Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Current editing dispute

I'd like to remind The most effectual Bob Cat and PhotogenicScientist that this page is currently under sanctions. 1rr and enforced BRD consensus required are both in effect on this page. You have both violated those sanctions. Please don't let that happen again. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC) noting that I corrected enforced BRD to consensus required. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish: I undid the revert by PhotogenicScientist which had the effect of restoring the change by The most effectual Bob Cat. I did so because the revert undid two unrelated changes. I was not doing this because I agreed or disagreed with the changes, but because it's not appropriate to revert two changes when you think one of them is wrong. My gut feeling is that both of the recent changes are probably ok. RoyLeban (talk) 02:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

That is still a violation of the consensus required provision. Any edit challenged by reversion must have a positive consensus on the talk page before reinstating. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Not my intent, clearly. I didn't think my revert would count as a violation. Sorry. RoyLeban (talk) 05:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish I was under the impression that I hadn't breached either restriction, so please clarify for me if any of my understanding is wrong:

My first edit wasn't simply a reversion - it was a bold edit, changing the section in a way I thought Bob Cat would approve of. When it was obvious that wasn't the case, my second edit was my first reversion to the page, reverting to the version before either Bob or I had made edits. I specifically didn't revert Bob Cat's 2nd edit outright, restoring my bold edit version, because of the Enforced 24-hr BRD Consensus-required restriction - I didn't want to revert to "insert" my changes to the section. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

A WP:REVERT is undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, so both of those edits were reverts. When dealing with an article that has both 1RR and consensus required it is best to treat your edits with maximum scrutiny, because technical violations are still violations. Your first edit significantly negat[ed] the effects of one or more edits by restoring the original chronology, even if you attempted to compromise in that edit. That also challenged Bob Cat's change by reversion. Your second edit was a plain reversion. At that point Bob Cat had violated consensus required, and you had violated 1RR. RoyLeban then violated consensus required in the restoration of Bob Cat's edit, so now we're at three violations. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Interesting... I see your point. I'll consider bold "compromise" edits more like reversions going forward. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Technically speaking they are, and when you're dealing with an article that has two seperate sanctions on editing, both around reversions, it is wise to stay as far away from bright lines as possible. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish on the topic, and while I have you here: On the page explaining CTOP, in the 'Enforcement' section it says Edits that breach an editor or page restriction may be reverted. I take that to mean any edit that breaks the rules - such as a 1RR violation - may be reverted by anyone, without that editor being considered in breach of restrictions themselves. Is that correct?

Edit: Also, the footnote on that saying An uninvolved administrator who enforces a restriction by reversion is performing an administrative action and does not thereby become involved for administrative purposes also makes me think that such reversions are treated differently than typical content edits/reversions. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

A change was made, you made a partial reversion that was also a change, that was reverted back to the original change, then you reverted back to your changed version, not the status quo. A revert back to the status quo is acceptable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you - I appreciate the clarifications. Though, purely for the record, my 2nd edit (changes between it and the version immediately prior to Bob Cat's edit) was to restore the page to the status quo version - the only difference was keeping the change made by soibangla in an intermediate edit. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

That is true, but getting into the weeds a bit, you also need a specific discussion on the talk page that establishes clear consensus, and to call out the exemption in the edit summary. At this point I'm not looking to block anyone over this, just to make sure everyone is aware of the extensive sanctions on the page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Got it - again, thank you. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, my apologies. I've been super careful to not edit the lede (or, really, the rest of the article) and I jumped in too quickly here. RoyLeban (talk) 05:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Clear bias in the article

We can characterize news Organizations however we see fit now? Interesting. I have yet to see a reliable source that the washington examiner is a conservative news tabloid. AlwaysLegitEdits (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

It's the Washington Examiner, not the Washington Post. TFD (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

So it is. That being said my point about the examiner stands. It is a fact being stated that is likely to be challenged thus it needs an inline citation. AlwaysLegitEdits (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:WASHINGTONEXAMINER as to its reliability or lack thereof. It's a conservative tabloid. [1] Andre🚐 00:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

That page cannot be used as a citation for facts. This page is making the claim that it is a conservative tabloid and thus needs an inline citation. AlwaysLegitEdits (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

You may have a point, although it's unlikely anyone would challenge its political orientation. I would prefer to remove the quote unless we can establish through secondary sources that it has significance. In that case, the secondary source would probably say it is a conservative tabloid. TFD (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@AlwaysLegitEdits it seems only now apparent that you're talking about the mention of the Examiner in this section of the article. It would've been nice if you'd provided more context from the start to kick off this talk page section.

I see your point - if there's one place for Wikipedia to label the Washington Examiner a "conservative tabloid", it's not this article; that can be determined over at Washington Examiner, where the current collection of RS and summary thereof call the Examiner "conservative" and a "news outlet." That being the case, I updated this article accordingly. Personally, I don't object to the characterization as a tabloid (it's not like the Examiner has a stellar reporting reputation), and I think it'd be very easy to categorize it as such on its own article - at which point, that language could be used here. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually, there's a conflation around the word "tabloid" in that it refers to both a format of publishing based on page size, and also the unsavory kind of journalism. Plenty of sources call the Examiner a tabloid in the former sense (at least up until 2013), that Washington City Paper article included; not sure how widespread the RS categorization using the latter sense is, but I couldn't find many from a quick look. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry im new didnt know how to do that. That being said in text citations are allowed to have flavor text inserted? That is not mentioned on the page about them. When would it be necessary to cite the flavor text? I'm gathering from what you've said that it is okay to add it as long as it's a statement made on the reliable sources page about the source and in the article about the source itself then? AlwaysLegitEdits (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry still getting used to the terminology I'm refering to in-text attribution. AlwaysLegitEdits (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

You've got the right idea, but you're approaching it a bit wrongly. In this case, calling the Examiner a tabloid isn't exactly "flavor text", but is a contentious label. According to that style guide, words like it may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. Since they're best avoided, I replaced it with the less-contentious "outlet" for now. The guide goes on to say you can use in-text attribution to use labels like it in specific contexts. In my opinion, if the Wikipedia article on Washington Examiner fairly classifies it as a tabloid (that characterization being backed up by enough RS), using the same language on this article would be fair game - as long as the article on the Examiner is wikilinked, like it looks above. That way, all the hypothetical sources which describe the Examiner as a tabloid would available to the reader, and the label would be verifiable, without having to cram all those inline citations in the middle of a sentence on an article of a different topic, like this one. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

It's literally a tabloid, though, in both the meaning of the format and the content. [2] [3] [4] Andre🚐 20:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The Slate source is a strong one for that characterization. But the Politico and CJR ones aren't - they're from 2009, a time when the Examiner was literally publishing a daily tabloid-style newspaper. I don't believe either publication is using the value-laden version of the word (CJR: The Washington Examiner, a conservative free daily tabloid,; Politico: The Washington Examiner, a daily tabloid,). PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

One definition of the term is magazines in tabloid format such as the National Enquirer, the Midnight Globe and the Star, which do not have news reporting and provide investigative journalism with relatively lower standards than mainstream publications. Remember, per tone, language is supposed to be informative rather than judgemental and we shouldn't use a term that could convey the wrong impression even if we believe they deserve it. TFD (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

It's about how the sources describe it and not what I personally believe. "The Washington Examiner is a weekly magazine and news website formerly known for tabloid-style coverage of local DC news and politics"[5] It was literally a physical tabloid, it ceased publication in physical form as such, but the content is still tabloid-style journalism as far as their sensationalism and stance - it's just a Washington tabloid for a beltway audience in terms of what they mostly cover. But tabloid is apt and we should not spare such a description provided it can be reliably sourced in sufficient volume. Andre🚐 21:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

the content is still tabloid-style journalism as far as their sensationalism and stance is a statement that needs more support from RS, as I said above. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

That statement does, but just the description as a tabloid does not. It's factually an accurate description, just like calling Marjorie Taylor Greene a "conspiracy theorist." Yeah, it's a value-laden term, but a factual one attested in RS, which overrides. Washington Examiner has and always will be (well, I can't predict the future) a tabloid: provided and only provided that, RS attest as such and do not meaningfully dispute the label as such. Andre🚐 21:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

FBI took a laptop into custody, acting on a subpoena to do so

I haven't followed the discussions here much lately as they seemed to devolved into wikilawyering and other distractions, a huge waste of time. So what's the current state of affairs regarding the existence of the laptop? Has this been resolved yet? The article has abundant, reliably-sourced content that asserts the following:

• The FBI seized a laptop from Mac Isaac, one he believed to have been owned by Hunter Biden, in December 2019, under the authority of a subpoena issued by a Wilmington grand jury. The subpoena to seize the laptop was issued on behalf of the US attorney's office in Wilmington.

Are there still people who deny that?

Are the deniers saying:

1. there was no grand jury?
2. the grand jury did not issue a federal subpoena to seize the laptop on behalf of the US attorney's office in Wilmington?
3. the FBI did not seize the laptop?

So what's the problem? What would Occam say? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

There may still be editors that don't wish to drop the stick, but as it stands, we seem to just be in a holding pattern for more details from the FBI, and or findings from litigation by HB's legal team against Mac Isaac et al. Meanwhile politicians are using the laptop as "evidence" of wrongdoing by Joe Biden without seemingly providing anything of real substance, so far, which in turn drives traffic here. You know, the usual... DN (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, anything about supposed wrongdoing is not what I'm talking about here. Can we get a consensus for including this clear statement in the lead?

"In December 2019, under the authority of a subpoena issued by a Wilmington grand jury, the FBI seized a laptop from Mac Isaac, one he believed to have been owned by Hunter Biden. The subpoena was issued on behalf of the US attorney's office in Wilmington."

Would that be too much? I think it belongs as the second paragraph of the lead. That's what major RS say, and no doubt about these facts has ever been raised in RS, and that's all that counts. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

"In December 2019, under the authority of a subpoena issued by a Wilmington grand jury, the FBI seized the laptop from Mac Isaac. The subpoena was issued on behalf of the US attorney's office in Wilmington." Maybe? I don't really see the use for the part I removed, also changed 'a laptop' to 'the laptop'. Arkon (talk) 21:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Even more slim would be "In December 2019, under the authority of a subpoena issued by a Wilmington grand jury, the FBI seized the laptop from Mac Isaac." Arkon (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

No objection here, but the slimmer the better. DN (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, we're making progress. Let's see a few more comments before taking any action. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

"In December 2019, under the authority of a subpoena issued by a Wilmington grand jury, the FBI seized the laptop from Mac Isaac". Is this the sentence being proposed to include? GoodDay (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Here are the versions so far:

1. "In December 2019, under the authority of a subpoena issued by a Wilmington grand jury, the FBI seized a laptop from Mac Isaac, one he believed to have been owned by Hunter Biden. The subpoena was issued on behalf of the US attorney's office in Wilmington." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
2. "In December 2019, under the authority of a subpoena issued by a Wilmington grand jury, the FBI seized the laptop from Mac Isaac. The subpoena was issued on behalf of the US attorney's office in Wilmington." Maybe? I don't really see the use for the part I removed, also changed 'a laptop' to 'the laptop'. Arkon (talk) 21:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
3. "In December 2019, under the authority of a subpoena issued by a Wilmington grand jury, the FBI seized the laptop from Mac Isaac." Arkon (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Which one do you like best? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• 3 is the slimmest, so I would support that first, but I'm fine with all of them for the most part. DN (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• 3 - less, is more. GoodDay (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, number 3 it will be. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

It was allegedly seized! There is still no actual evidence that the laptop even exists. The FBI isn't talking and all the information is coming from two rather unreliable sources: Mac Isaac, the guy who illegally accessed and released Hunter Biden's personal data (however and wherever from it was obtained), and disbarred lawyer Rudy Giuliani.

Also, "seized" is not NPOV nor reflective of what Isaac and Giuliani claimed. The classified documents at Mar-a-Lago were "seized" because Trump tried to keep them. Here, according to Isaac and Giuliani, they were happy to turn over the laptop, so "obtained" (which is used in at least one of the sources) is more accurate.

A more accurate statement is something along the lines of: "According to Rudolph Giuliani, in December 2019, under the authority of a subpoena issued by a Wilmington grand jury, the FBI obtained the laptop from Mac Isaac."

or better:

A more accurate statement is something along the lines of: "According to Rudolph Giuliani, the FBI obtained the laptop from Mac Isaac in December 2019, under the authority of a subpoena issued by a Wilmington grand jury."

I would also recommend at least one citation. The third link is the strongest and includes the attribution to Giuliani.

RoyLeban (talk) 07:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

References

How biased can Wiki get?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The articles in this page are beyond the pale. WAY beyond the pale. Absurdities & stupidities that abound in the article (and talk), after all that has been made public on the topic, are simply indefensible. It is unlikely that only these article's words and talk pages here, but the incredible contorted reasoning spelled out, as well as other pages, only serve to blemish any attempts of Wiki objectivity. A clear violation of Wiki's mission. If there is anyone who has the power, they need to rein it in. Otherwise, Wiki's brand will languish and atrophy. It is not an "IF", only a when. 2600:1700:BF10:69D0:994E:6587:2929:D275 (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I've restored this rather unhelpful comment that Soibangla removed, with the following message: It's not appropriate to remove another's talk page comments, even if they aren't nice. It's not vandalism. It's also not particularly uncivil, nor an ad hominem attack (and this Talk page has had plenty of those that haven't been removed). See WP:TALKO The proper thing to do is to close this section as not productive and encourage the IP editor to get an account and be more helpful. I will leave it to Soibangla to close it.

In response to the actual comment by the IP editor:

1. IP editing is a bad idea. Nobody wants to listen to what you have to say. Get an account. As you can see, I use my real name and I encourage that. It fosters honesty and accountability.
2. If the IP edit was a mistake, you should return and add a signature.
3. While I agree with the points your making, your tone makes them hard to read and less likely to be listened to. Yes, there's contorted reasoning, and, yes, some editors are imagining that sources say things they don't say (some going so far as to state that the lack of a statement saying something in particular proves that the opposite is true). It is a big problem. But, reasoned, polite, arguments will get you more respect and, maybe, if enough people come along and make polite, reasoned arguments (and don't do so from IP accounts), we can overturn the false consensus that is allowing unsourced statements to remain in the article.

In short, comments like this one have the opposite of the intended effect. If you want to improve both this article and Wikipedia, please reconsider how you're doing it. Thanks.

RoyLeban (talk) 06:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Your response is totally correct except for the bit about removing the IP's original comment. Topics like this are not places for passers-by to violate WP:NOTFORUM and reverting is an accepted and often optimal remedy. Johnuniq (talk) 08:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:IP editors are human too. Some are helpful and just don't want to register an account. IP posts like this one, screeds against us without presenting anything concrete, should've been removed and not responded to. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed - WP:NOTFORUM is quite clear in this: Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

RoyLeban, although in some respects I may agree with your argument in principle, I believe you are now engaged in excessive disruptive bludgeoning. soibangla (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2023

165.214.11.81 (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The 3rd paragraph under Aftermath and veracity concerns is no longer accurate. There are government documents that prove the suggested change below needs to be made:

"that the laptop's leak was NOT a Russian plot"

Wikipedia does not source contentious assertions to primary sources such as the Republican narrative in that citation. Please provide mainstream reliable sources for the content you propose. See WP:V and WP:RS. SPECIFICO talk 20:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Not done. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: IP, you seem to be misunderstanding what that says based on how you took only a small snippet of quote. The sentence reads In March 2022, Vox reported that no evidence had ever emerged "that the laptop's leak was a Russian plot".[28] They are saying that there is no evidence that it's a Russian plot. Adding a "NOT" in there would change a direct quote and the result would be nonsensical. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

References

FBI validated the laptop in Nov 2019

According to the IRS whistleblower testimony (linked by CBS here), the FBI matched the laptop's device number to Hunter Biden's iCloud account, verifying that it was his in Nov 2019. They also have financial records showing him in the area (at a nearby cigar shop) the day he dropped it off. "Content on the hard drive were exact matches to files authorities had obtained from a search warrant of Hunter Biden’s iCloud account."

There aren't any RS running with any of that yet, and it's all primary sourced to the testimony so it surely isn't suitable for article space. But perhaps editors will find it interesting. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

From the whistleblowers through WaPo: After being handed the device by a Wilmington, Del., computer shop owner in 2019, the FBI quickly concluded by examining computer data as well as Hunter Biden’s phone records that the laptop was genuinely his and did not seem to have been tampered with or manipulated. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Considering the lead already states that it was his, there isn't much to do at this point. Hopefully this is the beginning of the end of that debate. DN (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The statement cited by the WaPo article is from a third party, not the FBI. Someday, the FBI might actually tell us if there was or wasn't a laptop, and if it was or wasn't actually Hunter Biden's, if Hunter Biden actually did or didn't drop it off at the repair shop, and if the data dump (or any version of it) was on the laptop. Until then, we still don't know definitively that the statement in the lede is true.

It's also interesting that IRS agents said there's a laptop, but they've never seen it. (Actually, they said there are multiple devices, but they haven't seen any of them.)

And, according to those non-definitive sources, "Far from a smoking gun, the laptop appears to have been mostly an afterthought..." (in other words, to the extent that anything is important, it's the data dump, not the purported laptop).

I do hope that we learn the truth at some point, but I don't think these articles change anything right now.

RoyLeban (talk) 07:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Hunter Biden pleaded guilty to misdemeanor tax and gun charges

See various headlines in news media yesterday. This should probably be part of the lead section. Andre🚐 14:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I had the same thought. But this article is kind of a mess from an organizational standpoint. I'm not even sure where this would logically go. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I cannot see why it should go in the lede of an article about the so-called "Hunter Biden laptop controversy". Carlstak (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. To clarify, I think the recent news is related to this article, and probably belongs here somewhere - but I don't think the lead is the place to start. Best to start by adding to the body, then summarizing that in the lead, per MOS:LEAD. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I would concur. It should start in the body. DN (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that a brief summary that outlines the legal proceedings should be included in the lead, while a more extensive version is given a full section.

With that said, it seems odd that, at present, none of the sections delve into any details regarding the contents of the laptop that pertain to the firearm incident for which Hunter received pretrial diversion. Upon examining the contents of the laptop, one can find text messages from Hunter in his own words, explicitly describing his purchase of the gun, along with photos of him holding the weapon. The text messages also outline his conversation with Hallie who explains why and where she moved the weapon.

The specific contents of the laptop that I’m referencing can be sourced here: https://nypost.com/2023/06/01/hunter-biden-laptop-photo-archive-published-on-new-website/amp/

2603:8000:3F01:90CD:D9A:6BCF:C83F:5DA4 (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

You'll need another source since the WP:NYPOST is banned. Andre🚐 18:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Upon examining the contents of the laptop, one can find text messages from Hunter in his own words violates wikipedia policy on original research. And The website cited above can be referenced on the New York Post is not compliant with the guideline on reliable sourcing - we don't source information from websites that are merely mentioned in reliable sources, we source information from the reliable sources themselves. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Forget that. Bidenlaptopmedia is not a reliable source for political information in any universe (nor is the New York Post, for that matter). It should not even be linked here—there is a prominent link on its landing page to Marco Polo USA, which points readers to their account on the far-right Gab social network,"haven for neo-Nazis, racists, white supremacists, white nationalists, antisemites, the alt-right, supporters of Donald Trump, conservatives, right-libertarians, and believers in conspiracy theories such as QAnon." Carlstak (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you insinuating that the pictures and contents released on that website are not of Hunter Biden? I chose not to link to the specific website due to its explicit content, and I'm refraining from making any editing changes using that source in an effort to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines on original research and “reliability”. However, I have serious concerns about how Wikipedia categorizes reliable sources. Is it the case that the New York Post is regarded as entirely unreliable under all contexts, while Buzz Feed News, MSNBC, CNN, among other outlets, are viewed as consistently demonstrating editorial integrity with minimal instances of reporting incorrect, misleading, or biased information? Also, Huff Post, The Daily Beast, and The Intercept are all categorized higher than the New York Post, along with other right-leaning outlets, in terms of reliability? Who finalized that consensus? I never seemed to get a vote.

I recall when many of the "reliable sources" cited by Wikipedia dismissed the Hunter Biden laptop story as Russian disinformation following its release by the NY Post, yet he's now facing federal charges.

Moreover, I would caution against the outright rejection of sources as unreliable simply due to their presence on a social media platform. Are you suggesting that being conservative or libertarian inherently leads to biased contributions, regardless of an intention to remain neutral? Based on your line of reasoning, it appears that only progressives and left-leaning media outlets are considered trustworthy for contributions on Wikipedia. 2603:8000:3F01:90CD:901D:86F7:F70A:6D23 (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, article talk pages are not the place to comment on "Wikipedia as a whole" matters - they're solely for discussing related article content. See WP:TPG.

Regarding the reliability of sources, WP:RSP exists to essentially summarize all previous discussions about the reliability of many popular sources. WP:NYPOST was deemed generally unreliable over the course of 7 discussions and 1 RFC, all linked on that page. Go read those discussions. On balance, the community here has decided by consensus that using NYPost as a source is a net negative to the project. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding commenting on overarching themes relating to Wikipedia as a whole, you’re right. I apologize for veering off-topic, and this will be my last point on the matter.

With that said, it appears that the biases of the contributors are influencing the perceived reliability of the sources.

It doesn't seem rational for outlets like BuzzFeed News, HuffPost, The Daily Beast, and The Intercept to be ranked higher in terms of reliability than the New York Post and other right-leaning outlets. This imbalance makes it challenging to engage in a nuanced contribution for articles like this when one side can routinely cite sources that are openly opinionated, while the other side is restricted from doing so. I will voice my concerns in the correct place, but seems important to mention here also.

2603:8000:3F01:90CD:901D:86F7:F70A:6D23 (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Also veering off-topic, but in closing: Sources are deprecated or ranked "unreliable" not for being WP:BIASED - it's recognized that all humans (and thus all human-run organizations) will have bias, and it's our job as editors to not allow bias to creep into articles. Rather, sources get ranked lowly at RSP based on a history of poor reporting: lack of fact-checking, poor attribution of quotes, outright fabrications, etc. That's generally the standard of reliability, not bias or lack thereof. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Per no original research, we would need a source that made an explicit connection between the laptop and the charges. Even if the NY Post was considered reliable, the information mentioned was published before the charges were made and cannot know if there is any connection. TFD (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

What RS has connected the guilty plea with the laptop? Due coverage is no mention whatsoever if no reliable sources have been suggested. VQuakr (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

That seems to be the clear consensus. There's no source that is reliable which connect them. I withdraw the suggestion. Andre🚐 21:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Best I could find, from an article on Whoopi Goldberg, of all people: "Even Biden's lawyer wasn't sure if the laptop, which came to light in 2020 in the closing weeks of the election and raised questions about his overseas business dealings, played into this particular tax probe." PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Fox News isn't a good source to use on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:FOXNEWS Cwater1 (talk) 04:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The DOJ still hasn't announced the plea deal, correct? If so, I expect that the news reports after the announcement will better clarify the sequence of events. Maybe we should wait to add anything here. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Just a clarification, mostly for the sake of our IP editor. PhotogenicScientist wrote: "it's our job as editors to not allow bias to creep into articles." Yes and no, so I'll clarify. It is our job to keep all "editorial bias" out of articles. That's an absolute. Otherwise, per our job to document the "sum total of human knowledge", which includes biased opinions, we do allow that into articles, but with some caveats. We attribute opinions, and if a source's bias is so radical that its bias causes it to become counterfactual, we tend to ignore it. It has become an unreliable source, and literally ALL content is based on RS, and only on RS. Even falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and pseudoscientific nonsense is only documented using RS, because RS do document its existence. If no RS document such nonsense, then it doesn't have due weight even for passing mention. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Reference to NY Post article

In regard to this reversion: Special:diff/1162277044, the NY Post can be used as a reference to verify that it published the report identified in the lead of our article. The reference I added is positioned simply to provide a base level verification that our article is accurate in stating that the Post published a report on the laptop. The reason given in reverting the addition of the reference was: "no consensus yet for putting an allegation by the NYP in the lead". The allegation is already in the lead, which says: "alleging they showed corruption by Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden". The reference which was reverted simply verifies that the existing allegation shown in the article lead does, in fact, come from the NY Post. This is fundamental Wikipedia practice: allow readers to verify the accuracy of information in an article. The verification in this case is that the Post published the article. The appearance of a link to the NY Post report in External Links does not disqualify putting the link in the actual article. In fact, when the link is placed in the article, it can be removed from External Links, where it becomes superfluous. Although the NY Post appears in RSP as a deprecated source, such a source may be used in certain circumstances, as in this case, to verify that it published the report specified in this article. In addition, as I mentioned in the edit summary, placement of this reference near the beginning of the article is a service to readers, allowing them to quickly find and read the NY Post article, if they choose. Most readers, I believe, will expect to find a link to the Post report in the article's references, if they are looking for a link. Readers are not well-served by excluding that link from the article's references. DonFB (talk) 04:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The lead is already pretty substantial in size, but I'd like to get feedback from other editors to see if there is consensus. Cheers. DN (talk) 04:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I have used a RS to do the job. My edit summary speaks for itself. All content must be based on RS. We do not use unreliable sources except in their own articles, per ABOUTSELF and SPS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

AboutSelf says: "questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves". This guidance does not disqualify such a source from ever being used for a topic about something other than itself, hence the word "usually". The NY Post is not banned or blacklisted. It, like other deprecated sources, can be used, but with care. That is the case when we provide a correctly positioned reference that shows a link to the laptop article on the NY Post website. The reference gives readers information about the source, verifying that it published the report, which is exhaustively discussed in this article. Regarding our role in serving readers: do you think any readers of this article want to read the actual Post report in full, and where in the article page do you think they are most likely to look for a link? Should Wikipedia take a role in making it convenient for readers to see the Post report? DonFB (talk) 06:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it's still a good idea to make sure everyone feels that this addition is an improvement which brings us back to the issue of DUE. Why does this need to be more accessible in the lead, if it is an unproven allegation? As you said, it's already in the lead. DN (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The whole idea of deprecation is to remove the source from Wikipedia, with the exception of own article(s). Unlike the fully allowed use of RS, pre-deprecation of an unreliable source only allows limited use in other articles, but deprecation goes further and limits it to own article(s). If that is not the case, then deprecation means nothing.

We need to reinforce the principle that ALL content at Wikipedia, with the exception of ABOUTSELF in own article(s), must be based on RS. Only independent RS can establish due weight for mention of an unreliable source or content in an unreliable source, which does not translate into permission to actually use and link to the unreliable source. No, keep that for the article(s) about the unreliable source. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The article's basis in RS is not compromised by a single citation to the news outlet whose story is the genesis of this article. The article is chock-full of curated information from RS about its topic. Citing the original source does no harm to policy or content and provides a convenience to readers who may want to see the unabridged, unanalyzed, uninterpreted report from the originating source, and will expect to find it in References. The article is already based on the NY Post story, with voluminous supplementation by additional sources. I will repeat my questions from earlier about serving readers and request that you answer them: where in the article page do you think they are most likely to look for a link? Should Wikipedia take a role in making it convenient for readers to see the Post report? DonFB (talk) 07:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

You make a good argument for why it is not necessary to link directly to an unreliable source. We have plenty of RS telling us what we need to know about it. RS frame the relevant aspects in a mainstream, critical, manner. It is that picture and framing which we present to readers. Linking directly to the original article, while it may be a convenience for some readers, does them a disservice by exposing them to unreliable narratives and deceptive framing of events. That is not a good thing and is one reason why we deprecate sources. We actually protect readers by not linking to unreliable, especially deprecated, sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is to inform people, not to "protect" them. Linking to the NY Post is not the same as linking to someone's personal blog written from their mother's basement, or to a libelous 4chan screed.

Regarding readers, you said that linking to the Post report: "does them a disservice by exposing them to unreliable narratives and deceptive framing of events" This is the basis of the paternalistic idea you expressed that Wikipedia must "protect" people from certain information. Twitter and Facebook both tried that in a presumably sincere but misguided attempt to "protect" the public from the Post report. Wikipedia editors who support exclusion of a citation in this article to the Post report should learn from social media's mistake.

No responsible editor wants to spread misinformation. Likewise, no responsible editor should want to use an inflexible application of rules ("Wikipedia has no firm rules"--5 Pillars) to hide or suppress access to a history-making mainstream source that is a major focus of this Wikipedia article and the reason it exists. The idea of doing so, frankly, is absurd on its face.

An External Link to the Post report does exist on this article's page. So the idea that Wikipedia should paternalistically "protect" readers from that source has already been defeated.

It's been debated in Talk whether the Post report is a primary or secondary source. If one chooses to see it as Primary, these words from a highly visible essay provide fully adequate justification for citing it in the article:

"The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what the article says it does."

Our job is to provide reliable information about topics and to help readers find more information on the topics beyond our articles--information that may be controversial, debatable or even questionable. Readers will look in References first to find that information. Paternalistically "protecting" readers from directly relevant information in a mainstream source is not a goal any editor should embrace. A citation in the article text--not an addition to the text, just a citation--will provide an entry in References where readers can find a link to the published report that is central to this article's existence.

A quotation at the conclusion of this article eloquently sums up the significance of the Post report:

"This is arguably the most well-known story the New York Post has ever published and it endures as a story because it was initially suppressed by social media companies and jeered by politicians and pundits alike"--and yet, incredibly, Wikipedia--so far--cannot see its way to including a single citation within this article's text to that report. DonFB (talk) 07:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

This is starting to get off-topic. If you want to change Wikipedia rules you are free to advocate for that, but this hardly seems like the right place. DN (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Not off topic at all; focused clearly on adding a single inline citation to the NY Post report. Your own position on the matter remains unclear. You reverted the edit, but later agreed with me regarding readers interested in finding the link that "I would assume they would look for the link in the references section. Seems like a reasonable place..." (See below.) DonFB (talk)

Now you are going even further off-topic. I'm not here to WP:BATTLE. Do not put words in my mouth like this..."You reverted the edit, but later agreed with me..." It most certainly doesn't mean I agree with you. I am not here to help you make a POINT about why you think we need to change the rules. I only spoke for myself and what I imagine most readers do when they want to find a source. That DOES NOT mean they can't look for unreliable sources like NYP on their respective article pages or quickly, simply and easily just search it on the web. Are we clear now? DN (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I didn't put words in your mouth (or keyboard); you wrote them yourself. Now it's my turn to agree with you. Yes, people can stop reading an article and search Google or elsewhere in Wikipedia for basic information they expected to find in the article. But that's a disservice to them and an unnecessary inconvenience. Our purpose is to inform readers, not to send them on a needless quest for information that can easily be accommodated in an article. DonFB (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I would assume they would look for the link in the references section. Seems like a reasonable place since that's where most of them are. I don't think they should get prominence or special treatment, especially considering their reliability, and the same goes for any left-wing unreliable sources in that spectrum. From what I can tell they are only mentioned here because they became part of the story picked up by other sources. DN (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

DN, you said, I would assume they would look for the link in the references section. Seems like a reasonable place... That seems to support my intention of including the NY Post citation in the article text, which will make the link appear in the References section. I am uncertain what your position is in this matter. DonFB (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

A link that would be forbidden in the EL section under WP:ELNO, and that is the case with the New York Post, would also not be allowed as a link in the article body. The exception is in the article New York Post. Wikilinks to that article are allowed everywhere at Wikipedia, so readers can easily hop over there and find the link. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know how WP:NOTRS could be any clearer. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others. This edit should never have been made; good revert. VQuakr (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense. If I see something in an article that I want to search and I don't see a link, I use google. No big deal. DN (talk) 02:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate that readers may want to view the original article. But the NY Post is not a reliable source even for articles they published in the past. The article in the link may have been changed from the original for all we know. That's what deprecated means. TFD (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Misleading wording

I suggest we modify the wording from “false allegations” to “unsubstantiated allegations” or simply just “allegations”. For instance, in the lead, the article reads as follows: “Trump attempted to turn the story into an October surprise to hurt Joe Biden's campaign, falsely alleging he had acted corruptly regarding Ukraine while in office”. I suggest this be reworded to either:

1. ”Trump attempted to turn the story into an October surprise to hurt Joe Biden's campaign, alleging unsubstantially he had acted corruptly regarding Ukraine while in office”.

2. ”Trump attempted to turn the story into an October surprise to hurt Joe Biden's campaign, alleging unsubstantially he had acted corruptly regarding Ukraine while in office”.

The reason for this is new information arising from the congressional oversight committee where an unnamed informant alleges “a foreign national paid Joe Biden a bribe in exchange for a desired policy outcome.”

Employing the phrase “falsely alleging” insinuates that the allegations Trump made have been entirely discredited, which is not the case since oversight committees are still ongoing. There are clear distinctions between the word “false” and “unsubstantiated”.

Here are the sources:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/06/20/fbi-whisteblower-biden/

https://nypost.com/2023/06/18/comer-more-key-witnesses-to-come-in-biden-probe/amp/ 2603:8000:3F01:90CD:391F:9C32:12EF:5E02 (talk) 12:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Trump didn't make bribery allegations in 2020. Those are being made now, which is in Comer investigation of Biden family. Someone suggested a brief paragraph in Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory to link to the main Comer article, so maybe take this there. soibangla (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd like to make sure the distinction between "allegations that Trump made in 2020" and any subsequent allegations of wrongdoing remains intact. Though, to the IP's point, "false allegation" "falsely allege" is an imprecise term [6], and by my interpretation means allegations that were made in bad faith - i.e. the one making them knew them to be false.[7] We do have RS labeling the allegations as false, but not necessarily saying they were made falsely... in any case, I think "unsubstantiated allegations" is more precise wording. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The allegations are more than simply unsubstantiated. They are false. Andre🚐 14:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I mean, that's true. I suppose my issue is more with the term "falsely alleging." Calling the allegations themselves false seems fine at this point (particularly per the WaPo article cited). PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

To that end, I think this would be a better formulation:

Trump attempted to turn the story into an October surprise to hurt Joe Biden's campaign, making various false allegations that he had acted corruptly regarding Ukraine while in office.

of this sentence that's currently in the lead:

Trump attempted to turn the story into an October surprise to hurt Joe Biden's campaign, falsely alleging he had acted corruptly regarding Ukraine while in office.

References

Any objections? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Your version looks fine to me. Carlstak (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

so you're saying Trump did not make various false allegations? is that the substance of your change? but he did soibangla (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

"Falsely allege" can be interpreted differently from "false allegation" PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't see it's broke and so no need to fix it soibangla (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

My concern stems from the conflicting information that has emerged from the original WaPo and New York Post articles I cited, as well as others that have recently published which I could find. How can allegations be definitively labeled as false when there are historical sources found in unclassified documents which allege corruption involving the Biden family and Ukraine? The allegations may not lead to anything, which may be the case in this particular context, but it appears misleading to categorize everything related to this issue as entirely false, rather than insufficiently substantiated at this current moment. That's why I suggest changing the framing to "unsubstantiated." I might be referencing the wrong article as I’m new with Wikipedia editing, but the same overarching concept can apply here as well. As I said before, it seems that the oversight committee is still investigating, so by definition the entirety of the allegations can not be false, but rather unsubstantiated through incompletion. It’s a tricky balancing act, but I don’t think it’s right to single-handedly dismiss everything revolving the allegations pertaining to possible corruption somehow entwined with Hunter Biden and his laptop, Joe Biden, and the rest of the Biden family. This article directly from the house GOP shows that the investigation is still ongoing: https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-slams-fbi-heavily-redacting-unclassified-records-related-to-biden-bribery-scheme/2603:8000:3F01:90CD:D9A:6BCF:C83F:5DA4 (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Hindsight is typically 20/20. Be careful to avoid Whataboutism and or False equivalence in your arguments though, as there is some resemblance here. DN (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, the phrase "Trump made various false allegations about Biden" is factually correct, and verifiable - here is an article that goes over some of the claims Trump had made, and why those specific claims turned out to be bogus. Now, that does not necessarily mean ALL of Trump's claims were CATEGORICALY false - because yes, some investigations are ongoing - but at least in regards to how the phrase appears in the lead, it's correct to say Trump made lots of false allegations.

If you think that some of Trump's allegations from 2020 are turning out not false, by all means, collect some sources and edit the article. If the information is verifiable in reliable sources, and related to this article's content, it might belong here. But start by focusing on the body of the article, not the lead.PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

When citing “reliable sources”, it seems that one side of the ideological aisle has fundamentally more sourcing options when openly left-wing partisan outlets like MSNBC, Huffington Post, Vox, Slate, Buzz Feed News, Mother Jones, The Jacobin, and The Daily Beast, among others, are deemed reliable. By contrast, there is not a single right-leaning source categorized as reliable under Wikipedia’s criteria for reliable sourcing. It’s such a blatant double standard that bleeds into the objectivity of articles such as this. It’s unfortunate what Wikipedia has devolved into. 2603:8000:3F01:90CD:9CD9:D716:E9ED:6BD8 (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Nope, that's not the case. There is the Wall Street Journal, there's the National Review, the Economist, and others that can be used Andre🚐 14:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:HUFFPO: In the 2020 RfC, there was no consensus on HuffPost staff writers' reliability for political topics. The community considers HuffPost openly biased on US politics. There is no consensus on its reliability for international politics.

WP:DAILYBEAST: There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons.

WP:MOTHERJONES: There is consensus that Mother Jones is generally reliable. Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a biased source, so its statements (particularly on political topics) may need to be attributed. Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article.

Jacobin: There is a consensus that Jacobin is a generally reliable but biased source. Editors should take care to adhere to the neutral point of view policy when using Jacobin as a source in articles, for example by quoting and attributing statements that present its authors' opinions, and ensuring that due weight is given to their perspective amongst others'.

Similar to a lot of conservative leaning outlets. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The text should be clear that the "false allegation" Trump made was about Biden's reasons for demanding the termination of the Ukraine attorney general, not allegations of corruption in general. TFD (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Feinberg/Independent: Denver Riggleman

Most recent reporting about the purported laptop "Ex-Congressman suggests Hunter Biden alleged laptop data fabricated". The Independent. 2023-07-10. Retrieved 2023-07-11. Andre🚐 04:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Oversight probe

Further to Soibangla's update on the GOP Oversight Committee proceedings, we have the recent report concerning their witness/whistleblower/fugitive, e.g. per The Hill,

Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), chairman of the Oversight Committee, called Luft a “very credible witness on Biden family corruption” in a tweet last week. Comer and other Republicans have heralded Luft as a whistleblower in the Hunter Biden laptop probe. Luft faces up to 100 years in prison if convicted of all eight counts, though such a sentence is unlikely.

at this link. Seems like an update is appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 15:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Which section, would this proposed addition, be placed in? GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Congress for starters. SPECIFICO talk 19:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

ba da bing. SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

No objection to its inclusion. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

OK, go ahead then. SPECIFICO talk 21:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

It’s time to completely overhaul this topic.

Actually it’s way overdue. 98.166.156.250 (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

why? soibangla (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

There is a lot of evidence from the laptop that has been collaborated, this case should have a special prosecutor to determine if there is enough for a trial. 98.166.156.250 (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Please see WP:SOAPBOX and specify any improvements you wish to recommend based on the WP:WEIGHT of WP:RS. The Trump appointee who is the prosecutor for Hunter-related matters disagrees with you. See here. SPECIFICO talk 18:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

not an “attempt” And “alleging” without modifying adverb

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The sentence, "Trump attempted ,... by falsely alleging,.." the words “attempted” and “falsely” should be deleted. Trump’s accusation should be stated as it was, he did state it, it was well known, not an attempt. And no adverb should modify “allegedly”, the writers/editors should not insert their opinion by adding either “falsely” or “correctly” in an attempt to modify the word alleging. 98.166.156.250 (talk) 13:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

the sentence does not say Trump attempted to falsely allege corruption, it says he attempted an October Surprise by falsely alleging corruption. soibangla (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

it was an October surprise that was white washed with lies and fake news that the laptop was not what it is. 98.166.156.250 (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

or if you like, it was an October surprise in either case, if true or not. An October surprise is an October surprise wither or not it’s effect or not, true or not 98.166.156.250 (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

in 2016 there were two October surprises, one initiated by James Comie against Clinton. And the two women against Trump. Who’s to say either effected the outcome? 98.166.156.250 (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The sentence would be better, “Trump’s October Surprise alleging corruption in the laptop was ineffective. The alleged corruption has not been litigated.”

there, written with no opinion. 98.166.156.250 (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2023

Politico credited with minor discoveries, but to credited nor is it mentioned anywhere here about media mislabeling the information. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-disinfo-430276 RawDowel (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

that is already discussed at considerable length in the article. soibangla (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

1RR is still in effect

Friendly reminder that 1RR is in effect at this article and there’s just been a violation. Let’s everyone mind the sanctions. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Do editors think we should request either a) lifting the 1RR, which (wrt edit-warring) is redundant to Consensus Required or, b) returning to the previous 24-BRD sanction, which is more process-oriented? Thoughts? SPECIFICO talk 19:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Best to keep the page under 1-RR, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Why? What would that accomplish that is not covered by either of the other two restrictions alone? Edit-warring is not possible with either of the other two restrictions. SPECIFICO talk 21:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

It prevents one editor from making multiple reverts and essentially having veto power on the article. The one day delay after a revert give time for discussion and consensus building. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

That is prevented by 24-BRD. New additions require consensus ex postin any case. Both CR and 24-BRD are stronger restrictions, i.e. more restrictive, than 1RR. SPECIFICO talk 21:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm confidence, if anything major occurs in the future concerning the whole laptop situation? A consensus would be reached quickly, at this talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

insinuation

Yodabyte is insinuating wrongdoing by the Bidens. First, it does not belong in this article; second, it does not belong in the lead of any article; third, this echoes the type of insinuation Comer constantly engages in on Hannity; fourth, the Comer investigation is not over.

Yodabyte's edit should be removed soibangla (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Yodabyte has violated the consensus required restriction on the article and I have asked them to self-revert. Hopefully that happens sooner, rather than later. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I've restored the status quo. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I am genuinely confused as to why the text I added yesterday is being removed. The text is right there in the NYT article "financial documents detailing how some of the president’s relatives were paid more than $10 million from foreign sources between 2015 and 2017". There is literally no insinuation, it is spelled out right there in the article, unless you somehow think the bank and financial documents are fraudulent or somehow forged by Republicans (in addition to RS like the NYT the WSJ also says "bank records show that more than $10 million was delivered to Biden family members, associates and companies from foreign entities"). The paragraph added by soibangla three weeks ago excludes any context from the article and conveniently leaves out that multiple family members of Joe Biden were paid millions of dollars for no apparent reason by several corrupt foreign countries. soibangla is attempting to "insinuate" something by mentioning Hannity and Comer (trying to paint evidence of corruption by the Bidens as some sort of right-wing conspiracy theory). Not that it should really matter but just for the record I am not a conservative or right-wing person, and wanted Trump to lose in 2016 and in 2020.

Yes, the text is right there, but that doesn't mean it's relevant to this article, let alone lead-notable, and just because it's there is not a good reason to use it. millions of dollars for no apparent reason by several corrupt foreign countries sounds like it came straight from a Hannity script. The reality is these men were international businessmen who wired money around, and although there has been breathless speculation (you know, on Hannity) that it's just gotta be corrupt, there remains no evidence of it. The money did not get wired "by corrupt foreign countries," as you say, but rather by entities in foreign countries that are not necessarily corrupt themselves. soibangla (talk) 23:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, soibangla says "the Comer investigation is not over", but if that logic applies, then the entire paragraph should be removed from the lead since the investigation is still ongoing. Yodabyte (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)\

The edit says "by May 2023," because Comer released interim findings a few days ago. This is the sum total we now know after years of these corruption allegations. Please ping me when you talk about me. soibangla (talk) 23:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Why does this have WP:WEIGHT? Does it add new and important information in a neutral manner, or is it just a political talking point? While some news is relative, Wikipedia is not WP:NOTNEWS. This doesn't seem to offer insight with regards to Hunter Biden laptop controversy. Also, telling everyone that you aren't a "conservative or right-wing person" is not a reason for inclusion. This may be an example of another problem with this article ie WP:COATRACK...DN (talk) 23:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

At the very least you would have to explain how the revelation is related to the laptop. TFD (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

soibangla you wrote "these men were international businessmen", can you describe the businesses that operated to earn millions of dollars sometimes in just one year? You mentioned Sean Hannity again in an apparent attempt to link the evidence of corruption to a conservative attack but CNN, NBC, NYT, WaPo, WSJ, CBS, ABC, etc have all reported on Biden family potential corrupt activities in various countries. Here is NBC News from 2019 "“We don’t know what Hunter Biden was paid or what he was paid for but it does raise questions of whether this Romanian individual facing criminal charges was actually paying for a connection to the American vice president” said Kathleen Clark, a Washington University law professor who specializes in government ethics.[8] Also from CNN: "the money flowing to Hunter Biden, his uncle James and even his brother Beau’s widow Hallie, with whom Hunter also had a relationship, does not paint a pretty picture. They were paid millions through a series of companies"[9] If the text I added yesterday from the NYT article doesn't belong in the lead why should the text about "no wrongdoing" remain? Yodabyte (talk) 01:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

What does any of that have to do with the laptop? TFD (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Well I'm not going to wade through all that because it's not relevant to this article, the edit wasn't relevant to this article, and it sounds a lot like "nothing has been found, but still, this seems kinda suspicious" even though no one has found anything pointing to actual guilt of anything. soibangla (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

You aren't going to "wade through" it because you know that it indicates corrupt activity. Yodabyte (talk) 03:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

And there we have it. DN (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

you just made clear why I was right to remove it soibangla (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Huh, there you have what? How did I make anything clear? Why are editors here constantly avoiding the elephant in the room and instead pointing to "as of May 2023 no evidence of wrongdoing has emerged". Meanwhile there are literally bank documents indicating money laundering, all sorts of shadiness, corruption, likely criminal activity, tax evasion (Biden is currently under investigation for this) but somehow I'm in the wrong here? Yodabyte (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

are there literally bank documents indicating money laundering? or are there people like Comer and Hannity et al. relentlessly insinuating there are? outright lying, in fact. if any of these things are shown true, you can be sure I'll be among the editors to instantly jump on it. you can bet the farm on it. just FYI, most suspicious activity reports are false positives, so it's easy for Comer et al. to holler on TV that they have dozens of SARs, leading millions to believe it's proof of corruption. let's see 'em. soibangla (talk) 04:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• Neither of those sources relate it to the laptop controversy. The first one doesn't even mention the laptop controversy. The second one mentions it in passing, in a bullet point unrelated to the part you quoted. Without sources connecting it to this topic, it's WP:SYNTH regardless of the conclusions you draw from it. --Aquillion (talk) 05:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not sure which section to add this in, but I reverted the last removal by Yodabyte. Please observe the 1RR/enforced BRD restrictions. I'm not sure what the SYNTH argument was but the claim that it indicates corrupt activity needs a citation: AFAIK, no corrupt activity has been shown and that is the story here. Andre🚐 17:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

No, Aquillion is correct it is WP:SYNTH and doesn't belong in the article, especially in the lead. Yodabyte (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Aquillion was clearly saying your corrupt activity dot connecting was SYNTH. The long-standing conclusions of the Republican committees that found nothing on the Bidens are not SYNTH. Andre🚐 00:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Pretty sure that is not what Aquillion meant. Please self-revert WP:SYNTH in the lead. Yodabyte (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. That's been there for a while. Andre🚐 02:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

It's been there 22 days, is that considered a while? Yodabyte (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Similar language such as "No evidence of illegality by Joe Biden has been shown from the laptop contents." [10] has been there since January at least if not longer. Andre🚐 02:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Don't see that language in the article. Anyway, the text is WP:SYNTH and needs to be removed from article. Yodabyte (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same text? Despite persistent allegations that the laptop contents indicated corruption by Joe Biden, a joint investigation by two Republican Senate committees released in September 2020 did not find wrongdoing by him, nor did a Republican House Oversight committee investigation by May 2023. Explain how that reaches a novel conclusion not reached in the sources, please. Andre🚐 03:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Please self-revert it is pure WP:SYNTH, and the first source doesn't even mention the laptop scandal/controversy. Yodabyte (talk) 04:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, it's not SYNTH unless we're making a conclusion unsupported by the sources. That isn't the case here. It's true that the first source says no wrongdoing was found with Burisma/Ukraine but doesn't appear to mention the laptop itself. If you want, we can simplify it to the older text that no wrongdoing by Biden was found by Republicans and make it less specific. How about that. Andre🚐 13:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

So I get banned for making the proper edit in line with Wikipedia policy but Soibangla and Andrevan violate policy and have no repercussions? It appears WP:CONSESUS is in favor of removing the text from the lead so there was no reason to block me for my edit earlier today and the text should be removed. Several editors oppose including it in the lead but Aquillion makes the clearest case. Yodabyte (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

You were blocked for violating the consensus required, enforced 1RR/BRD restriction. Andre🚐 23:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The consensus appears to be remove this paragraph from the lead: "Despite persistent allegations that the laptop contents indicated corruption by Joe Biden, a joint investigation by two Republican Senate committees released in September 2020 did not find wrongdoing by him, nor did a Republican House Oversight committee investigation by May 2023" yet it still remains. Even Andrevan said "It's true that the first source says no wrongdoing was found with Burisma/Ukraine but doesn't mention the laptop itself". The second NY Times source also doesn't mention the laptop. The fact that this paragraph is still in the article IMO exposes partisan bias on this website. Soibangla actually reinserted the unsourced and WP:SYNTH text yet again yesterday. For some reason no editor has removed it yet. Yodabyte (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

It certainly is not the consensus, Yodabyte. And don't take my statements out of context. At any rate, your statement is incorrect. The second source says a laptop Hunter Biden abandoned at a Delaware repair shop and suggested they might be part of a Russian disinformation campaign. Andre🚐 15:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a consensus to delete the paragraph-in-question. Therefore, the paragraph-in-question must remain. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

So the paragraph isn't even in one of the sources and it's also WP:SYNTH (violating two Wikipedia policies if my math is correct) but it must remain in the article? Yodabyte (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

You continue to be incorrect, and it would be great if you would WP:DROPTHESTICK. Law of holes Andre🚐 18:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

"You continue to be incorrect", please elaborate because it seems clear (unless I'm totally missing something) that you and Soibangla are incorrect (i.e. a minority) and Aquillion and several other editors have said/implied the paragraph in question should be removed, not just me. pinging: Aquillion DonFB The Four Deuces Mr Ernie for help clearing this issue up. Yodabyte (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

As I already explained to you, Aquillion did not agree with what you said. Nor did any of the other editors you just pinged Andre🚐 19:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Aquillion literally said "Neither of those sources relate it to the laptop controversy. The first one doesn't even mention the laptop controversy. The second one mentions it in passing, in a bullet point unrelated to the part you quoted. Without sources connecting it to this topic, it's WP:SYNTH" Yodabyte (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Andrevan also said "It's true that the first source says no wrongdoing was found with Burisma/Ukraine but doesn't mention the laptop itself" so you are literally contradicting yourself. Also please don't tell me WP:DROPTHESTICK when you and soibangla are the main editors doing that here. Yodabyte (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

my involvement in this thread is limited to what you added three days ago, which has been resolved; I have not been involved in discussion of the paragraph I added weeks ago. you have not reached consensus to alter or remove it. soibangla (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

You ignored my previous message. As I said, it's not SYNTH to use related sources to support assertions provided those assertions are made in the source. I offered to simplify the text. You instead removed it. Andre🚐 20:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell consensus has been reached for removal of the paragraph (per two policies-WP:SYNTH and wording that is absent from the sources) or at minimum simplifying the text like Andrevan recommended. Yodabyte (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

FOLLOW-UP: what exactly is the "older text that no wrongdoing by Biden was found by Republicans and make it less specific" that should replace the current unsourced/WP:SYNTH paragraph? Yodabyte (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

An earlier iteration of the text was less specific about the Republican findings and simply said a blanket statement that no wrongdoing by President Biden has been found. Of the two NYT sources you mentioned, one of them does explicitly reference the laptop, so we could simplify the text to one closer to just that statement. Andre🚐 22:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

What source "explicitly references the laptop" I didn't see that but maybe I totally overlooked something, and what text do you propose to replace the current text? Yodabyte (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Yodabyte, instead of me saying everything twice, maybe you could read the source again and read the text again and you can tell me what text you think is a reasonable change that reflects your objection and the sources. Andre🚐 23:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The only reasonable change in line with Wikipedia policies (WP:SYNTH, WP:V) is removal of the paragraph. For the 20th time now, neither of the sources say anything abut the laptop scandal, yet the text still remains in the lead. Any editor reading this right now can remove it and they would be doing nothing wrong. Yodabyte (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

You are incorrect. But I think I'm done here. Why don't you go ahead and make your edit again and we can take up the conversation at WP:AE. Andre🚐 23:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

An admin advised you to do an WP:ER. Other than waiting until your block ends, this is the best way to proceed in a way you can avoid additional sanction. soibangla (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I actually suggest against the edit request until there is consensus, otherwise an edit request patroller is just going to hit it with the "get consensus" template and close it, as there's clearly no consensus at this point. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Use of "despite" in the sentence is an example of improper MOS:EDITORIAL. The second clause ("a joint investigation...") casts doubt on the opening phrase ("persistent allegations..."). Neither source for the text (only one of which mentions the laptop, as three editors have noted) states that the investigations concluded that the laptop contains no evidence of wrongdoing. But the second part of the sentence editorially uses the Committee finding to suggest that allegations of wrongdoing based on laptop evidence ("laptop contents indicated corruption") are false.

To be neutral, the text must attribute to a source a SYNTH statement about the implication of the Committee report. For example: "Reliable source xyz reported that politician abc said, 'Republicans keep pointing accusing fingers at the laptop, despite their committee finding no evidence of wrongdoing by Hunter Biden'". The text should be removed if there is no attribution that links the laptop's allegedly incriminating contents with exculpatory findings of the Committee. DonFB (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The doubt being cast is proper; doubt should be cast on the allegations since they aren't substantiated and both sources indicate that nothing was found involving Joe and Hunter Biden. One mentions the laptop, one does not. However, please propose a change to the text, other than deleting it, that preserves 1) that no wrongdoing was found by Republican committees to substantiate the allegations, and 2) laptop contents did not indicate any corruption by Bidens. Andre🚐 00:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia, in its voice, should never cast doubt--or offer approval--on anything. You used the passive voice, "doubt should be cast", which neatly avoids saying who is doing the doubting. You've read, I'm sure, that Wikipedia describes controversies; it does not participate in them--casting doubt is participation. I do think that the committee findings should be included somewhere in the article, carefully, but not in the Synthy way they are now. My comment did not suggest that the article should say the laptop "contents did not indicate any corruption". I haven't decided how best (imo) to describe the committee work in the context of this article, but I believe its inclusion violates NOR as a Synth component and NPOV as an editorial insinuation in the sentence where it now appears. The committee work is not described in the article body; on that basis alone, the text should not have been added to the lead. DonFB (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The doubt isn't being cast by Wikipedia, but by the reliable sources and by the reader. We simply echo and regurgitate the summarization. It is not NOR or SYNTH: please substantiate your NOR argument. Andre🚐 01:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The sentence makes a connection between the laptop ("the laptop contents indicated corruption") and the findings of the congressional committees. But neither of the sources cited for the article's sentence makes that connection. The sources do not report that the congressional committees cast doubt on the significance of the laptop, but the Wikipedia sentence clearly casts such doubt by saying: "Despite persistent allegations that the laptop contents...". Neither of the cited sources says the congressional committees found that the laptop failed to provide evidence of wrongdoing. However, that is the unsourced but clear implication and synthesis of the sentence we're discussing. If doubt is to be cast specifically on the laptop or its contents, that doubt must be cast by and attributed to sources, not presented in Wikipedia's voice in a sentence that violates MOS:EDITORIAL and by extension, NPOV and NOR. DonFB (talk) 05:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

What's interesting, and perhaps ironic, is there was a very similar discussion regarding the lead sentence. I won't go into it, but it's funny you would bring this up. DN (talk) 06:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Truth be told I don't subscribe to either publication so I typically use other sources, most of which concur with the article. Are we sure we are not taking anything out of context or leaving out any qualifiers with regard to sentences such as "the laptop contents indicated corruption"? DN (talk) 06:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

But actually, one of the sources cited does make the connection. Andre🚐 15:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

What text in the source does so? DonFB (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The NYT article relates the issues explicitly: Officials allied with Mr. Biden played a role in wrongly discrediting Hunter Biden’s laptop. The report from Mr. Comer came as a second Republican-led House committee is investigating a related issue. This clearly states that the allegations of Bidens' wrongdoing, which were not shown by the committees, a valid summarization, found no corroboration of the conspiracy theories about the laptop. Andre🚐 21:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Just noting that I have blocked Yodabyte for one week for their blatant canvassing and asked DonFB to self-revert this edit, as it is a violation of the consensus required restriction placed on the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

DonFB, thank you for reverting. It violated Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated, as the material in the lead was removed earlier by Yodabyte and challenged. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I have assessed the consensus with regards to the disputed 13 May edit (last paragraph). There seems to be rough consensus that the content includes improper synthesis, at least partially. The burden to prove they are not conducting original research lies on those who wish to include the content. One of the editors who claimed there was synthesis has acknowledged one of the sources doesn't even mention Hunter Biden laptop. Those who have supported inclusion have said there is no consensus to remove the content, but they haven't made specific policy-based arguments for inclusion. Even if the content is verifiable, those wishing to include the content have the ONUS to prove the content belongs. Politrukki (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Don't be silly. There is no such consensus and the discussion is very stale. It is not a proper close and no consensus is evident here. Andre🚐 13:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Even though I am technically uninvolved editor, I will not close the discussion. The disputed content is still in the article. Do you agree that the challenged content should stay off the article unless there is explicit consensus to include? Politrukki (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

It would be trivial to eliminate any claim or suspicion of synth by rewording the first part of that paragraph to remove the word "despite". There's no question that the content is relevant to the narrative of the lead and that it's well sourced and has been so widely stated in RS that it needs to be in the lead. To be clear, however, the cited sources both say ...but... which is reflected in the current article text. At most, a little copy edit is all that's needed. SPECIFICO talk 15:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with the discussion before commenting; DonFB and Yodabyte have already explained this. The sources don't connect the Senate and House investigations like that. Even Andrevan acknowledged that only one of the sources makes the connection to the Hunter Biden laptop. The June NYT source is very specific about what House Republicans have or haven't found. According to NYT, Republicans acknowledged "they had yet to uncover incriminating material about [Joe Biden], despite their frequent insinuations that he and his family have been involved in criminal conduct and corruption" and that "the Republicans conceded that they had yet to find evidence of a specific corrupt action Mr. Biden took in office in connection with any of the business deals his son entered into". However, NYT acknowledges that "G.O.P. lawmakers also produced material suggesting that President Biden and his allies had at times made misleading statements in their efforts to push back aggressively against accusations of wrongdoing by Hunter Biden".

Soibangla later (July 11 and 15) made the situation even worse by repeatedly removing ([11], [12]) that June NYT source and replacing it with a source that a) does not mention the laptop and b) mentions Hunter Biden only in the context of citing Republican representative Carlos Gimenez: "He said accusations of financial impropriety involving the president's son, Hunter Biden, which are being investigated by the House Oversight Committee, are 'where the president really is going to have the majority of his problems.'" Politrukki (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

thanks for pinging me as you kinda took a swipe at me soibangla (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Politrukki the edit you just made, changing the NYT source and the date from July to May, while alleging OR, fails to note that the July NYT source updates the same finding of the May NYT source. Please read the July NYT source. I didn't make it up. soibangla (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Politrukki in case you don't subscribe to the NYT, paragraph #8 of the July 4 story reads:

But that panel has yet to produce any evidence of wrongdoing by Mr. Biden despite months of scrutiny and the frequent public claims by top Republicans that he has engaged in corrupt and potentially criminal behavior.[13]

So your assertion of "misusing a source is original research" is incorrect. Please self-revert. soibangla (talk) 00:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Let me repeat the question: "Do you agree that the challenged content should stay off the article unless there is explicit consensus to include?" I forgot to mention it (except in edit summary) – and you obviously noticed it – but I reverted your improper closure. Involved editors should not close discussions. Politrukki (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Please start a new discussion because this is a very stale thread and should be archived. Andre🚐 01:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

additional sources for no wrongdoing

• "GOP report: No wrongdoing in Biden son ties to Ukraine firm, but still 'problematic'". ABC News. Retrieved 2023-06-08.
• [14]
• "Republicans are using financial records to investigate Hunter Biden. Here's how". PBS NewsHour. 2023-05-10. Retrieved 2023-06-08.

Andre🚐 21:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I wrote that the sentence "makes a connection between the laptop...and the findings of the congressional committees" (emphasis added). I continued, "But neither of the sources cited for the article's sentence makes that connection". That remains an accurate statement. I don't dispute that the sources report the congressional committees found no evidence of "wrongdoing" or "misconduct" by Joe Biden. But the sources do not describe a relationship between those findings and the laptop, as our article improperly does, saying dismissively, "Despite allegations that the laptop contents indicated corruption by Joe Biden..." That formulation, "Despite X, Y is true", is editorialized original thought, because the sources for the sentence do not verify a relationship between the laptop and the reported congressional findings. In fact, none of the sources we've discussed--either those in the article or those you posted here--describe any linkage or connection between alleged laptop evidence and findings of the committees. DonFB (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

So what text would you propose to address this? We want to retain that as you say, no evidence of wrongdoing or misconduct was found by the congressional committees which investigated the laptop and released reports about them. Is your claim that this is a neutral matter and we should treat as both-sides likely that such misconduct or wrongdoing could still exist? Andre🚐 00:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I gave my answer for proposed text last night, when I deleted the sentence. Yes, I have changed my mind about including committee findings about no evidence of Joe Biden wrongdoing in this article. Before deleting, I sat down to write some text about the congressional report to insert into the Body of the article (to replace text in the lead, which besides violating policy as I have explained, remains unsupported by anything in the Body, and should therefore be removed, according to standard practice, which says if material is not in the Body, it should not be in the Lead). My attempt to write something went nowhere, because I found no credible way to make the information relevant to the topic of this article: the laptop. The only way to do it would be to do what an editor has already done: Write text that breaks policy by synthesizing a statement that the committee report about Joe Biden refutes information from the laptop. Just above, you wrote no evidence of wrongdoing or misconduct was found by the congressional committees which investigated the laptop. If you know of a source which says "congressional committees...investigated the laptop", let's see it. Neither of the sources for the contested sentence in the lead reports such information. I would point out that dozens, perhaps hundreds of articles about the Bidens, recent election campaigns, DOJ/IG investigations, congressional probes, Trump topics, and on...and on, are available for inserting the information about the committee reports finding no Biden wrongdoing, where that information would be relevant to the topic of an article. This article is about the laptop, not about sweeping investigations of the Bidens. The information about the committee reports on Biden non-wrongdoing doesn't belong here, unless editors can show sources where the topic of committee findings of non-wrongdoing is linked to the topic of the laptop or its contents. In any case, I do have some proposed text for the Body, not the Lead, which summarizes information relevant to the laptop from one of the existing sources cited in the lead about the committee reports:

The House Judiciary Committee, controlled by a Republican majority, issued a report on May 10, 2023, that said an open letter by 51 former intelligence officials influenced the public to disregard information from the laptop, which contained details about Hunter Biden's drug use and sex life. Republicans believed the laptop information would hurt Joe Biden's chances of winning the presidency in 2020. The letter suggested Russia might have contaminated the laptop with disinformation, but stated that was an opinion and not supported by evidence.

The source is: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/10/us/politics/hunter-biden-house-republicans-report.html

This proposed text can go in the "Congress" section of the article, currently occupied by MTG impeachment text, which is completely unrelated to the article topic, the laptop, and which I also deleted but then restored after violating the Contentious rule. The MTG text should be re-deleted as irrelevant and replaced by my proposed text; tweaks invited. DonFB (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

That's not a compromise at all and completely ignores the fact that the sources do indeed say that a) the republican committees were analyzing the laptop, and b) found nothing. You're welcome to continue along this fringe conspiracy line though but I have no interest in doing so. There is no consensus to remove this text altogether: that's not proposing a compromise. Andre🚐 16:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The proposed change seems a bit POV in itself, but without access to NYT it's hard to say, so it would be difficult for me to support. DN (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you referring to my proposal to replace the impeachment text with text about the House committee's complaint about the intelligence officials' letter? The impeachment text shows no relation to the article topic, the laptop. The House committee comments about the letter are related to the topic. My proposed text on the committee comments is a straightforward summary of that section of the NYT article. The text does not have to be the last word on that aspect of the laptop controversy; reams have been published about the letter--its origins and reactions to it. But the letter sub-controversy is at least related to the laptop topic, whereas the impeachment text appears to come completely out of left field and shows no relationship to the laptop issue, nor makes any mention of it. DonFB (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Still doesn't seem accurate nor constructive. The House Republicans did indeed make several statements and issue reports and comments about Biden's laptop. What they didn't do is allege or show any wrongdoing. The source we have from the NYT states that they basically reprimanded the FBI and intelligence officials. Mainstream RS have interpreted this to say that Republicans issued reports but did not allege or show any wrongdoing. Therefore, we say the same thing. Can you propose text, for the lead, which would summarize it similarly? Andre🚐 22:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Yikes, my proposal for text about the ex-officials' letter is simply an effort to include encyclopedic information about the overall laptop controversy--not some kind of axe-grinding about wrongdoing one way or another. Nor do I think my proposed text necessarily belongs in the lead; it probably does not. The lead has its own problem that I will follow up on. The article currently has a section called "Congress", which now contains only text about impeachment that shows no connection to the article topic--the laptop controversy. If we have a Congress section, let's put information in it which describes what congresspeople/committees say about the laptop or issues directly related to it, like the letter suggesting the laptop contained Russian disinformation. DonFB (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I stand corrected about the content in the "Congress" section of the article. To my surprise, the impeachment resolution of January 2021 includes the word "laptop". It would have been helpful if the editor who added the text had included that information, so the relationship between the topic of this article, "laptop controversy", and the impeachment resolution was made clear. Here is my proposed edit to the text to show how the impeachment effort was related to the laptop:

On January 21, 2021, the day after President Biden's inauguration, Republican representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia filed one article of impeachment against Biden. Included in her resolution's claims of corruption was a statement that, "Specifically, the ongoing FBI investigation into Hunter Biden’s laptop revealed that Hunter received a 2.8 carat diamond gift from a high-ranking Chinese official in 2017." No fellow members of Congress co-sponsored the impeachment article.

The original source:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/535317-rep-marjorie-taylor-greene-files-articles-of-impeachment-against-biden/

...and the primary source that shows the word "laptop":

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolution/57/text

The Congress.gov source shows that only one article was filed: "Article of impeachment exhibited by..."

I haven't seen a source that says that no other members of congress co-sponsored the resolution; it would be helpful to have that sourcing also. Please comment on whether you support this edit, which I regard as non-controversial and elementally informative. DonFB (talk) 06:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Why do the specifics of this claim by MTG have WP:WEIGHT? Again, it seems like just adding unnecessary details. Greene is not well known as a reliable source, even for herself. Was Biden impeached over this? No? So again, why is it so important to add claims by "Jewish Space Laser Lady" to this article? DN (talk) 07:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure if this change is really an improvement. I don't think we should be quoting MTG without disclaiming or qualifying the statement with a secondary source analysis. Andre🚐 06:40, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

So you prefer the status quo, which remains a non sequitur? The quote from Greene hardly appears inflammatory or even wrong, though I don't think it's worth researching. A fanatical resistance to even the slightest "unqualified" quotation from a (Republican/conservative/MAGA) politician in these articles is not particularly helpful, and only increases my perception of a misguided groupthink effort to spin these articles in a particular political direction. If you think the quote needs "qualification", limber up your typing fingers and find a source that contradicts it. Anybody else care to weigh in? The text as it exists now was a sloppy addition that serves no purpose and will leave even mildly engaged readers saying, "huh?" DonFB (talk) 07:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Dark Nipples, the purpose of the Greene quote is to connect the impeachment move to the topic of this article. Without making that connection, the text is pure random trivia, and should be removed from the article. This fanatical fear of quotes from (Republican/conservative/MAGA) politicians would be the stuff of parody if it weren't actually happening. To say nothing of the fact that it represents a failure to apply an encyclopedic NPOV approach and betrays obvious political bias. DonFB (talk) 07:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Only one member? That's not enough for inclusion, IMHO. Now, had the House voted on the proposed article? then we'd include. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

This fanatical fear of quotes from (Republican/conservative/MAGA) politicians would be the stuff of parody if it weren't actually happening. That's quite the Straw man. If this is how you plan to gain consensus, might I suggest going to Conservapedia? I'm sure they will welcome you with open arms. DN (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Based on the epithet you chose to use above ("Jewish Space Laser Lady"), I'd say Liberalpedia would welcome you with open arms. You won't find me using that kind of partisan mockery of political figures on the left or right anywhere in Wikipedia--or any characterization whatsoever of political people and issues. When editors do that, it reveals their bias--bias that improperly influences content creation on this website, and that's what I'm calling out. The original quote--that I ended up not using--was, strictly speaking, not from MTG, but in fact was directly from the article of impeachment. It had nothing to do with WEIGHT, RELIABLE SOURCES and all the other Policy buzzwords we all like to toss around, but rather was a simple rhetorical mechanism to show how the impeachment resolution had any connection to this article (because the resolution mentioned the laptop). That reason for using the quote from an official Congressional document couldn't have been be simpler, but editors who gatekeep these political articles predictably freak out when a non-gatekeeper adds a quotation, heavens, perhaps even without "qualification", from a (Republican/conservative/MAGA) politician (or in this case, an official document), and complain that it has to be qualified, rebutted, analyzed or otherwise de-natured. I haven't made a study, but I can not recall a single instance when any editor insisted that a quotation from a (Democratic/liberal/progressive) politician be "qualified", rebutted, etc, etc.; can you? It's not an accident that a movement like Conservapedia got started, and that various pundits on the right criticize Wikipedia for having a liberal bias. I'm not so much bothered by a liberal bias, as I am by an editing practice that turns a blind eye to a basic principle like NPOV, or misuses it in the service of bias (as revealed by comments on Talk pages like yours above), when it comes to handling quotes and other material from public figures on the right-hand side of the political spectrum. It's a disservice to Wikipedia and the ideas we claim to stand for. DonFB (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks like consensus is against you, DonFB, so I suggest you leave it. Andre🚐 19:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

DonFB, don't blame DN for the epithet "Jewish Space Laser Lady". Blame Marjorie Taylor Greene. You owe DN an apology. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

It is not a character attack, simply an observation. If a person mocks a political office holder using an epithet designed to mock the office holder, the person is revealing a bias against the office holder. It doesn't matter if the epithet is well-earned or not, the behavior of mockery speaks its own language, and, in the context of editing an encylopedia, calls into question the ability to write and edit neutrally. Declaring or signaling our feelings about politicians by name, as you just did, in a theoretically neutral editing environment is bound to be more troublesome than helpful and raises doubts about the neutrality of the whole enterprise. DonFB (talk) 07:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

One would have to violate the AGF policy to do that (allow such doubts in one's mind). All editors, including you, have personal POV, and, within reason, it is allowed for them to be evident on talk pages, but not in article content. There is a difference. Being dishonestly and hypocritically "neutral" on talk pages is what's really suspicious. Those who claim to be neutral in real life are lying. It's so weird that the ones who drive by and accuse editors of being biased are at the same time revealing their own extreme biases. (See Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias.) Experienced editors know how to put on their "Edit Neutrally" hat the moment they start editing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with all most of what you just said, but I also see two things: no benefit to expressing personal opinions about politicians/issues on Talk pages for such articles; pov problems in some of those articles. Particular problems may or may not be related to attitudes expressed on Talk pages, but anyone--whether regular editor or flaming pov pusher--who does express such opinions is needlessly raising doubt about their ability to be neutral and inviting closer scrutiny of their edits than would otherwise be the case. DonFB (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Add: A comment that shows disapproval or bias or mockery toward a politician on its face calls into question whether a person is editing in good faith.DonFB (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Except referring to Greene as Ms. Space Laser is not revealing anything other than basic media literacy. Andre🚐 18:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The reference to her that way was gratuitous and mocking and signaled potential pov problems. The groupthink issue I mentioned earlier is why some editors feel free to express bias toward a person like MTG, because their opinions find support among their fellow gatekeepers of such articles. DonFB (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The reference to her that way was gratuitous and mocking and signaled potential pov problems It would be better to take this to my talk page. I'm perfectly willing to discuss this with you where it doesn't distract from improving the article. If you think I should strike that comment, at least try to convince me in a less public forum. That would be the civil thing to do. DN (talk) 06:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the concern here, but I wish to prevent WP:BATTLE so I will strike my conservapedia remark. DonFB, I apologize for that and citing RS that shows MTG's previous claims and statements as an "epithet". I meant to challenge your argument for inclusion, not claim that I am without personal bias. I accept that we all have bias, and I may be perceived as being guilty of pointing it out in others here as well, which is why discussions such as this can be important. I will also say that I am fine with removing the MTG bit about impeachment from the article entirely, if that is the consensus. If DonFB continues to have problems with my edits, they can let me know by taking it to my talk page or AN if appropriate, as not to disrupt discussions here or have to deal with other editors defending me. I believe in civil discussion and if given the chance I can admit when I am wrong or make a mistake. Now that we have addressed the elephants in the room can we please get back to discussing the article now, and Don can address me on my page without interference if they still feel the need? Cheers. DN (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for gracious remarks. I thought the impeachment text in the form in which I found it showed no relationship to the topic of the article, which did not seem to trouble any other editor. The only problem others expressed was fierce opposition to my correcting edit, which they seemed to think augured the end of western civilization. I am ok if the impeachment text is removed, even though it now contains my smaller edit, which gave a barebones justification for its presence in the article. DonFB (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)