article one week to come up with a source. Let's make it 11:59:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC), so that is 7 days + 15 hours.
2. An acceptable source must (a) actually support the statement, not just repeat it (From the Misplaced Pages guidelines: "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article."), and (b) meet all the guidelines I quoted above (note my underlined emphasis).
3. If an acceptable source is found and provided before that time, a citation to that source is added to the lede sentence, and such other changes as are appropriate are made to the article. If an acceptable source is not found, the lede sentence is changed to indicate that the laptop has been "claimed" to be Hunter Biden's, and, again, such other changes as are appropriate are made to the article.
4. In the meantime, editors who have been part of this discussion agree not to change the first section of the article. Absent a notice on the page itself, we cannot place this restriction on other editors, like a potential 15th editor who stumbles into this.
5. After whichever change is made, we can improve the first section of the article. It is a mess, irrespective of the content which is in it.

It is my hope that this reasonable proposal will be accepted by all of the interested parties here, and that those editors who are confident the statement is true will use their energies toward finding a source rather than arguing with me.

(Note: as I mentioned earlier, it is my intent to add some additional information elsewhere in the article which was inappropriately removed by ScottishFinnishRadish. While the removal was inappropriate, I realized that the additional information did not belong in the first section, and I can probably also do a better job with it. I will do so when I have time.)

RoyLeban (talk) 09:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I think your call for a deadline is overly battleground.

I think a good first step would be to add some notice to readers that there's an on-going discussion about how to improve the first sentence.

The first step to solving a problem is to admit a problem exists; Readers keep showing up on talk to complain about this article, that's a problem. We're a wiki -- we don't need to hide that discussion from our readers, on the contrary, we should advertise it so they can help us. Feoffer (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Both you and Roy recently added a citation needed template to the lead (,), so I added several. Now I see that you've removed them. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Roy and I have very different points of view. I suggested the possibility of adding a very specific, very narrow request for a source forensically authenticating the physical device. The CBS source is very strong and suffices for now. (I'm not attached to that, more just brainstorming about how to get a lead that everyone can be proud of.) Feoffer (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we're that far off. I'm asking for the same thing that you are. But, the CBS source only addresses the data dump and does not authenticate any physical device. It says that some of the emails were definitely sent to Hunter Biden, that some of the other data very much looks like it was/is his, and that other data cannot be authenticated. It does not weigh in with any evidence or explanation as to whether the data came from an actual laptop belonging to Hunter Biden, or whether such a laptop was left for repair, etc.

RoyLeban (talk) 05:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm interested in who these 14 complaining editors are, since the last RFC closed. I seen this mentioned two or three times, yet I've only seen 1 (maybe 2) editor, since the RFC closure. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

who these 14 complaining editors are

Well go back and look at the past RFCs. I know more than a dozen agreed it would be an improvement over status quo to focus the lead sentence on the data and defer discussion of the physical device until later. I'm not sure what the best way forward is, I know it's not to weaselword it with "claimed" or something stupid like that. But there's no doubt that there's still a lot of room for improvement in the lead. Feoffer (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Feoffer:. Clarify - "...add some notice to readers, that there's an on-going discussion..." PS - Why do you keep posting that editors keep showing up to complain about this article? I've only seen 'one' (maybe 'two), since the last RFC was closed. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

An average of 1 per 9 days is actually quite a high rate of reader complaint. Feoffer (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

That's weak tea. Look at the history of Talk:Adam's Bridge. Over a third of the recent edits are complaints and immediate reverts of those complaints. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Just looking over that page, it seems to be a longstanding situation with little opportunity for compromise -- an article can only have one title.

In contrast, the editors on this article seem to have no irreconcilable differences. Everyone agrees the data has been forensically validated, everyone agrees the device has not yet been forensically validated, and everyone agrees that media routinely refers to the device as "hunter biden's laptop". The only discussion is how best to communicate these facts to readers.

The status quo meets my concerns. But I bet we can get the article to a place where it meets everyone's concerns. Maybe not -- Adam's Bridge situations do exist, but I'm skeptical this is such a case. Feoffer (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Better to leave things as they are. It's an American politics-related page. Trying to make 'everybody' happy, usually ends up making 'nobody' happy. GoodDay (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Feoffer,the statement "Everyone agrees the data has been forensically validated" is a reach. Some of the data (some incoming emails, between 1% and 17%) has been forensically validated but that proves only that they were sent and delivered somewhere, not that Hunter Biden received them or read them. Additional data was validated in other ways, e.g., because other copies of the same files were available elsewhere. Most of the emails and a large amount of other files have not been validated (forensically or otherwise) but the statement has been made that they appear to belong to Hunter Biden. This is not terribly surprising — it would be true whether the data dump came from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden or if it was manufactured as part of a disinformation campaign.

GoodDay, would you say the same thing if the article currently used the word "claimed" to match the source material?

RoyLeban (talk) 05:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

it would be true whether the data dump came from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden or if it was manufactured as part of a disinformation campaign

That's an excellent statement of the widespread objection to the current text. Our current text leads readers to believe the device has been authenticated, but we don't have sourcing to support that. There's room for improvement. Feoffer (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I accept the results of the last RFC. I recommend that you do the same & drop the stick. GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

GoodDay, that is a nonsense argument. I have nothing to do with "stick" you refer to. You know this. Please stop acting as if I was here months ago or I was aware of the RfCs, etc. the actual "stick" is the people insisting that no source is needed. RoyLeban (talk) 06:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Please stop pushing for changes you want. You're not closer to a consensus now, then you were about a week ago. GoodDay (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Same to you. Please stop pushing for an unsourced statement to stay in the lede. You're not closer to a consensus now than you were about a week ago. You're not closer to providing a source (or an actual rationale for it to stay) than you were about a week ago. I've been asking for single source that meets Misplaced Pages policy repeatedly. Why haven't you provided one? RoyLeban (talk) 07:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Accusing others of owning this page, is a non-starter. Others may see you as attempting to own this page (if not the talkpage), so its best not to cross such lines. Also, there's already a consensus. You just won't accept it. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

My comment about page ownership is mainly about the revert of my change to clean up citations. There was no reason for that revert. Three all-time edits of the page doesn't make me look like I think I own it, and I'm not trying to own the Talk page either. I'm just being insistent that consensus shouldn't override Misplaced Pages guidelines. Statements need sources. RoyLeban (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

You've no consensus for what you want. Drop the stick & move on. GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

See my response above. Please stop repeating yourself. Please stop with the accusations. Please provide an actual source for the statement you claim to be true with no evidence. As for consensus, it is clear that there is no consensus for your position that no source is needed for a supposed statement of fact. The goal here is to figure out how to make the article better. Why don't you want that? RoyLeban (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

You've not gained a consensus for what you want, nor to overturn the RFC result. GoodDay (talk) 07:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, this is kind of ridiculous. More than 1 source has been provided that says that the laptop belonged or belongs to Hunter Biden. You just dismiss the sources and the consensus, and frankly at this point it is disruptive. Andre🚐 16:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Not to nitpick, but, out of all the sources that are actually focused on (in context) the legitimacy of the laptop, how many say it is without a doubt HB's laptop, and how many use words like "purportedly" "believed" "assumed" "alleged" etc...Just numbers would suffice, I'm trying to keep the focus on RS since it is still being discussed by others without beating the dead horse on my own accord. Cheers. DN (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know, but there's also recency to take into account. In the 2 RFCs part of the discussion was that older sources were more likely to use the "alleged" language. Andre🚐 05:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

CBS uses "believed" to describe the laptop data. I'd concur with Andre than "alleged" is deprecated. Feoffer (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying I'm the only one allowed to nitpick, by any means. Still waiting on those numbers though...DN (talk) 05:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Echoing what DN said. I don't think it is too high a bar to request a single source which is actually about the ownership of the laptop, as required by the Misplaced Pages guidelines and that says definitively, without words like "purportedly" "believed" "assumed" "alleged" etc., that the laptop existed, belonged to Hunter Biden, that the data dump came from it, etc. This is actually an extremely low bar for a statement in the first sentence of a Misplaced Pages article. RoyLeban (talk) 05:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Sources have been provided, but you keep rejecting them. GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with GoodDay that these sources were provided. I'm not the one to provide these numbers as I'm not advocating for any change to the RFC consensus and the burden of proof isn't on me in this dispute. RoyLeban rejects whatever is provided to him and claims it is insufficient. Andre🚐 19:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

GoodDay and Andre (or anyone else), please point to where in WP:VERIFY it says that sources that provide no evidence or explanation of a statement satisfy the requirement that "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article." And where a source isn't needed for "all material whose verifiability has been challenged ...... all contentious matter about living and recently deceased persons." Oh, and where this requirement "Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step" doesn't apply if people argue enought. And where this requirement "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups..." doesn't apply if there's a big enough echo chamber with no actual evidence.

Maybe I'm missing something, but WP:VERIFY is very clear (all italic text in previous paragraph is directly from there). If I am missing something, just point to where the policy supports your arguments. An RfC cannot override Misplaced Pages policy.

So ... please drop your stick and let us fix the article.

RoyLeban (talk) 07:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the article. Therefore there's nothing to fix. GoodDay (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

There is absolutely something wrong with the article. As I have explained over and over again, there is an unsourced statement in the very first sentence which is contradicted by the article. You know this and no amount of dodging the issue changes that. Either it needs a source or it should be removed. Provide a source and it can stay. Without even a single source, it will eventually be removed. Misplaced Pages policy requires it. If you think I am misunderstanding/misreading Misplaced Pages policy, feel free to explain it with a policy reference and quotes, as I have done. Sans that, you are just repeating the same false argument over and over. RoyLeban (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

And over & over again, editors have provided sources, but you rejected all of them. If you don't like the result of the RFC decision, then challenge at the proper board. GoodDay (talk) 07:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

If you really believe any of those sources meet the requirements of WP:VERIFY please explain it. Because it's pretty obvious they don't. The refusal of you and others to provide a source is getting very tiresome. RoyLeban (talk) 07:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Take your RFC challenge to the proper board. None of your arguments have convinced me to change my stance. GoodDay (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

GoodDay and RoyLeban, can you please stop responding to each other? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 07:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Firefangledfeathers. This will be my last response for now. RoyLeban (talk) 07:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Good advice, Firefangledfeathers. GoodDay (talk) 07:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Feoffer wrote "I think your call for a deadline is overly battleground." Not my intent, but I think some deadline is needed to bring the lede into alignment with the currently available sources. Right now, the argument is being made that the unsourced statement should stay unless somebody finds a source that says definitively that the laptop didn't exist, or the equivalent — and everybody knows proving a negative is virtually impossible. With my proposal, when the deadline is reached, the lede will change, either to add the source or to remove the unsourced statement. If sources are found later, like say the FBI makes an announcement that the laptop exists and was forensically proven to be Biden's, or Giuliani admits that he worked with the Russians to manufacture the data dump, then the page should change, even though the deadline has passed.

I would support adding a step 0. Add a notice to the article itself about the lede.

What do others think? Can we commit to improving the lede?

RoyLeban (talk) 06:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

It makes a lot of sense for us to actively solicit readers to participate in the talk page discussion about about the lead. When we don't encourage such participation, we basically only get complaints, which can potentially bias the discussion. Feoffer (talk) 06:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Actively soliciting readers to participate in a talk page discussion about the lead? Administrators @Callanecc: & @ScottishFinnishRadish:, wouldn't that be called canvassing? GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Here is an opportunity for us all to more closely examine the definition of WP:CAN...

"In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.

Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior."

...DN (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the lead. We had an RFC on this matter, less then a month ago. There's no consensus for the changes you want to make. GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Clearly, there's no consensus for leaving the lede sentence either. If we had 1,000 unbiased editors participate in an RfC, I am confident that the consensus would be that an unsourced statementthat is contradicted by the article itself cannot be allowed. One of the key problems with Misplaced Pages is that a tiny number of editors can participate in an RfC, reach a wrong conclusion, and then claim there is "consensus" for something which is not only wrong, but violates Misplaced Pages policy. RoyLeban (talk) 07:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

There's a consensus for the current lead, see the last RFC. You just refuse to accept the result of that RFC. If I'm repeating myself? it's only because 'you' are repeating yourself. GoodDay (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Provide one source that follows Misplaced Pages policy and I'll stop. You just refuse to do that. If I'm repeating myself, it's only because you are refusing to do that. RoyLeban (talk) 07:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Sources have been provided by editors. You just refuse to accept them. GoodDay (talk) 07:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

If you really believe any of those sources meet the requirements of WP:VERIFY please explain it. Because it's pretty obvious they don't. The refusal of you and others to provide a source is getting very tiresome. RoyLeban (talk) 07:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Your refusal to accept the sources provided by other editors, is becoming tiresome. GoodDay (talk) 07:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

While a note could be added to the article notifying of the discussion here without being canvassing, a similar notice has been removed (v1 & v2) from the article so there would need to be a consensus established to add it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I support either of those changes. I would also support another RfC if (and only if) an effort is made to get 1,000 unbiased editors to show up, because clearly an RfC with a few people can reach a conclusion which is inconsistent with Misplaced Pages policy. It is frustrating that I am asking for a single source and editors who want the unsourced statement have not provided one. It is frustrating that I am pointing to policy and people who want the unsourced statement do not respond, as if the policy is irrelevant. While I appreciate you (Callanecc) showing up, it seems that only one side of the discussion is interested in improving the article.

Side note: it's a shame that Misplaced Pages uses the term "canvassing" to mean a biased attempt to find voters. The real word doesn't mean that. Where Misplaced Pages uses the word "canvassing" it should use the term "stuffing the ballot box" or something equivalent.

RoyLeban (talk) 07:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

What it comes down to, RoyLeban, is that we have a couple of sources that say "a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden" or "Hunter Biden's laptop." You can claim these sources are inadequate or unacceptable for some reason, but you cannot claim that a single source has not been provided since they HAVE BEEN PROVIDED MULTIPLE TIMES. Misplaced Pages guideline text does not require references in the lede when supported in the body. 2 RFCs and an overturn review have determined the sourcing sufficiently supports such statement. Personally I do have doubts as to whether it belonged to him, but it doesn't matter what I think! What matters is what the sources say and what the consensus of editors thinks. One editor is not important enough to completely derail all the processes and make special exceptions, especially for such a controversial issue. Now if we had a new source that there was some doubt that the laptop was actually Biden's laptop or he is personally denying such ownership, or if another source that was more recent stated that there was an issue with the Russians or Giuliani. I would expect and welcome such a thing! I fully believe the Russians and Giuliani are involved and the laptop is fishy as hell! I have never said otherwise! But we have to follow the consensus of editors and the statements made in RS, regardless of what we personally believe. Andre🚐 20:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this Snopes piece posted yet. It's a fair summary of the saga. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Snopes is reliable and states signs began emerging in the months and years to come that indicated the contents of the laptop were real, and the the device really belonged to Hunter Biden, largely relying on the reliable CBS story that was cited earlier. More reason why we have to, at this juncture, treat the laptop as real since RS are. I still suspect, per Snopes It would be "difficult, if not impossible to fabricate"...the laptop has been the source of hoaxes and misinformation, Andre🚐 23:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

To quote the Snopes article (emphasis mine): "CBS News tapped Mark Lanterman, a digital forensics expert, who told CBS he believes that the laptop's contents are authentic and do indeed belong to the president's second son." and "But signs began emerging in the months and years to come that indicated the contents of the laptop were real, and the the device really belonged to Hunter Biden." and "Lanterman told CBS unequivocally that he believe the laptop contents are real and belonged to Hunter Biden."

Also (emphasis NOT mine): "But in the months and years following its leak, evidence continues to mount that much (but not all) of the content in the public eye is real."

And (emphasis mine): "It would be "difficult, if not impossible to fabricate" that type of everyday use" (quoting one of the Lanterman's, it doesn't say which one).

So, in summary, the Snopes article says that the Lantermans believe that much of the content of the data dump is real and that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. The Snopes article is about the data, which, as I've explained (and others have too) would be true whether the data dump came from a device owned by Hunter Biden or it was fabricated by disinformation specialists. No evidence or information is provided about the ownership of the laptop itself. It merely repeats things others have said, without evidence. Also, note that the Snopes article, like Misplaced Pages, is not a direct source of information. It is repeating and summarizing information from elsewhere.

And to comment on one thing that Mr Ernie, we need not have a source that says the laptop isn't Hunter Biden's. What the article needs and doesn't have, is a source that says the laptop IS his. We only have articles that repeat the assumption that it's his.

That said, the Snopes article clearly supports adding the words "believed to be" or "some people believe to be" to the lede of the Misplaced Pages article. Mr Ernie and Andrevan does your bringing up this article now mean that you have changed your mind and now support that change? That would be a great move toward improving the article.

RoyLeban (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Why do you keep ignoring the two CNN articles I posted that call it a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden, full stop? Andre🚐 00:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I oppose both of those proposed changes. GoodDay (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Andre, just a sidenote, it looks like the 2 CNN cites you posted are not specifically about the laptop's authenticity. Hence, it is only used as a term of reference. Sources that are specifically about the laptop tend to use much more caution and care, as not to imply certainty. DN (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

A source doesn't need to be specifically about something to have facts about something in it. While I would agree with you that any old reference to "Hunter Biden's laptop" could simply be an association, "laptop belonging to Hunter Biden" is more of a flat statement that could easily say "alleged" or "believed," but it doesn't. We have to accept this for now unless there is any kind of source that actually offers a meaningful counterweight to the idea that it had belonged to him at one point. Andre🚐 03:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

To follow up -- the real problem is that we can't yet source a statement like "The physical device has been forensically authenticated." In contrast, "the media frequently refers to the device by the moniker Hunter Biden's laptop" is amply sourced. This lead is good enough for me, but I see what DN and Roy are trying to get at. Feoffer (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The entire device will probably never be completely authenticated but for whatever reason, the RS of record at the current time have decided to accept the veracity of the laptop itself even if it may have misinformation or tampering associated with it. This could certainly change in the future if new information arises. Andre🚐 03:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

entire device will probably never be completely authenticated Well, not to gaze into a crystal ball, but I had thought it plausible that such a source might emerge literally any day now and put an end to all this. Your opinion is undoubtedly more-well-informed than mine, but we can hope! lol Feoffer (talk) 03:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I echo what DN wrote. Articles which use a term of reference are not a source per WP:VERIFY. It says, in three places,that a source must "directly support" a statement. For example: "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."

Here is footnote 2 which explains what "directly supports" means:

2. A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of Misplaced Pages:No original research. The location of any citation—including whether one is present in the article at all—is unrelated to whether a source directly supports the material. For questions about where and how to place citations, see Misplaced Pages:Citing sources, Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lead section § Citations, etc.

The burden is not on me or anyone to disprove the statement currently in the lede. The burden is on any editor who believes that it belongs. If the device is never authenticated, then it's never authenticated, and the article can't say that it is. To repeat the quote above: "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."

I'm just trying to get this article to follow Misplaced Pages policy. The lede is hardly the only place with this problem, but it is the most egregious because it is the very first sentence. An RfC, even two, cannot override Misplaced Pages policy. If you believe the policy is wrong, then head over to the WP:Verify talk page.

In all this discussion, nobody has:

• Provided a source which directly supports the statement
• Explained why it's ok to have an unsourced statement in the article
• Explained why Misplaced Pages policy doesn't apply here
• Explained how I am misinterpreting WP:VERIFY

I encourage everyone, especially those who believe that the unsourced statement should stay, to read WP:VERIFY.

RoyLeban (talk) 06:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting because having an explicit statement such as "laptop belonging to Hunter Biden" IS direct support. That is not an implication, it's an explicit statement. Andre🚐 16:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

That's a misunderstanding of what "direct support" means. You can find many equivalent statements of things that are simply not true. The earth isn't flat. Humans have landed on the moon. Trump didn't win the 2020 election. Etc. None of those are statements provide support to those non-facts being true, no matter how many times they are repeated. Same here. None of those statements, and none of the repetition of a presumption here, satisfy the requirement in footnote 2 above. Given all the attention, you'd think someone would have found at least one actual source, but nobody has. No statement from Biden, the FBI, the CIA. Not even the KGB (uh, the FSB). Plus, the statement is contradicted within the Misplaced Pages article, and I have had no influence on any of these sentences (bold emphasis mine):

PolitiFact wrote in June 2021 that, while "over time, there has been less doubt that the laptop did in fact belong to Hunter Biden. (quoted twice in the article)

The Post reported that the email was found in a cache of data extracted from the external hard drive of the laptop computer that purportedly belonged to Hunter Biden.

Hunter Biden stated in an interview published in April 2021 that he was not sure whether the laptop belonged to him; he said there "could be a laptop out there that was stolen from" him, or he could have been "hacked" by Russian intelligence.

The veracity of the Post's reporting was strongly questioned by many mainstream media outlets, analysts, and intelligence officials due to the unknown origin and chain of custody of the laptop and the provenance of its contents and also due to suspicion it possibly may have been used as part of a disinformation campaign by Russian intelligence or its proxies.

As I've said, the article has lots of problems, but I have never seen so egregious a violation of policy on Misplaced Pages as in the lede.

As clearly stated by Misplaced Pages policy, there's a requirement of a source to ADD information, not to remove it. Absent a source, questioned material must be removed. If there are editors that don't like that, they should try to get WP:VERIFY changed, not insist (pretend?) that it doesn't apply here.

For fun, check out the Bigfoot article. The first sentence has the word "purported" in it, yet there are many, many sources that say Bigfoot is real, and those sources have more supporting evidence than this article. They're not just repeating a claim. They have photos and images and footprints. Using the same argument as given here, it shouldn't say "purported." After all, nobody can point to an article that shows absolutely, positively that Bigfoot doesn't exist, because proving a negative is basically impossible.

RoyLeban (talk) 06:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, no. If there were reliable sources that said Bigfoot was a real thing it would say that in Misplaced Pages. The most prominent sources that we have at this time say Hunter Biden's laptop is real. What you're asking to do is original research and POV. The reason why Bigfoot isn't said to be real is not because there are no sources that say Bigfoot is real - it's because the weight of the prominent reliable sources has debunked the reality of Bigfoot. Andre🚐 06:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

For now... InedibleHulk (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I can't believe my comparison to Bigfoot is being misinterpreted. The point is that, if you believe the arguments made here, then there is no choice but to remove the word "purported" in the Bigfoot article. There are far more sources (even some reliable ones, like this guy) that say that Bigfoot is real than there are sources that say the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. Because even one source is more than zero.

The fact is that there is not a single reliable source anywhere that provides evidence or proof that Bigfoot isn't real. Don't believe me? Try to find a reputable article that says that, as opposed to one that debunks claims that have been made, or that says there is no evidence. Go ahead, I'll wait. You won't be able to find one because no reputable scientist will make a statement like that. Fortunately, nobody needs to provide such a source, because Misplaced Pages requires sources to include material, not to exclude it.

Let's compare: the Bigfoot sources have photos, footprints, images going back millennia, college professors and other experts, etc. And even the sources that have not been debunked are still not sufficient to remove the word "purported." In contrast, the claim that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden has none of that. We have Rudy Giuliani and others we know are untrustworthy, we have a blind computer repair shop owner who doesn't actually know who dropped off the purported laptop, we have a description that has been repeated over and over again. No actual documentation or evidence whatsoever. Yet, that painful lack of evidence has been deemed sufficient to remove the word "purported" (or "claimed" or "believed to be" or even "citation needed") from this article!

I keep saying, find one actual source that isn;t an echo and I'll shut up. And the result is crickets.

No, I'm not asking for OR and I'm not pushing my POV. It's really the other way around. I'm just asking for Misplaced Pages policy to be followed.

RoyLeban (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

You're not getting "crickets". You're getting countless walls of text telling you that your standards of evidence are too high for the situation you've put yourself in. You tried to change the future and the future refused to change. Why not move on to another unproven claim? There are plenty, even in this same article, that are entirely based on echoes. How do we know Hunter is Joe's son? No source has published his birth certificate or Joe's paternity test results. They just repeat the unproven assertion, over and over, till people forget it's possibly a lie. Now go big or go home! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's standards are not too high. If anything, they're too low. I'm focusing on this unproven, unsourced claim because it is in the very first sentence. If we can't fix this, the article has no hope. If this were almost any other article, nobody would accept an unproven claim in the first sentence. But this is an article about politics and there may be hidden agendas at play here. Certainly, it's been insinuated that I must have one because I'm insisting on following Misplaced Pages policy. If people disagree with the policy, this is not the place for it. Go over to WP:VERIFY and complain there. Until and unless it's changed, we should follow it.

With respect to whether Hunter is really Joe's son, there are literally thousands of sources, like proof that Hunter lived in the family, photos of them together from when Hunter was a kid, many witnesses, etc.

I am very aware that I'm being extremely stubborn. Here's the fact. That sentence is eventually going to change. Either somebody is going to find an actual source, like the FBI, or the statement will change to indicate it is just a claim. How long will this take? I don't know, but it's been 27 months(!) since the laptop supposedly appeared and, during that time, no proof has emerged that it belonged to Hunter Biden, that he took it to the repair shop, etc., and there is no reliable source that provides any such proof or any evidence. It's comical, really. We have a statement that the FBI took possession of a laptop, we have multiple versions of a data dump which purportedly came from that laptop, we have verification that much of the data in that data dump belonged to or was sent to Hunter Biden (and also verification that there are at least two versions of the data dump, which is highly suspicious), and that's basically it. So, sooner or later, this article is going to have to come into line with reality — on Misplaced Pages, that means that statements without reliable sources, especially statements that have been disputed, as this one has been, do not belong.

What justification is there to argue otherwise? And why isn't now a good time to fix the article?

RoyLeban (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Because this is the point in time where almost everyone here doesn't want to fix the tiny little part that isn't broken. It's just you and your fistful of wishful thinking, bud. Happens to the best of us. More rarely, but often enough, focusing intently on a single tree in the forest while also doing the same thing, over and over, like crimson and clover, leads to insanity. Is that what you want? Because you'll get no evidence first. Needless to say, I skipped everything you wrote except the last question, and that's all I'll continue to offer you here. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Remarks like this are symptomatic of the problem with this talk page. Respect and kindness cost nothing, yet too many of us are trying to push our way with nothing but rhetoric, cheeky remarks and cliches. Instead of engaging, we deflect and use whataboutisms. Good luck improving the article with that. DN (talk) 10:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Hulk, remarks like this make one think you are mistaking the Misplaced Pages for reddit. You get no karma upvotes here for (attempted) bon mots, either via post or edit summary, the latter being your usual habit. Zaathras (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I have nothing to push, Darknipples. This idea that an unneeded citation needed tag or an extra expression of editorial doubt wouldn't improve the article is the local consensus. Advising a fellow contrarian to drop the stick and realize that before it potentially drives him mad is my idea of free kindness. If you're talking about "fistful of wishful thinking", Zaathras, I'll admit that didn't age well. Everything else, I stand by. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

If this single "tree" wasn't the first sentence, I wouldn't be so focused on it. But it distorts the entire article. How can we fix the rest of the article when it is seriously broken in the first dozen words? RoyLeban (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Skip it, not even facetiously. Read the remaining entirety of the story as if it involved a generic (or even fictional) political cast you've met for the first time. Does the article do a good job of presenting the conflicts the characters face, their reactions and the consequences? Is their world built up enough for someone without a firm grasp on the settings to appreciate the significance in context? Are there other details which seem illogical to the plot, or perhaps lead away from the core lesson these sections are intended to teach? Is the writing clunky, repetitive or otherwise suboptimal? If you answer yes to any of these questions, either solve the problem or ask someone for help. Bit by bit, person by person, this article can get better, we just all have to move past giving a shit who owned the laptop's contents before they were marginally controversial. Let's start at their revelation, OK? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

"we just all have to move past giving a shit who owned the laptop's contents"...Just so I'm clear. You feel no concern for those that still repeatedly fail to provide a single RS about the hardware's authenticity that actually confirms the hardware is undeniably Hunter Biden's, aside from terms of reference. Only those asking for at least one RS that meets the standard should... "move past giving a shit"...Correct? DN (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect. We just all have to move past this. Those who'd like to come back to it can come back to it after some actual cooperative cleanup. Or at least productive discussion on what this needs to become a good or featured article. Was that ever the mission? If so, I'll start by saying there's too much redundant information between the Reactions section and the Reporting section. Most articles have one section for all analysis and commentary, following a rundown of the facts (or what are reported as facts). InedibleHulk (talk) 08:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Let's look at this for a different perspective -- in 2023, it may be OR to dispute that the laptop is Biden's. Since the CBS story dropped, can you find any RSes, even a partisan opinion piece, seriously arguing that the device isn't Biden's? I looked and couldn't find one, but you might have more luck than me. Feoffer (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I have found none. The laptop is demonstrably his, yet the article goes on, at needless length, to deny, distract, and doubt the situation we now know to be true in 2023 until the last paragraph. The whole article needs a serious tone shift, as it is clearly a result of partisanship, not objectivity. Nonperson1 (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

But as sources note, there is a nuance between the physical laptop(s) and the contents of the hard drives. Sources which have noted the contents have been accessed, meddled with, added to, and deleted from as the drives passed through several hands. Some rather unclean. Zaathras (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Nonperson1: You wrote "The laptop is demonstrably his" — what is your source for this? When you use a word like "demonstrably" it means that you can demonstrate proof. Great! Since you're new here, perhaps you give the rest of us a link to that proof.

You also wrote "The whole article needs a serious tone shift, as it is clearly a result of partisanship, not objectivity". I've tried to avoid saying this, but I fear that you're right. The lede sentence is the most egregious, but I also feel like there is an anti-Hunter Biden tone to this article.

To everyone else: I find it a bit suspicious that Nonperson1 just showed up ten days ago, made a bunch of now reverted edits to a page and now has appeared here. I have no evidence that they are a sock puppet account, but it looks suspicious. Regardless of whether anything they say might agree or disagree with me, a sock puppet account is not allowed.

RoyLeban (talk) 09:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I made an extensive response to your request for citations, but it appears to have been deleted somehow. Great.

"To everyone else: I find it a bit suspicious that Nonperson1 just showed up ten days ago"

Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers Nonperson1 (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Not everyone else has bitten you. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Nonperson1: To be clear, I wasn't the person who deleted your comments. Even when comments are pretty much nonsense, this is a Talk page, not an article. But, including ad hominem attacks with your comments is a good reason for someone to remove them.

With regard to your deleted comments, the articles you site as definitive use words like "allegedly" and "not verified", so they're clearly not definitive. The idea that the NYT can "admit" that the laptop is real is comical. They have nothing to admit, and their opinion does not matter. Everyone has an opinion. Can you point to the NYT article that has evidence in it? No, you can't.

I don't know if you're an actual new editor or a sock puppet. I asked a question. I also know that Misplaced Pages admins have ways to help them figure out if accounts are sock puppets. It's interesting that you've been here a mere ten days and already know how to cite Misplaced Pages policy. Now you might want to read some of it, like say WP:VERIFY.

RoyLeban (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

You are right that I am new here and still learning the rules (most of which didn't exist, I am sure, two decades ago). To clarify - are users allowed to call one another sock puppets and ask them to be blocked, delete their comments, and say their posts are "nonsense"? All that is fine and not any sort of ad hominem or personal attack. However, a user that provides sources which evidence an uncomfortable fact about this article's topic and cites studies about the bias being employed here and its relevance to this article - that's ad hominem and unacceptable?

I provided citations and primary documentation you requested for this article to demonstrate the laptop's authenticity and it having been the property of Hunter. Naturally, they weren't good enough. They couldn't be. A signed receipt, sworn affidavit, verbal testimony, conclusive independent forensic examinations, etc...not enough. I commented politely on what might constitute a politically motivated or at least irrational level of skepticism about a claim, distinguishing between reasonable and unreasonable usage of "alleged" in an article. Response? My comment was deleted, as surely would be all edits or adjustments to the article that attempted to make it more objective and reflective of a reasonable interpretation of the situation. Even Hunter can't deny outright that it is his, despite the strong incentive to do so given that it documents numerous felonious acts by him and others. The weight of the evidence is entirely one sided, yet the article reads as though it is all still highly doubtful. This is beyond reason - it has gone into bias.

Rather than rewrite the article, the editors seem to prefer to treat this article as though it is still the next day after the Post wrote their initial article, when the FBI, CIA, Facebook, Twitter, WaPo, CNN, CBS, White House, DNC, and NPR quickly got in line to tell everyone this whole story was a wholesale hoax and calling the store owner a Russian operative or stooge to a multi-year plot of unknown actors (a conspiracy theory). This article still, overall, has this sort of tone - that this could all still be an elaborate hoax. Hey, maybe it is. Now, shall we do that with every other article? How many articles in wiki are so laden with "alleged" and "not verified", despite having the same or less primary and expert evidence of any particular detail than this does? Again, I think this whole article needs a rewrite, rather than the lead being somewhat in conflict with the conclusion, which I can't source without having my comment deleted (if this comment even survives). If the final result of Wiki articles here is something akin to a straight forward and objective presentation of the facts, should it be possible for me to know your political alignment? Nonperson1 (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Hunter asks for investigations

In February 2023, Biden attorneys wrote to the Justice Department National Security Division asking they criminally investigate "individuals for whom there is considerable reason to believe violated various federal laws in accessing, copying, manipulating, and/or disseminating Mr. Biden’s personal computer data." A similar letter was sent to the Attorney General of Delaware. The letters named Giuliani, Mac Issac and others. (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. This article finally sheds any and all pretense that the data was fake or the laptop wasn’t Hunter’s. It’s very relevant here, so what should we add? Seems appropriate to mention the requests to the DOJ to investigate. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, slow down now, it's not that specific. Doesn't mention the laptop or what data. soibangla (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a valid add to the page, which you did. So why are you posting it on the talk page as well? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I added it to his BLP, how it gets added here I'll leave to others. soibangla (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah my mistake. I'd say it goes here just about that same way. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Ernie, your hyperbolic zeal over every new citation presented, trumpeting that it now "OMG PROVES THE LAPTOP IS HIIIIIIIIS!" is growling disruptive and tiresome. Please review the article and remind yourself that the actual topic of this article is the debunking of the far-right conspiracy claims about the laptop contents. The topic is most assuredly not that there was substance to the Biden detractor's claims. The ownership of the laptop is one part of the overall "laptop controversy" (i.e. this article), which itself is just one part of the overall Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. Consume some tea. Zaathras (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

"actual topic of this article is the debunking of the far-right conspiracy claims about the laptop contents"

I am new here and don't mean to be disruptive or tiresome, myself - but did this article start with the topic you note above or did that become the topic? I am assuming that it is the latter, since the original author had his/her account blocked. As a user, I have seen article's topics change over time, or articles be deleted in their entirety and redirect to other articles that are only tangentially related. Can't this article expand again to just present information about the topic as a whole, rather than cater its contents to achieve a specific political objective? Nonperson1 (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Citing this article is good. But, it does NOT confirm that the laptop existed or that such a laptop belonged to Hunter Biden (nice try, though). As has been explained ad infinitum, there's a difference between the data and the device. The NBC article refers to (underlined emphasis mine):

• "...personal computer data..."
• "The letters to investigators also recommend an investigation into John Paul Mac Isaac, who’s said that Biden abandoned the water-damaged laptop at his Wilmington, Delaware, computer repair store."
• "“Mr. Mac Isaac chose to work with President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer to weaponize Mr. Biden’s personal computer data against his father, Joseph R. Biden, by unlawfully causing the provision of Mr. Biden’s personal data to the New York Post,” the letter says. It accused Mac Isaac and others of “theft of computer services” and Giuliani and others of “possession of stolen property.”" — data is property, does not specifically refer to laptop
• "While Biden has previous deflected comment about whether the various emails and pictures were legitimate, the letters seem to acknowledge that at least some are — but said Biden is unsure of how much." — supports well-sourced statement that at least one version of the data dump was modified and/or added to be actors unknown
• "The letters say that evaluating the data..."
• "The letters say that ... More recently, downstream recipients of what has been purported to be Mr. Biden’s hard drive have reported anomalies in the data, suggesting manipulation of it." — again supports well-sourced statement that at least one version of the data dump was modified and/or added to be actors unknown

In summary ... this news should definitely go in the article. But it is about the data, and does not shed any new light on whether the laptop is real or belonged to Hunter Biden or whether it was "dropped off" at The Mac Shop. Now perhaps the actual letters referred to in this article do, but we don't have copies of them. Without such copies, we cannot guess at what might be in them.

RoyLeban (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The section on Jack Maxey? Where are you getting that in there? On page 7, the lawyer calls it "copy of the data from a hard drive that Mr. Bannon possessed", and then on page 8 continues to refer to "the copy that he stole from Mr. Bannon". This is why WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs are so fraught. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, where a damaged laptop is the origin of the data that is placed on a hard drive by the repair shop. The hard drive that is the basis of all the previous mentions of hard drive and data. It being his laptop doesn't validate subsequent shannigans and claims or make the Post story suddenly true. It just puts an end to this saga unless reliable sources are credibly showing an alternative theory of ownership. Slywriter (talk) 04:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

No, the whole letter is lawyer-speak where the lawyer acknowledges the stolen data was Hunter's but doesn't address the source of the data. Legal filings are not RS. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

It's Hunter Biden's laptop. GoodDay (talk) 05:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like more Russian disinformation. Hang on...both MSNBC and CNN are reporting it, so it must be true. Praise the Lord! Hunter's memory has returned! Magnolia677 (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Your edit was deceptive. You added to the article the four quoted words: "Mr. Biden's personal computer". The NBC News article you sourced uses the full quote from the lawyer letter, which says "Mr. Biden's personal computer data". I wonder why you snipped that last word, which changes the meaning of your selective quote. Drop your snark and engage constructively, or don't engage. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

– Muboshgu (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@Soibangla: I'm finding your edit summaries confusing. You're saying the data is from his laptop & yet you're saying it's not his laptop. Can't have it both ways. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The story proposed by Giuliani et al. is that the laptop was dropped off at that Delaware repair shop and this data was taken straight from it. Other possibilities exist, such as the data being hacked and stolen, much like Guccifer 2.0 with the DNC cyberattacks, and this data has been cloned and disseminated by Giuliani, Bannon, etc. As the laptop has not been authenticated to this point, we just don't know and shouldn't claim one or the other possibility is correct. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

We've already had two RFC on the lead & I'm seeing no need for a third RFC or any reason to overturn the previous RFC result. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The laptop was dropped off, the repair store owner copied the data, and then the FBI took possession of the original laptop. The repair store guy gave the copy of the data to Rudy and presumably made additional copies. It could all be finally resolved when the House calls someone from the FBI to explain it, but they probably will not answer citing "ongoing investigations" or something similar. CBS investigated and authenticated the data, but not the laptop, which was by that point irrelevant. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Again, what you are saying is unverified. If it's an "ongoing investigation" that is preventing them from acknowledging it publicly, then it won't be resolved until the investigation concludes. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not at all unverified. It's maybe just not verified enough to a standard that satisfies you. You and others can believe it's a Russian plot. But at some point, since that's not true, enough evidence will be available to convince you otherwise. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The narrative you espouse has come almost exclusively from HOLLERING REPETITION REPETITION by conservative media, which (as it often does, by design) drowns out vital details that get ignored. Maybe investigators will accept Hunter's investigation request and get to the bottom of it. Until then, there remain big holes in the narrative you espouse which can be seen if one filters out the noise. soibangla (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say it is a Russian plot, or that I believe that it is. I'm just saying that an uncorroborated story pushed by Rudy Giuliani is not sufficient to pass wiki standards. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

GoodDay said: Can't have it both ways. Yes you can, as has been discussed here many times, most recently and extensively by RoyLeban. Hunter's attorneys acknowledge the data was from his laptop, which is not necessarily the laptop dropped at the shop. soibangla (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Why are people here still trying to imply the laptop did not belong to to Hunter Biden? What am I missing here, the only way it could possibly not belong to him is if you believe MacIsaac the computer store owner somehow colluded with Giuliani or Bannon. Has there been any evidence to show MacIsaac concocted the story about Hunter dropping off a physical laptop? Yodabyte (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Because the Washington Post examined the hard drive and found it to be inconclusive. This is in the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

No there is no other scenario other than Hunter dropping off the laptop that has any actual evidence. As reliable sources note, almost nobody now disputes this (except seemingly for a handful of Misplaced Pages editors). Mr Ernie (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, my advice is just wait a day or two. Biden's lawyers are being criticized for their ridiculous mixed message, "It's Hunter's data, but not his laptop"...that he dropped of at the computer repair store. This is a legal claim, so you can bet there will be a more forthright version of the story soon. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you have not participated in this article until today. Welcome to the party! Have you been closely following our torturous discussions here over many months/years to understand all the unknown chain of custody issues here, just to name one of the gnawing unknowns that persist? I look forward to you helping us resolve them. soibangla (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

These "torturous discussions" all look the same on articles about high-profile Democrats, and the articles inevitably and unnecessarily develop an anti-Trump tone (see Attack on Paul Pelosi). My biggest criticism would be that the article is devoid of what conservative media has been screaming for a while now: that if the laptop story had not been suppressed from American voters, the Big Guy would not be president. Magnolia677 (talk) 05:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you think if the laptop story had not been suppressed from American voters, the Big Guy would not be president can be established as fact, or it is merely what conservative commentators like to believe? There's also the Streisand effect to consider: the suppression controversy might have increased awareness of the laptop and caused Trump's turnout to surge, because he and conservative media pounced on it and screamed. So then it was not just about Joe, but also about the "enemies of the people," which would really motivate Trump supporters to turn out. Anyway, feel free to fix any deficiencies you perceive have been ignored. soibangla (talk) 06:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

We all remember that the DNC got hacked by Guccifer 2.0? That's "another scenario". I am not saying this happened to Hunter, but are you really telling me that it's implausible for the 2020 October surprise when it worked in 2016? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The Guccifer thing had actual evidence. The FBI has had the laptop for more than 3 years now. They aren’t just sitting on some grand reveal that it was fake. They would have leaked that immediately upon discovering it. Reliable sources like NYMag are releasing news articles taking the contents at face value. Hell, Glenn Kessler even released a fact check of an email “discovered on his abandoned laptop” that he says wasn’t even among the ones validated by the WaPo. Why would he fact check a fake email? Mr Ernie (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say the email was fake. WaPo validated some but not all of the content. They haven't validated the drive, which has poor chain of custody and was described as "a mess" and "a disaster" by experts. We don't know where the drive came from, how much material is valid vs. invalid, etc., and so we should respect the RS that indicate that, rather than the lazy journalists who see it as easier to call it "Hunter Biden's laptop" than "the laptop that may or may not have been Hunter Biden's, but has some validated emails of his on it". – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Why would he fact check a fake email? Because Fox News and senators Johnson and Cruz have accepted it at face value to claim Hunter had access to classified information, but Kessler showed Hunter just reads newspapers like we all do. More on that in a minute... soibangla (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

WaPo reporting on this yesterday: "...individuals who came into possession of the data, some of which could have come from a laptop he purportedly dropped off in Delaware in April 2019." soibangla (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

No one is arguing that the article should say that Hunter Biden dropped off the laptop. Maybe a Russian bot stole the laptop and impersonated Biden. TFD (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Well that's useful, I'll spend a few days looking into that. Then again, we got one guy nobody's never heard of saying it was dropped off, by anyone at all, weeks after Bannon said he had Hunter's HDD. soibangla (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Actually, some people are effectively arguing that the article should say that Hunter Biden dropped off the laptop. And the unsourced, unverified lede strongly implies that: "In October 2020, a controversy emerged involving data from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden that was abandoned at a Delaware computer shop". That's what I'm trying to get fixed. RoyLeban (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The lead doesn't put any guilt on H. Biden at all. It merely points out that the laptop belonged to him. GoodDay (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

"points out" = "asserts without a source". 27 months and there is still no source. The owner of the repair shop says he had a laptop, that it belonged to Hunter Biden, and that Biden personally dropped it off. Giuliani, who we know is not trustworthy, says there was a laptop, etc. The FBI, who we actually could trust, hasn't said anything one way or the other. And I don't know where you get the word "guilt" from. The only place I see that word is in right-wing conspiracy theories, helping support the idea that this is a manufactured controversy.

There's a phrase for what needs to happen here: put up or shut up. Stop saying Biden owns the laptop without proof. You're welcome to have an opinion, but opinions are not facts, and opinions should never be in an article without a clear statement that it's an opinion, and whose opinion it is, and opinions should certainly never be in the lede of an article pretending to be a fact. RoyLeban (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

...Again, without a single RS about the authenticity of the hardware that confirms as much, aside from as a term of reference. "It merely points out that the laptop belonged to him"...In other words, it merely presents Misplaced Pages readers with original and unverified research. DN (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing a consensus for overturning the last RFC decision. GoodDay (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

And I'm still not seeing any justification that the RfC decisions made any sense. No sources, no evidence, no proof, just opinions and echoes (aka original and unverified research). Misplaced Pages policy is very clear on the matter. Reliable sources are required to INCLUDE, not to exclude. The RfCs were wrong and, fortunately, more editors on this page are understanding that. A consensus is forming. Now, the question is, what process do we need to fix it? Is the consensus that is forming here enough? Do we need another RfC which actually follows Misplaced Pages policy? After that, perhaps we can work toward improving the article instead of sticking heads in the sand and saying "nyah, nyah." RoyLeban (talk) 09:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Go to the proper board & challenge the RFC decision. GoodDay (talk) 09:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Good idea. I've already taken this to WP:POVN to try and get some feedback, but no responses there yet. I think WP:RSN is next on the list. Any other suggestions? DN (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

For a widest input, I believe WP:AN is the proper board. I think that's where another editor (roughly three months ago) went, to overturn the previous (summer) RFC decision. GoodDay (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Lots of misinformation here! But, first, thank you, Slywriter, for posting the link to the lawyer's letter. Let's clarify a few things. Nowhere in the letter does it say that there was a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden that was dropped off at the repair shop. In fact, it makes it clear that it is not stating that — it makes it clear that the property referred to is the data. Over and over again, "Mr. Biden’s personal computer data'"" (emphasis mine). Since some of the data has been independently verified, this is not new information.

For example (underline emphasis mine), page 3, paragraph 6: "material which supposedly originated from a computer left at his repair shop in Delaware" and page 11, paragraph 6 "Mr. Ziegler has boasted about uploading the contents of “Hunter Biden’s laptop” in his possession to his website Marco Polo, where today many people and media organizations get access to the data'"" — notice the quotes.

And this is from page 12, paragraph 4: "Here, by Mr. Mac Isaac’s own admission, he caused to be taken or transported from his store at least two external hard drives containing the owner’s computer data ... Mr. Mac Isaac also violated § 842 for mislaid property if, with the intent prescribed in § 841, he did not take reasonable efforts to return the abandoned laptop to its owner."

If I missed something, please provide a quote with the page and paragraph number as I have done.

Mr Ernie claims (I think disingenuously) that "except seemingly for a handful of Misplaced Pages editors" nobody disputes that it's Hunter Biden's laptop. This ignores the fact that, over and over again, articles used words like "supposedly," "allegedly," "purportedly," etc. To paraphrase Soibangla, it is only wishful thinking that hollering something over and over again makes it true.

The good thing about this letter surfacing now is that it shows definitively that Hunter Biden's lawyers are not saying that the laptop existed or was his. The letter doesn't shed light on what Hunter Biden himself is saying, but no evidence has been shown that he has said that the laptop existed or was his.

RoyLeban (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

RS regarding recent HB legal team response on laptop

Many of these seem to refer to the data as opposed to the hardware. Most of the outlets put the onus of "authenticity or ownership" on the word of Mac Isaac, there is also a familiar caution by these outlets to refer to the hardware as "alleged" "purported"...etc...etc...etc...DN (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

1. NBC News 2. Associated Press 3. WaPo 4. BBC NA 5. CNN 6. CBS...DN (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC) 7. Axios "The data was reportedly found on a laptop left at a Delaware repair shop" "John Paul Mac Isaac, the owner of the computer repair shop owner where Biden allegedly left his laptop" 8. Politico "POLITICO has not undergone the process to authenticate the Hunter Biden laptop that underpinned the New York Post story, but reporter Ben Schreckinger has confirmed the authenticity of some emails on it. "A committee aide described themselves as highly confident that the information gleaned from the laptop was connected to Hunter Biden, but argued that the onus was on skeptics of its veracity to prove that any specific email or document on it isn’t valid."...By this account, our lead seemingly creates the same POV that this Oversight Committee aide is projecting. "Hunter Biden and his team are also going on offense, urging the DOJ, Delaware attorney general and IRS to investigate many of the figures who came to possess the files culled from his alleged laptop — and some of the “inconsistencies” in stories about how those various offices came to access the records." DN (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

If you're planning on going to WP:RSN. It would likely be best that all editors who've participated in this post-RFC discussion, be invited to participate at RSN. The RFC closer, should be notified too. GoodDay (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear your concerns

Mr Ernie

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy&curid=68481472&diff=1137160049&oldid=1137158328&diffmode=source

03:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC) soibangla (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Seems to just be partisans, not RSes. Feoffer (talk) 04:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't follow you, please elaborate soibangla (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

As Feoffer says, that text is citing non-reliable sources. They're not news articles; they're partisan opinions by people anxious to promote the false equivalency that a few documents, apparently accidentally, in Biden's possession is the same as Trump deliberately keeping hundreds of classified documents and lying about having them. And the text reads like it. But, even if the text was cleaned up and better sources found, it doesn't belong in this article. At most, there could be a link to wherever it actually belongs.

BTW, note my use of the phrase "apparently accidentally". At this point, there's no definitive proof either that Biden intentionally kept the documents or that he accidentally kept them, though the evidence leans toward the latter. This is precisely the same issue as in the lede of this article.

RoyLeban (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is here to write an online reference at this point, we are here to debate the linguistics of the reporting of "reliable sources" vs sources that did not have to flip their reporting over 2 years. Since this forum has declared only about 2 sources as reliable on this subject, this article is tired and behind. Sorry folks the files on the laptop are as verified as we are going to get out a of a modern legal system, with 99.99% certainty it is unaltered and as factual as it was in Nov 2020. Defending reporting in 2023 as RS or Not RS is two bulls copulating with a tree stump, could be a lot of fun for the bulls, but in the end has zero beef productivity, and just tires the bulls. 2601:248:C000:3F:3492:6A55:752C:FAA7 (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

RoyLeban, I wonder if you missed the point of the edit. Since the Joe Biden classified documents incident arose, some have sought to present documents from the laptop that they hope to somehow link to that incident, in an effort to broaden the scope of the laptop controversy to include that Hunter may have had access to classified information via his father. The reliably sourced edit describes two such attempts and refutes them. And this attempt to broaden the scope is why it belongs in this article. If the way I wrote the edit didn't make this clear, I'm happy to hear suggestions to improve it. soibangla (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I missed the point of the edit. To me, it read like you were citing all those anti-Biden pundits as sources. Even if it was all factual, it is mostly irrelevant to this article. At most, I think it is worth a sentence in this article, but it's probably a Reactions from conservative pundits section in some other article. RoyLeban (talk) 07:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@RoyLeban: Exactly. I see no one here claiming these commentators are RSes. Their ridiculous "theories" are countered by fact checks and the use of the word false. That is what a reactions section is supposed to contain, though I'm open to the idea of trimming it and moving to Joe Biden classified documents incident. Heavy Water (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I think the problem with cutting the story down is the impact comes out with results not at hand from the DOJ/FBI, it eliminates the true impacts of controversy of the Deep State Topics going on. The NY Post was generally correct with the initial story Oct 2020 and got insane consequences from the government via social media corporations. The story starts as one controversy and over 2 years is about the positioning of the media companies, the former government officials, the active government officials and the press coverage. The spin was on full display, it had election implications.

The former mayor of new York was accused of peddling lies in coordination with strange amounts of crack head self porn. It is clear in public sources, team Biden was not clear with the story since Oct 2020. Whatever else you belive that part is untrue by several sources on the record? If the presidents son would have not profited very large sums of cash (allegedly) off foreign business dealings this story would have been over Dec 2020.

Where does this place in media history? IMO top ten epic US new story screwups reporting of the 2010-2020s, but that would be subjective and not online reference like. 2601:248:C000:3F:3492:6A55:752C:FAA7 (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Wait a minute...are you, Feoffer and RoyLeban arguing the edit should be excluded because a reliable source discusses unreliable people? soibangla (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm arguing that it belongs elsewhere. I also don't think it's well written, so it looks like it is citing unreliable (extremely biased) opinions as if they were reliable sources. RoyLeban (talk) 07:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, you said you had "all kinds of concerns with this" in your reversion edit summary. Please provide some. soibangla (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Ping acknowledged. I’ve only had time today for a few cursory edits. I will provide my thoughts when I have more time. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

My main concern is it is too much content derived from just one source, the Kessler fact check, therefore it’s a DUE / WEIGHT issue. It also conflates the laptop stuff with the Biden classified documents thing, which is not something I’ve seen other reliable sources do. Additionally, the piece itself is weak, as Kessler is not able to say definitively one way or the other, instead using the word “suggests,” which therefore makes it more of an opinion piece. Perhaps if it could be condensed down into a smaller paragraph we may be able to include it, but I also share Roy’s opinion that it may be more suitable for another page. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

derived from just one source, the Kessler fact check It's two sources, not just Kessler

It also conflates the laptop stuff with the Biden classified documents thing The edit shows others are conflating the two issues: Johnson, Cruz, Breitbart, Stefanik, Comer, Carlson and Fox News. Golly, who could imagine they'd try that?

Kessler is not able to say definitively one way or the other yet he provides extensive examples to cast significant doubt on the claims and gave it three Pinocchios

I also share Roy’s opinion that it may be more suitable for another page The edit is about two documents found on the laptop that have recently been presented to create a new narrative that Hunter had access to classified information via his father, so it belongs in this article. It's a new twist on this controversy and shouldn't be excluded simply because it's different from the original narrative we've been discussing for 2+ years. soibangla (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Per Ernie, it seems UNDUE/TOOSOON. There's no point in fact-checking every claim made by partisans. Feoffer (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Notification of WP:POVN Discussion

FYI, there is discussion on the Neutral point of view Noticeboard about whether the lede is maintaining a NPOV. That section is not intended to be another full discussion about this topic. As opener DN wrote, it is specifically about getting "guidance/opinions from uninvolved and unbiased editors" about a specific question. RoyLeban (talk) 07:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

NYP image

@SPECIFICO: can you link to the discussion that resulted in the consensus to include this image restored at ? VQuakr (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

VQuakr, I think you linked to the wrong edit. I think you're referring to the laptop photograph in the Background section.

I don't think it belongs in the article, and the caption is editorializing/OR. First, it's not the supposed laptop in question. Second, the caption says it is "a second laptop", but the cited article refers to the laptop supposedly left at the Mac Shop as a potential "second laptop", not the pictured laptop. Were there a picture of the purported laptop, it would be some proof that it exists, and it would be appropriate to have in the article. RoyLeban (talk) 10:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@RoyLeban: no, I'm talking about the NY Post logo that I linked. VQuakr (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I also think the NY Post logo doesn't belong. Egads, there are millions (billions?) of references to articles on Misplaced Pages. We don't put the media logos on pages. unless the article is about them, and this one isn't. Yes, the NY Post is believed to be the first to report on the purported laptop, but big deal. Somebody has to be first (I would not agree that they are "central to the topic of this article" anymore than any other first reporter is central to an issue they're reporting on. To me, the entire NY Post section is suspect as being NPOV, promoting a narrative, and some of it looks to be OR. RoyLeban (talk) 10:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Specific examples of NPOV and OR? Otherwise, there's no purpose to your claim. Slywriter (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I suggest NPOV concerns would merit their own separate section. We're talking about a specific change including/excluding one image. VQuakr (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

VQuakr The NY Post logo image has been in the article since the article was reinstated after an AfD in early 2022. As longstanding content, it has established consensus per WP:EDITCON. If you have a reasons to support your removal beyond your edit summary "pointless", by all means present them here and perhaps you will generate consensus to remove it. Because the NY Post reporting is the topic of that section, it's hard to see any a valid rationale to remove it. That's why the illustraton is still in the article, after all the editorial scrutiny and debate of the past year. SPECIFICO talk 12:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: from the first sentence of WP:EDITCON: Misplaced Pages consensus usually occurs implicitly. An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. (emph added). It's been contested now, and it's a stretch at best to call this "established consensus content". The onus is on you, as someone wishing to restore or add content, to establish that consensus exists. To me, the decision to exclude it is very straightforward per MOS:PERTINENCE. Yes, the NYPost is central to the topic of this article, but a graphic of the paper's logo does nothing whatsoever to promote an encyclopedic understanding of the topic. VQuakr (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, if you'll take another look at what you quoted, it is your removal that has been contested, etc. That's what the policy is about. We regularly revert to the longstanding article content pending discussion on talk that might establish a clear consensus to remove it. In this case, given the disagreements and difficulty of achieving and sustaining consensus on this page, you may ultimately need to propose an RfC in order to demonstrate unambiguous new consensus to remove the illustration.

The NY Post story is what set off the controversy that is the topic of this page. It's not that NY Post created the files, the laptop, or the cast of characters. The section on the Post story explains the significance of their publication and the controversy surrounding their story per se including the journalists and publications that refused to be associated with it. SPECIFICO talk 15:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: This is the wrong page to be attempting inclusion via status quo stonewalling, since the editing restrictions specifically call for affirmative consensus prior to restoration. How long something has been up is irrelevant here (and barely relevant anywhere since silence is the weakest measure of consensus). The NY Post story is what set off the controversy that is the topic of this page. It's not that NY Post created the files, the laptop, or the cast of characters. Duh. This reply doesn't attempt to address how an image of their logo is remotely pertinent to an article about the laptop controversy. This is such a textbook MOS:PERTINENCE issue that I'm frankly flabbergasted that I'd be having this conversation with an experienced editor. VQuakr (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

VQyakr, you have not been accused of stonewalling. However, per the Contentious Topics page restriction "consensus is required", you have now violated the page restriction on this page by repeating your removal of the image file. Please self-revert to the longstanding content and continue to pursue your views here on talk, if you wish. You might also wish to review WP:NOCON. SPECIFICO talk 22:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: the page restrictions are quite clear, and your attempt to shift the burden after your inaccurate edit summary was called out isn't going to be accommodated. I suggest you attempt to actually justify including the image rather than attempting to manipulate the process. VQuakr (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I agree with VQuakr here. In general, it seems that the people who are violating Misplaced Pages policy keep trying to sanction others who are following it. Remember, you need justification to INCLUDE content, including pictures. There doesn't seem to be any justification here. If you think there is a clear Misplaced Pages-based policy reason to include the image, that is an argument you can make. The fact that the image is currently in the article is not a reason it should be there. RoyLeban (talk) 06:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Considering the NYPost story is a key component of this article, there is no reason to exclude an image of the cover from this article. Slywriter (talk) 13:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Slywriter: "no reason to exclude" is inadequate. The image is decoration that does nothing to promote encyclopedic understanding of the topic; as noted this is discouraged per MOS:PERTINENCE. If you think the image should be kept, can you frame your reasoning in the context of our PAG? VQuakr (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll repeat "Key Component of this article". Though looking again, we only have the masthead and should actually upgrade to the full cover there. Slywriter (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Slywriter: you're conflating subject matter with the purpose of an image. A picture of the NYP's logo doesn't promote understanding of the Post, or the laptop, or any other portion of the subject matter. Its inclusion is completely at odds with our image use guidelines and practice. Can you link what image you're proposing use of instead? Can you frame your reasoning in the context of our PAG? VQuakr (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Alternative views articles
• Mid-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• B-Class Journalism articles
• Mid-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• B-Class American politics articles
• Unknown-importance American politics articles
• American politics task force articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• B-Class Delaware articles
• Unknown-importance Delaware articles
• WikiProject Delaware articles
• WikiProject United States articles