Jump to content

Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

A disputed tag has nothing to do with consensus text

Mr. Ernie has now broken 1RR [1], [2]. Zaathras (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Something with RFC consensus is by definition not disputed. Launch a new RFC, wait for the current one to close, or accept the wording. I think any further attempts to ignore the current consensus will need to go to AE. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
If you prefer that 13 sources are cited to prove the line, let me know and I'll happily add all 13 to show the absurdity of continuing to claim without evidence that it is not his laptop. Slywriter (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
And Mr Ernie feel free to revert and then send me a ping because I will challenge the inappropriate tagging that goes against an RfC. Or you all can count Ernie's as my 1RR for the day and save the trouble. Slywriter (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
The addition of the dispute tag, comes across as a replacement for the word "allegedly". Please don't re-add it, as it merely causes tension. FWIW, Feoffer breached 3RR/24hs about two weeks ago, attempting to force in the "dispute tag". Why didn't you complain, then? GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Hmm, the battleground mentality and esp. the tag-team offer by Slywriter is noted and filed away. Thank-you, gents. Feel free to archive this, unless someone else wishes to weigh in. Zaathras (talk) 03:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Indeed. The battle ground mentality amongst a small few is so bad that I actually stand accused of the heineous crime of trying to foment a compromise, lol. Feoffer (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Go to ANI if you want to make accusations. Otherwise, quit it. It was a factual statement of what would occur and there are zero editors here who would have been surprised if I removed the tag as the position of Respect the RfC process has been consistent by me. Slywriter (talk) 04:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Sly, you know it's wrong to remove the advertisement of an ongoing discussion/RFC. Don't pretend you don't. Feoffer (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
It's wrong to continually attempt to dispute something settled at an RfC that's has a second RfC going now. You have further accusations, make that at the proper place. This is not it. This is an attempt to chill discussion as you have now brought up three editors who disagree with you at ANI. Slywriter (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Reporting an editor to ANI, that you were opposing at this page, didn't exactly lower the temperature. Indeed, since you've joined or re-started these discussions, two weeks ago. You've been one of the more bold editors in the changes you either made or attempted to make. Just saying, it seemed a bit quieter on this page (including the talkpage) before 4 December 2022. -- GoodDay (talk) 04:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
it seemed a bit quieter... before 4 December It was quieter before Musk reopened this can of worms! At least four new editors independently noticed the article needed help.
While I've got you -- what's up with this? Are you seriously "accusing" me of trying to find a Win-Win compromise to solve this long-standing dispute. Feoffer (talk) 05:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
The RfC, by my reading, prohibited language like "alleged" that implied doubt about Biden's ownership of the laptop. It did not, however, impose any specific phrasing for the Lead sentence, so reverts that aren't removing clearly prohibited language like alleged, believed to be, etc. don't qualify for a 1RR exemption. There was no RfC consensus against adding maintenance tags, but the [disputed – discuss] tag could also be considered prohibited language depending on where it's placed. That's a bit of a gray area, so I advise people to be careful with reverts around that. Looking at the reverts from yesterday it wouldn't be that hard for a passing admin to see Mr Ernie's 2 reverts or GoodDay's 3 2 reverts as a 1RR violation. One of the few things lamer than participating in an edit war over maintenance tags is getting blocked for participating in an edit war over maintenance tags. ~Awilley (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
@Awilley: 3 reverts in 24 hrs? Not me. Anyways the addition of the 'dispute tag' comes across as creating doubt about H. Biden having owned the laptop. The RFC is well advertised, via the legobot & my neutral message on three WikiProjects. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Oops, I misread the time stamp on this revert. ~Awilley (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Also, you may want to highlight an editor who's breached both, before & after 1RR inception, with attempts at adding/re-adding the 'dispute tag'. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
PS- @Awilley: you may want to express those thoughts (editing warring over a dispute tag) to Feoffer & Darknipples, too. Also, I didn't make the 'same' revert 'twice' in 24 hrs, either. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
GoodDay, it doesn't have to be "the same revert in 24 hours" any more, as you should recall. Please keep the battleground stuff off of article talk. Article improvement tags are to get more eyes and fresh thoughts. It has nothing to do with deprecating the established text. And the fact that it is disputed is rather incontrovertable, regardlelss of of the outcome. Finally, nobody looks at Project talk pages and those are meaningless and ineffective ways to summon assistance. SPECIFICO talk 20:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
When did you change your name to Awilley? GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
The tag is for Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute. It is unneccessary because there is no dispute in reliable sources that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. We had an RfC about that. While I find the GRU conspiracy theory amusing, it's unfair to invite readers to join in, which is the purpose of tags. That way we don't divert them from more important issues, such as whether the moon-landing was faked. TFD (talk) 12:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
TFD, you've just misrepresented your own RfC and your own previous RfC. While the moon meme is amusing, that rhymes with confusing for editors less steeped in the details of this discussion. SPECIFICO talk 12:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
As I remember, you don't understand that allegedly and purportedly mean the same thing. Some people argue about what the definition of is is. But such discussions are better placed in websites dedicated to such things. TFD (talk) 13:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
You appear to have me confused with the dozen or so other editors who have proposed "purported", etc. Do a page text search. The RfC's were/are both premature, as the efforts by Feoffer, Valjean, Carlstak and others have shown in discussion that's been marginalized or confounded by the premature RfC's. Both times. SPECIFICO talk 14:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
The RfCs were certainly not premature. Since every other editor on the page thought the article should express doubt about the ownership of the laptop, it was necessary to invite new editors to join the discussion. Unsurprisingly, the new editors agreed that the article should say Hunter Biden owned the laptop. Without an RfC, the article would still say alleged. RfCs are "a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content. RfCs are a way to attract more attention to a discussion about making changes to pages." Obviously you opposed that process, because you opposed changes. TFD (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

When the RFC tag expires? I'll be requesting that only an administrator close the RFC & render a decision. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the timing of the initial RfC

I am inserting a break to separate the following discussion, because TFD and I disagree as to the timing of the intitial RfC, whether it was premature, and whether it would have benefitted from more discussion prior to the RfC

Here is the timeline: There had been various prior versions, none of which stated in Wiki-voice that the device belonged to Biden. They used "alleged" "reported by the Post" etc. The version on 27:55 22 August, 2022 said

SPECIFICO talk 20:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

RFC closure

I'll be requesting that only an administrator close the current RFC, when the tag expires in early January 2023. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2022

Final sentence in the first para "No evidence of illegality by the Bidens has been shown from the laptop contents." is incorrect and we must either amend to "Images and documents were found on the laptop which suggest Hunter Biden engaged in illegal activity". Or to simply remove the last sentence entirely

Since the opposite is true: not only did it include possible evidence of crimes, but the FBI and DOJ are confident they have enough evidence to charge him, and have since forwarded these laptop documents to the Attorney General.

Whether or not the the Biden(s) are prosecuted is irrelevant to this request: they may decide not to prosecute due to other reasons (e.g. difficulty securing a conviction) but in any event, to say "no evidence of illegality" is no longer correct under any interpretation.

Sources:

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/06/politics/hunter-biden-investigation-federal-prosecutors-weighing-charges/index.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/06/hunter-biden-case-feds-believe-evidence-supports-tax-and-gun-charges.html https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/07/hunter-biden-reports-say-fbi-has-enough-evidence-for-prosecution https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-63166809 https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hunter-biden-tax-gun-purchase-evidence-fbi-us-attorney/ 86.10.181.189 (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I've just done a quick scan through these sources, but do any of them mention the laptop? Cannolis (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Don't believe any of these stories link the criminal investigation or potential charges to the laptop. We do know that the FBI started investigating in 2018, and obtained the laptop in 2019 as part of this probe; but that's not enough. And as an aside, it doesn't seem like they're considering charging him for any of what Republicans allege the laptop "proves" (corruption, money laundering, etc). DFlhb (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Agreed with DFlhb. I also looked over the articles presented here and there doesn't seem to be any mention of the laptop, and it seems like the "No evidence of illegality by the Bidens has been shown from the laptop contents " statement is not referring to any consideration of gun charges as far as I can tell. DN (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Restructure this page's content around three key topics

Hat ideas based on unreliable source. This is DOA.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The current page is a mix of disparate issues and is confusing to follow. Propose that the page be re-organized around the following three topics, to include a balanced discussion under each topic with arguments and evidence for and against: 1. The Biden family's alleged inappropriate relationship with foreign enemies (China) and Ukraine. (i.e., the two NY Post articles that were banned by Twitter with the help of the FBI) https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/ https://nypost.com/2020/10/15/emails-reveal-how-hunter-biden-tried-to-cash-in-big-with-chinese-firm/ 2. Financial Relationship between Hunter and Joe Biden, and the Uncle James Biden. ("10% for the big guy") As document in emails and text messages found on the laptop. 3. Hunter's illegal and delinquent behavior (drugs, guns, and prostitutes). This type of behavior from the adult son of a president is newsworthy. This is all documented in the emails, text messages, photos, and videos found on the laptop. Whatever folks think about these three topics, the need to be dealt with separately rather than the current mish-mash. LemonPumpkin (talk) 22:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose None of this is documented by reliable sources and none of this is what's relevant. Stick to the rest of internet if you are going to present the above as fact. Continuing to push such claims on the Talk page without reliable sources can be considered a violation of WP:BLP policies and lead to restrictions on editing privileges. Slywriter (talk) 23:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Support renaming the article to "Hunter Biden Laptop Conspiracy Theories" and restructuring the article this way. Although the laptop exists, the primary notable thing about it was its stunning failure to support any Republican claims regarding its contents, comparable to the Pizzagate conspiracy theory. It also contained photos of Hunter Biden's penis, which Republicans have taken a curious and, to my mind, unhealthy interest in. Wise and Beautiful Editor (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Image of Laptop

It seems like showing readers the laptop image provided by Hunter Biden's legal team is highly relevant. What is the reason to have Hunter Biden's image as part of the lead? Arguably, his person is the least relevant part of this article.

What is the issue with having the laptop as the top image? It is what the article is about.

As to the image description, let's figure it out. Slywriter (talk) 03:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

What about the written intro. It shouldn't have been changed, while there's an ongoing-RFC. GoodDay (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
it is a Hunter laptop but not the laptop [3] soibangla (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Right - this is ANOTHER laptop that Hunter lost track of. The laptop most of this article is about (the one from the Delaware computer store) is a separate laptop. In light of that, this picture probably belongs better in a body section, near wherever this new bit gets mentioned. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO "there is discussion ongoing" is not sufficient reason alone to revert another editor's BOLD contribution. Please use edit summaries in a more constructive manner. Additionally, feel free to participate in the talk page discussion here. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Good point. The main reason as far as I can see is to reinforce Hunter Biden over the actual subject of the article. MacIsaac would be as appropriate. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:46, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree the up top image should not be a pic of Hunter Biden. The purported "controversy" is not about him. It's about the NY Post story and the attempts to sustain that yarn in various forms and fora. A similar situation arose in 2020 when a woman made unsubstantiated claims about her employment on Joe Biden's staff decades previous. At first there was a photo of Joe up top on the page. I removed that photo. It was briefly contentious, but the infobox and first photo are now of the woman who promoted these allegations.
Our publication of a pic of Hunter Biden up top violates NPOV and possibly BLP in its framing of the article content that it reveals significant "controversial" facts about Biden. The Biden photo should not be at the top. This page is about the Post story and related events, not Biden. SPECIFICO talk 12:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

So when does the RM open, to try to have Biden's name removed from the article title? After that, will the next step be to remove his name entirely from this page? Perhaps an AfD itself? GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Please stay on topic for this section. If you wish to raise other ways to improve the page, please open a separate section with a neutral header. SPECIFICO talk 14:33, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Stop ordering editors around, please. GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
GoodDay, why do you think Hunter Biden is the focus of this article? Whatever may come about this matter in coming months or what some sources believe occurred, I don't see this article as the place for it anyway. If Burisma or something else is legit, it would be covered in detail elsewhere as that is not really the controversy. The controversy is that he dropped off a laptop, Republicans got their hands on the data, Mainstream media and Social media went through extraordinary lengths to suppress the story and that some of the Republican data may have been altered before it was given to the press. The legitimate contents of the laptop is not really this article. That belongs in Hunter Biden's article if it is due. Slywriter (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
IMO the laptop image should be at the to of the article, and the Biden image removed. The subject matter really has little to do with Hunter personally, as it is primarily about the wild accusations, disinformation, and conspiracy theories regarding the contents. Zaathras (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
or could use that which started it all... https://nypost.com/cover/covers-for-october-14-2020/ Slywriter (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
The post cover is a very logical top image, and a nice compromise because it contains an image of Hunter Bidne. Feoffer (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
It would unlikely pass WP:NFCC policy, though. Zaathras (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
You're not wrong :( Feoffer (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Reading over that policy, it seems to me that the Post cover would meet all the criteria. Well, except maybe 6, which is actually the entirety of the WP:IUP, which is... extensive. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Am I crazy or is #6 a bit circular and actually says nothing at all when you follow all the links? I think #8 would be the actual barrier, though can make an argument that it would increase a readers understanding, harder to fulfill detrimental without it. Slywriter (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I think you're right about #8. That image wouldn't substantially increase understanding of the whole article. Just the story that started it.
...which was first published in a generally unreliable source at that. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Seeing this thread and speaking in an NFCC capacity, the Post cover would 100% be okay as a nonfree image here. That story is the topic of this article, similar to Dewey Defeats Truman. Masem (t) 00:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
It is in no way similar to Dewey Defeats Truman as that image is in the public domain, for starters. Second, that image is iconic because of Truman triumphantly holding up the "don't count your chicks' before they hatch" hasty headline, i.e. because of the falsehood. There's nothing analogous to that here, for all the NYP's usual hyperbole and tabloid-style reporting, that headline is a pretty tame claim, relatively. Finally, this article isn't even about the NY Post's coverage, that is a tiny aspect of the overall tale. Zaathras (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
it's moot because it's a Hunter laptop but not the Hunter laptop.

A source from Hunter Biden's team of advisers told CBS News the laptop now in their possession may be the key to determining if anything was altered or added to that second laptop discovered at a Delaware repair shop — or to the other hard drives that have journeyed through multiple sets of hands.

[4] soibangla (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not up to speed on the gritty details -- anything we can do to help the reader understand this would be good. I was frankly baffled by the CBS caption. Feoffer (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
@Feoffer Your recent edit restoring your original caption is not helpful. The caption you reverted to is, as you said, mealy-mouthed; moreover, that phrasing is contradicted by the other CBS source I provided, which directly stated the laptop pictured was not the laptop most of this article is written about.
You also technically violated the 1RR sanction imposed on this page by making that edit less than 24 hours after this one. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Sorry bout that. I agree your caption is better and restored it. I wasn't really trying to get involved in the reversion between you and Specifico, just fixing a broken ref. Feoffer (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
The name of the page isn't Somebody's laptop controversy, but rather Hunter Biden laptop controversy. Thus the reason we have his image at the top of the page. Why suddenly change that, now? GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
That is no justification for associating Biden with the false claims in the Post story. His picture up top violates our core policies. It's promoting a smear. SPECIFICO talk 21:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
A stand-alone image of him adds exactly zero to the article. A "smear headline" is factually what happened and is literally the basis of the article. But I'll leave you two to continue your petty fights where the reader is not the primary concern. Slywriter (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps Specifico may want to open an RM & get Biden's name removed from the article title, too? Their choice. GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
To suggest that the image of Hunter Biden at the top of this page, is some kinda smear campaign. Could be seen as assuming bad faith on the part of any editor who supports the image being there. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Can we all agree this discussion is moot and drop it and return to our regularly scheduled programming of endless dramas?[5] soibangla (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't know that it's moot. The laptop in the picture is not the laptop, so perhaps it's not the best picture to use in the lead. Upthread, several editors make a good argument that the picture of Hunter Biden is not appropriate. We can remove it and replace it with [what?], or just remove it, or leave it as is. My take would be to remove it and if we can find something appropriate replace it, else simply not have an image in the lead. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Are we gonna need an RFC to settle this, too? GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Come on -- the article should have a pic of Hunter Biden in it somewhere, and there's no particular reason I can see that the top image should be the laptop and not the portrait. Feoffer (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
A picture is fine, just IMO not in the lede. Compare Hillary Clinton email controversy, Travelgate, Rathergate. Zaathras (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Hunter Biden's image in the style of Hillary Clinton's image? GoodDay (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Or also Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy, Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy, Countrywide Financial political loan scandal, or ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 03:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Nice try, but those controversies saw direct involvement and culpability by the named persons. The subject matter here does not. Zaathras (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

If you (or anybody else) want to open an RFC on whether or not to change the top image? Then do so, if it's that important. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@Zaathras, what bizarro world do you live in to say the subject matter does not have direct involvement with this story. The laptop belonged to Hunter Biden, that is past discussion. If editors want to talk about the GRU GRU GRU replacing the hard drive and dressing like Biden and the blind man who they gave it to fine, do that all day, but to make like the laptop has nothing to do with Hunter is, I don't even have the words for it. --Malerooster (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
DO YOU PEOPLE HEAR YOURSELVES??? What does this have to with Biden? Why have his picture? This is a BLP violation. YOU ARE IN AN ECHO CHAMBER WITH YOURSELVES. THE LAPTOP BELONGED TO HUNTER BIDEN. The story should just end there. Who really cares at this point, the election is OVER, MOVE ON. --Malerooster (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
The laptop belonged to Hunter Biden, that is past discussion, except that it actually isn't past discussion. You will no longer be engaged with until you calm down. Have some WP:TEA. Zaathras (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Hunter Biden owned the laptop, though. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Can anyone present a 4Q 2022 source that says "Hunter didn't own the laptop and it was a GRU operation"? Because I've posted 13 sources in the RfC that say Hunter Biden's laptop including CBS conclusive review that shows the data was added consistent with regular daily use and stopped being added when it was damaged. Seriously, it is silly the amount of text and threads wasted trying to claim otherwise at this point. And it detracts from the real editing which is how to best explain the Republican data vs the CBS "clean" data. Slywriter (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

See this request concerning disputed BLP content SPECIFICO talk 16:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Already seen it. It's likely going to be rejected, as it's a content dispute. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
This Talk page is an utter trainwreck. What are we even discussing now? Is there an open RFC? soibangla (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
There is an ongoing RFC, concerning the lead. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Where is that? I don't see it. soibangla (talk)
Thank you for your response above. I apologize that I am no longer capable of following this unmitigated fiasco, and I won't attempt to anymore. Have fun, everybody! jfc soibangla (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Well, as I repeated before. The intro will likely go through more changes, in the coming months. What kinda changes? who knows. GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
I, for one, would like to see an acrostic encoded that (if decoded) might prove to have two meanings. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:49, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
The first three responses at ARBCOM is that it is a content, not a conduct issue. There's no reason to remove the consensus version reached at the earlier RfC. TFD (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

EBRD simplified to 1RR only

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

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

@El C: Would I be allowed to restore the status quo ante? GoodDay (talk) 06:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Possibly. Again, WP:1RR-only (or as I sometimes call it, naked 1RR) rather than EBRD is currently in effect, so that's the limit. As mentioned, when there's an RfC over competing versions, usually the longstanding one is the one that gets displayed over the contending one until the RfC process is done. But, like WP:ONUS and WP:BRD (the original BRD, not the weird E-one), that's only a recommendation. If it was enforced, it'd just be Consensus required, which I don't think is, well, required at this time. El_C 06:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Wish folks would've waited until 'after' the Republicans took control of the House (in January 2023) before changing or attempting to change the intro or putting in a 'dispute tag', etc. Likely best that I not restore the status quo ante, as past experience at this page, tells me it'll likely be reverted 'or' changed. GoodDay (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
@El C, Awilley, and Doug Weller: El C, I was surprised to see this change. The template was adjusted recently, but the page restriction itself was placed by Doug Weller in July, 2022. The 24-BRD page restriction was invented (but not patented👧🏻} by Awilley during his tenure as an active DS Admin. 24-BRD was a very valuable innovation, because it targets incipient edit-war adjacent behavior without unduly restricting active editors. Among the benefits of this is that it enables active editors to revert unconstructive edits, by either inexperienced or drive-by POV editors, who tend to come and go on DS pages with some regularity. At the same time, it prevents these active editors from using a free allowance of 3RR to insist on their own edits, without due collaboration.
I don't believe it's the case that the 24-BRD has recently been widely ignored. I've seen what appear to be weaponized allegations of that without diffs, but I don't see widespread recent reverts of the same material by a single editor without discussion.
I believe that the RFPP was an overreaction to some ongoing silly behavior concerning content that's under active discussion. It is inconsequential, and it doesn't matter which version is in the article for the next several weeks. But changing the page restriction will have a lasting detrimental effect, in my opinion. The 24-BRD is in effect on many of the most active pages in the American Politics area, and it has worked very well with minimal confusion and without needing much editor or Admin time and attention.
I request that you restore the 24-BRD restriction placed by Doug Weller. Thanks, and thanks for your prior period of active volunteer activity in this area. SPECIFICO talk 13:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
There was at least 'one' editor who twice breached 1RR/24HR. Doing so on Dec 4 & again on Dec 6, via 'adding & re-adding' the dispute tag, both times within 24hrs. If required, I can provide the diffs. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
El C, I request that you not restore the 24-BRD restriction & keep the current 1RR rule in place. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
It's okay, GoodDay, I will not. But I get it, SPECIFICO, you like EBRD (←no project page btw) because it is arcane and confusing but you yourself have a good grasp of it, and WP:AP2 is an area where, let's be honest, you should have been banned from multiple times over. But regardless, there's long been a consensus among admins going back years to streamline and simplify all the beyond-1RR restrictions (well, there's two, the other is CR, which does have a project page).
Like myself, it took Awilley a few years to realize that imposing his own custom sanctions, EBRD being the pinnacle of these, tend to work poorly. I don't think Doug was too aware of all of that (i.e. operating with old info), but at the event, I looked at the article edit notice (here), added by a non-admin.
So, it's done, SPECIFICO, irrespectively. A revert from now on is just a regular revert, no more exotic definitions. To quote the policy: whether involving the same or different material. You get one revert a day. Not one for this and one for that and one for the other thing. The normal rules of engagement are creeping back into the American politics topic area, though it might take a while and the path may not be fully linear. El_C 17:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
@El C The bit about EBRD not having a project page is a good one, and it actually really sucks. As a new user, who's been informed that I violated this page sanction twice now (which I made good faith efforts to correct after being warned), I had ZERO resource to inform myself on this supposed sanction policy. And I looked everywhere. No information at WP:BRD, or WP:EW, or WP:1RR, or WP:AP2. I was left wondering where the actual policy I violated was.
And when I asked SPECIFICO to point me to it, their answer was simply "ask the Teahouse or Village pump."
In my opinion, this restriction is just not well-documented enough to be implemented, or reasonably enforced. It's incredibly editor-unfriendly. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
PhotogenicScientist, I doubt WP:TEAHOUSE regulars would have been able to clearly explain EBRD to you, so it was rather underhanded of SPECIFICO to have sent you there. Again, it's a custom WP:ACDS page restriction created by a single admin, who then went on to add it to multiple AP2 pages without ArbCom's consent. So, its bad legacy persists. It should be streamlined to the simplified ruleset of WP:1RR, or in extreme cases, WP:CRP (both having project pages). Which was agreed upon years ago. That means removing it rather than continuing to add it. The point is that the rules for the American politics topic area should not be made even more impenetrable and byzantine than they already are. El_C 17:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Man, no kidding. Thanks for the background. Reading WP:CRP, there seems to be a large amount of overlap with 24hr BRD. I don't see a reason for 24hr BRD to exist considering CRP is better-documented anyway.
And yeah, Teahouse wasn't much help. And by the time I came back the next day and saw Good Day's question there, the thread was already archived, so I gave up...PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Highly agree with this as someone who is regularly confused by different page sanctions Anon0098 (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
And rather than face this universal opposition to EBRD here head on, SPECIFICO is now trying to get it restored away from the public eye, at User talk:FormalDude/Archive/ 9#Edit notices and restrictions, pinging the creator of EBRD to that user talk page and so on. SPECIFICO, you need to stop with these underhanded tactics. Light is the best disinfectant — maybe try living up to that maxim. El_C 18:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
You've twice called me "underhanded" without basis. I'm surprised to see an Admin do that, or to publish any behavrioral opinions about other editors on an article talk page. My understanding is that we are expected to notify editors when mentioning them in locations they may not be following. SPECIFICO talk 19:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
I didn't call you, yourself, underhanded, I called your conduct that. El_C 19:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
That reply is unworthy of you, El C. SPECIFICO talk 19:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, enough. The fact that you still haven't been banned from WP:AP2, after a mountain of reported violations, is kind of astonishing. I'll leave it at that. El_C 19:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Arcane side discussion about procedure (a.k.a. admins waving sticks at each other) ~Awilley (talk) 06:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
@El C: I don't think you're supposed to modify page sanctions placed by other administrators. The sanction was placed by Doug Weller, not FormalDude, and when asked whether the sanction was meant to be 1RR or 24-hr BRD, Doug clarified that he did in fact intend for it to be BRD. [6] ~Awilley (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Wow, Awilley, still defending your own custom sanction to the end, I see. And even using Doug for that. That's low. El_C 19:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
@El C Huh? Using Doug? I don't think I had any part in Doug placing the sanction. I was pinged here and I took the opportunity to clarify a situation I happened to be familiar with from the thread at AE. ~Awilley (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Okay, maybe you don't know about Doug. I'm not gonna say anything about that, not least because he's a friend. You want to contest how I operated here, take it to WP:ARCA, where you may well succeed, as they're not too fond of me there at present. In any case, my log entry is here. El_C 19:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I was unaware that yet another AE complaint against SPECIFICO is currently live @WP:AE#SPECIFICO. Again, I haven't been going out of my way to undo Awilley's terrible custom sanction that he forced on everyone and whose staying power seems to be more to do with inertia than anything else. As mentioned in my opening above, I encountered this in passing at RfPP, saw that the article notice was added by a non-admin, and acted accordingly. Not to be a broken record, but the confusing, project page-less EBRD should be removed from rather than added to even more pages. El_C 19:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Nor have I been going out of my way to add or defend the sanction. I removed it from a majority of articles probably a year and a half ago and haven't done much else since then.
I wasn't aware of Doug Weller's surgery. I hope he makes a speedy recovery.
I don't care about this enough to take it to ARCA, but I still don't understand your justification. Are you saying that you are authorized to overturn another admin's discretionary sanction because:
1. The other admn said it was fine for other admins to do that before going in for his operation,
2. You're invoking an Arbcom rule that allows you to reverse discretionary sanctions when the admin who placed them is incapacitated,
3. The sanction isn't valid because it doesn't have a project page, or
4. Your confusion about who placed the sanction grants you the authority to modify it?
I'm happy to remedy #3 by creating a project page sometime in the next few days. ~Awilley (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Then by all means, reverse me, Awilley. Add back the convoluted custom sanction that you, yourself, created. Add it to near-universal opposition here. I won't revert you. El_C 20:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
RE: I'm happy to remedy #3 by creating a project page sometime in the next few days. Awilley, you being the creator of that custom sanction, you being the one who added it to multiple AP2 pages without ArbCom's consent at the time and despite opposition from your fellow admins — I submit that, if a project page is to be created for EBRD, you should not be the one to do so. El_C 20:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
@El C: Are you intentionally dodging my question? ~Awilley (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
No. What is the question, spell it out. El_C 21:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
The paragraph above beginning with "I don't care about this enough to take it to ARCA, but I still don't understand your justification. Are you saying that you are authorized to overturn another admin's discretionary sanction because:..." ~Awilley (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
No, but you know that's not how EBRD was downgraded to 1RR here by me. What you're asking seems to be more along the line of: will I reverse myself now. No to that again, but you could do it, though again as mentioned (below), to near-universal opposition and while quasi-involved. I've tried to help here; I'm not sure what you're trying to do (work bureaucracy for your EBRD thing?). I've already devoted 100-fold to this page than I originally intended. So do whatever, I'm done. El_C 21:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
For goodness sake, Awilley. Don't re-add the 24Hr BRD. Already one editor has/had been ignoring it by 'twice' re-adding a dispute tag, which an arbitrator has already told me, was a breach of the 24Hr BRD. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
@GoodDay Don't worry, I'm not re-adding anything. I'm not dumb enough to wheel war with discretionary sanctions. And I apologize to you and other editors who just want to improve the article and are distracted from that by a couple of admins shaking sticks at each other. ~Awilley (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Awilley, it won't be a WP:WHEELWAR when I expressly say that I won't revert you. You should be more concerned with: 1. The near-universal opposition to it here (everyone but SPECIFICO). 2. You being quasi-WP:INVOLVED as both the creator of EBRD and the one whose been advocating for it relentlessly over the years. El_C 21:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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

  • I just read all this on my siesta, and now I have to smoke a big spliff to recover. Why not just declare a general amnesty and start all over with a clean slate for everybody?;-) Carlstak (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
    Start all over again, would be cool. But a 'few' editors seem determined to oppose the sentence "...belonged to Hunter Biden". GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
    RE: "declare a general amnesty". I'd be in favor of some kind of "reset" if editors here think it would be helpful. Revert to some older version that isn't too objectionable; full-protect the article for 24-hours to reset everybody's revert counters, declare that there is no status quo (so people's initial edits simply count as Bold edits rather than reverts to some earlier revision), and then encourage people to edit carefully and try to find a consensus. I'm not familiar enough with the history of this article to know if that would be helpful or if it would just disenfranchise one side because there is no status quo. ~Awilley (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, that would disenfranchise one side, as the current status quo gained consensus by a long and painful RFC 2 month ago. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
    Oh, that RfC. This is starting to make more sense. I have appointments for the next few hours but I'll look into it more tonight. ~Awilley (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
    Here is the history, briefly, since the RFC was closed (the closing statement contained this quote - "editors opposing the adjective produced a plethora of recent RS that did not doubt the connection.") SPECIFICO almost immediately substituted "believed to have" in place of "alleged." The discussion was clear this was not in line with the RFC, and the closer clarified that no qualifier is necessary. A bit later SPECIFICO opened a review at AN, which closed as no consensus to modify the RFC. Now Feoffer, who didn't participate in the RFC, has opened a thread at the BLP Noticeboard. I want to note that nobody in the original RFC used their !vote to object on BLP grounds. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Well, if it was WP:CRP, then the longstanding version would be fixed until there would be consensus for the contending one. In this case, until the WP:RFC process is formally closed. But EBRD tries to do a bit of CR and a bit of 1RR, and largely fails in both.
I think it's been at least a year since I added CR to a page (it used to be a much more common practice), and I'm one of the most active AE admins on the project in all areas (I mean, just glance at the log). As mentioned, there's just been an understanding for years now that beyond-1RR DS need to be used very sparingly, if at all.
Another thing that was decided at the admin discussion I allude to (2019, I believe) is that, similar to seeing if WP:SEMI works before going a step higher to WP:ECP, WP:1RR needs to be tried first before going heavier. But this was not the case here. Rather than trying 1RR first, what happened was that beyond-1RR (EBRD) was imposed in the first instance. Which is problematic all on its own. El_C 20:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Maybe @Doug Weller has an opinion as to the value or priority of the EBRD restriction existing as its own subtype versus being part of the clearer-bright-line 1RR. Frankly, all this arcana about the different restrictions is beyond me, and I don't care which one is used. What I don't understand is. If everyone agrees that a user wasn't following the restriction, and they were warned, isn't there reason therefore to go to AE? And if editors are opting to "give that a pass" and omit the AE case, is it the confusing restriction that was the problem, or the lack of enforcement more generally? If something is wanted to be enforced one should file the appropriate report or at least tap someone on the shoulder, and if every admin had declined to enforce it sans case, maybe that means the violation was not so clear rather than the restriction. Andre🚐 22:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
I’ve only opened 2 AE cases - both about violations of 1RR in this topic area. In both cases reviewing admins thought the alleged violations were trivial, and in one of them an editor I don’t know called for me to be sanctioned for hounding. So you’ll have to excuse the utter lack of desire to go back there. I think all sanctions should be lifted and we can all go at it royal rumble style until there’s only one editor left standing to write all the content. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
I came within an hour (yesterday) of reporting an editor to WP:AE, for twice breaching the 1RR/24Hr DS. But another editor came along & totally changed the intro to this page, while there was an ongoing RFC concerning the intro, happening & so I got fed up. Thankfully, the DS has been strengthened to now just be 1RR. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
This is all a bit hard to follow, but I'm happy with 1RR. Doug Weller talk 10:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Full protection

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

Recommend reinstating the status quo ante, then protect the page for a month. GoodDay (talk) 07:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Obligatory link to m:The Wrong Version (humorous). On a more serious note, if I knew which version that was I'd be tempted, but doing so would be overstepping my authority. ~Awilley (talk) 08:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
As I've noted at the WP:AN report you set up. My major concern is that we 'might' end up setting a bad precedent for future RFCs, in terms of ignoring, over-turning, re-interpreting etc, results we don't like. GoodDay (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
As GoodDay has mentioned, we have consensus. We have an RFC from a few weeks ago that needs to be reinstated. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
You're right. And after this imposed cooling-off period, we have reason to revert the page to that version, until such a time that a new consensus is established. That's explicitly allowed under the 1RR restriction: "Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions." PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Just to reiterate -- reinsertion of BLP violation is unacceptable. Feel free to use "almost no one disputes", but if you're greedy and go for stating ownership as undisputed fact, when you know it's disputed, you're gonna have a bad time, trust me. Feoffer (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
But "almost no one doubts" is dubious, because it's an editorial conclusion, which we regard as Original Research. Also, if we estimate that public opinion is split 50/50, then more than almost nobody may doubt it. Have there been scientific public opinion surveys? That would be helpful. Possibly, as I once proposed, we could say "widely believed to have belonged..." we know that is true and verified by reporting that describes Republican and Repbulican-leaning media statements. SPECIFICO talk 20:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
The point is "almost no one disputes" is sourced and would NOT be a BLPvio. It's not my place to get into the weeds of whether it would be UNDUE but it would be sourced. Feoffer (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, fair enough, Feoffer. But Guardian is a single mediocre source. Really, the WEIGHT of the entire narrative about this matter is that the physical device itself has not been scrutinized and was only significant in that it was the vessel for files that the Post linked to the Biden-Ukraine stories. The press has devoted resources to forensic examination of the files, which are available to it. The device itself is in the possession of the FBI and we do not know what they have determined about the provenance of the machine. It will someday be reported, but not likely soon. SPECIFICO talk 22:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
If the consensus turns out in a way that you don't like. Then you go right ahead & try to stop its implementation. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
I recommend you strike the "you're gonna have a bad time, trust me" part of your comment, because it sounds like a threat of some kind. Andre🚐 20:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Well, it's meant to be. There are consequences for repeatedly inserting unsourced controversial material into BLPs. Now, do those consequences come from me? No. I'm no admin and they know that. But when you see somebody about to get bit by a snake, you oughta give a hollar and say "ya know, you really don't wanna be doing that". Feoffer (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree with you but there is no issue in restoring consensus text sourced from many reliable sources that was closely scrutinized in an RFC. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Warnings are allowed but this is not a clear-cut case, so you shouldn't use such a warning tone. Instead, let's engage constructively on the merits of the article topic. Not make threats. Please and thank you from another user giving a hollar ya really don't wanna do that. Andre🚐 20:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
I've yet to see a definitive statement that attributing ownership of the laptop would be a BLP violation. Moreover, that addition would in NO way be "unsourced," as has been REPEATEDLY pointed out. There are plenty of RS that make the same attribution. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

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

That's not something you should be concerned about, it just explains the spirit and origin of BLP -- it's larger just another wikipedia policy, BLP-compliance is a moral and legal duty. Don't, like, worry about being sued by Hunter Biden or anything -- just hold yourself to the journalistic standards expected by the Foundation. Feoffer (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't think it was a legal threat. I think this is a key issue that should be discussed though. PhotogenicScientist says that the sources clearly say it was Hunter Biden's laptop. And indeed many sources refer to it as his laptop, though they don't clear up the problematic provenance of the laptop. But the recent CBS reporting is that "Copy of what's believed to be Hunter Biden's laptop data turned over by repair shop to FBI showed no tampering." Does that mean the laptop itself from the shop was confirmed? I don't think it does. It says that the copy of a laptop's data is legit. Andre🚐 20:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

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

The issue is that you get to set the criteria of "explicitly confirm" here - your personal level of assurance must be satisfied, apparently, to get you on board.
Plenty of RS have already been provided. But let's take a look at the reporting of the Washington Post.
  • Oct 14, 2020: "emails purportedly obtained from a laptop that Hunter Biden, the son of former vice president Joe Biden, had supposedly left behind for repair." The story was newly breaking, and they did not attribute ownership.
  • Mar 18, 2022: "Hunter Biden allegedly showed up at a computer repair shop with three water-damaged laptop computers" along with "When the Post first reported on its possession of material from Hunter Biden’s laptop." They pointedly describe the dropping off of the laptop as alleged, yet do not call the ownership of the laptop into question.
  • Mar 30, 2022: "HEADLINE: Here’s how The Post analyzed Hunter Biden’s laptop." The article we're all familiar with. Also, again with "Thousands of emails purportedly from the laptop computer of Hunter Biden" they pointedly still cast doubt on where the data came from, yet do not cast doubt on the ownership of the laptop on which the data was found.
  • Apr 12, 2022: "When the New York Post first reported in October 2020 that it had obtained the contents of a laptop computer allegedly owned by Joe Biden’s son Hunter." Using alleged when reporting the history. "material that’s alleged to have been on Hunter Biden’s laptop" Using alleged with describing the material. NOT using alleged to call it Hunter Biden's laptop.
  • Most recently, Nov 23, 2022: "the laptop Hunter Biden supposedly left behind for repair". Again, the only doubt they still express is how the laptop got where it did. Not 1 use of "allegedly" to describe the ownership in this article.
Now the question: Do you believe the Washington Post is a good enough Reliable Source? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with your evidence showing what you claim it shows. In fact, all of this evidence is evidence for the usage of "purportedly" or "allegedly" type-language. Your argument that these sources do not call the ownership of the laptop into question is flawed. They do not endorse the laptop's ownership. WP:HEADLINEs are not reliable. Andre🚐 22:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Don't take my word for it, then. Read the articles yourself. That's why I provided links.
Context matters. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Your sources offer evidence against your argument. The sources are all from the Washington Post and every single one uses supposed/purported/alleged-type language to carefully couch their assertions. None of them confirms the ownership of the laptop or comprehensively vets the data. The entire argument made seems to hinge against simply the construction "Hunter Biden's laptop" existing. That this is sufficient to imply a full acceptance of the chain of ownership of the laptop is not a claim supported here.
  • [7]: materials found on a hard-drive copy of the laptop Hunter Biden supposedly left behind
  • [8] aptop computer allegedly owned by Joe Biden’s son Hunter
  • [9]only the limited revelation that some of the data on the portable drive appears to be authentic.
  • [10] he laptops were dropped off at Mac Isaac’s repair shop. Mac Isaac is legally blind and was not able to identify Hunter Biden by sight. One of the laptops, though, bore a sticker for the Beau Biden Foundation, an organization dedicated to Hunter’s late brother.
  • [11] equests to make the laptop hard drive available for inspection have not been granted... The FBI supposedly obtained the hard drive...
Andre🚐 14:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
The sources are all from the Washington Post and every single one uses supposed/purported/alleged-type language to carefully couch their assertions. You're right - they do. I pointed out as much in my breakdown. When there is an assertion they don't know for sure, they use that language. That's because WaPo is a reliable source - they choose their words carefully, they report the facts, and they issue retractions if they get something wrong.
And in carefully choosing their words, they repeatedly say "Hunter Biden's laptop." Possession by grammar may not be enough for you personally, but it apparently is for the Washington Post. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
DarkNipples, what does “Hunter Biden’s laptop” mean? To me it could not be more clear or unambiguous so I personally don’t understand why we have such a disconnect. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
"Possession by grammar and adjacency in sentence construction" isn't an acceptable standard of proof in my view Andre🚐 14:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
The apostrophe-s can also indicate association without connoting ownership. It is widely used as a naming convention. So, Finian's Rainbow, Ménière's disease, Pike's Peak, Montezuma's Revenge, etc. Using "HB's laptop" is not the same as saying, and does not entail "laptop that belonged to HB". Searching "belonged to Hunter Biden" demonstrates this. From what I see in the top search results, only PBS makes that statement. SPECIFICO talk 15:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Of all the grasps at all the straws... one of two primary function of "apostrophe s" in the English language is to denote possession of the following noun. You're intuitively aware of this, like every other English speaker. Your edge cases simply aren't compatible with this laptop.
Here are some top results from Google about using "apostrope s" in English. Please familiarize yourself. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
We're obviously all aware of apostrophes indicating possession, but they may also indicate simple association. Grammatical possession isn't the same as legal possession. For example, "Lincoln's enemy" doesn't imply that Lincoln owned the enemy and it was in his possession physically. "Jeff's ex" is an ex that associates or relates to Jeff, but not physically owned by Jeff. Andre🚐 15:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Your example is the cat's meow. The King's Speech. SPECIFICO talk 15:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Both examples involve another person or being. Can you come up with any involving a mundane object, where 's denotes mere association rather than ownership? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Pascal's triangle, Pascal's wager, Boyle's law, Gaucher's disease Andre🚐 15:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
These are not mundane objects - they are officially-named concepts or conditions.PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
"Use an apostrophe to show possession, but be aware that “possession” may not always mean “ownership”: it may simply suggest an association"[12] For example, the "student's test" Andre🚐 15:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
That's one writing guide from a minor college - not exactly an authoritative source. Here's a source of similar standing that makes no mention of the association use case. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
This is the same kind of flawed logic. A source not making a mention of something isn't a rebuttal of that thing. For example, [13] Something associated with a thing Andre🚐 16:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Ah, a dictionary source. Here's another dictionary that also does not consider the association use case.
You know why the overwhelming majority of sources talking about apostrophe s don't mention association, and you're having to look specifically for ones that do? Because it's an edge case that is rarely used. The common usage in English is to denote plain possession. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
That's really not the case. There are several examples given in the Free Dictionary, and I can come up with many more common examples of a relationship or association indicated through the usage of an apostrophe, which just means "of or relating to". A "children's hospital" for example, is not a hospital owned by children, it's a hospital for children. A "man's suit" could be a suit owned by a man, but it could also be a suit for a man that is still not yet owned by said man but being tried on at a store. Seattle's best coffee is coffee that is the best in Seattle, but not owned by Seattle municipal gov't. The car's location' is a location of a car, but not an ownership relationship. Andre🚐 16:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Yet in none of the examples you've provided do we find the combination of (1st) a specified person and (2nd) an object. Because wherever you see an example like that, it's describing ownership. I.e. John's car. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
No, there are still many examples with a person and an object that are not indicative of ownership. For example, let's say the suit was designed by a fashion designer or a work of art that was painted by someone. It would be that designer's suit or that person's painting, even if owned by someone else. Andre🚐 16:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
In the first case, "suit" wouldn't be a single suit but rather that design of suit. Unless you're arguing that "Hunter Biden's laptop" doesn't refer to one laptop, but to a type of laptop designed by him?
In the second case, a phrase like "DaVinci's painting" correctly contains the information that the painting at one time belonged to DaVinci. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
In the first case, it is totally possible for a fashion designer to design and tailor a single, one-of-a-kind suit, and it would be that person's suit in perpetuity even if they never owned it at all, like if it were produced on commission for a company or buyer. They designed the suit and are associated with it, but not through owning it or possessing it. They could design the suit and never touch the physical suit, because someone else was in possession of the actual unit. It would also be that company's suit even if they didn't ever own it, but simply branded it. Even wearing the suit could associate you with the suit. For example, John Travolta wore a suit in 1977 in the film Saturday Night Fever. It will forever be his suit, John Travolta's famous white suit, even though he never owned it whatsoever, he just wore it in a movie. It was owned by the production or the wardrobe department, but it's more his suit than wardrobe's suit due to his enduring association to it.
In the second case, DaVinci could also have produced the portrait on commission of a person. Let's say Lorenzo de Medici gives da Vinci a commission to paint a portrait of him. It's Lorenzo's portrait by ownership, it's also Lorenzo's portrait based on his likeness being depicted, and it's da Vinci's portrait because he was the painter. If we reverse the ownership, all the apostrophe constructions are still valid. It's Lorenzo's portrait because he is depicted, even if da Vinci did it for fun and owns it. Andre🚐 17:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
PLEASE end this academic discussion. It's becoming an abuse of this talk page. Keep it simple. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
As Valjean has said, these examples are academically interesting, but have little relevancy to the use case with this laptop. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Well, look, I will agree to disagree if we tire of this, but let the record show that the John Travolta example IS a very close analogue to the Hunter example: the Hunter Biden's laptop construction may simply refer to Hunter's infamous laptop, the laptop infamously associated with him. I do think it's material to the question and not an unproductive tangent. I will note that I have previously stated that we have to abide by the RFC consensus. If there is a topic under discussion and open, I wish to discuss it. If it is a closed topic, I have not flouted that. Andre🚐 17:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
A laptop associated with Hunter Biden. I wonder where they met? Mr Ernie (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Well, there's no doubt that it's "Hunter Biden's data" inasmuch as said data was confirmed. Andre🚐 16:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly regarding these last 3 hours of discussion. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Very well stated, thank you. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
The problem is that people want to use the construction "Hunter Biden's laptop" to assert that all these reliable sources are saying specifically that The laptop was owned and used by Hunter. But it's also perfectly natural to, for example, call it his laptop if he only used it but never owned it ("John Travolta's suit", even though the film company owned the suit), or if he was somehow otherwise responsible for the data being on it ("Doordash's servers" even though the actual physical servers are most likely owned and operated by AWS), or, especially relevant for constructions like the validity of the material that’s alleged to have been on Hunter Biden’s laptop, the laptop that's alleged to have been owned by Hunter Biden.
It's notable in this case that all the reliable sources shy away from specifying the exact type of possession when they have to clarify. So we shouldn't use the possessive to insinuate that they mean things they're clearly avoiding saying they mean. That'd be WP:SYNTH. Loki (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
H. Biden did own the laptop, though. Who did what with it afterwards, should be the conversation. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Agreed with Loki. There doesn't seem to be a current editor consensus here, or among available RS, that ownership is undeniable. RS have been inconsistent at best. Thankfully there is consensus, here and among recent sources, that some of the data was independently verified, and there's nothing wrong with using that. You don't see anyone here claiming WP:RECENT as an issue, at least not yet, but we do see editors that want this article to be WP:CAREFUL. There's no apparent reason to continue to risk possible POV or SYNTH in Wikivoice...Accuracy>Acceleration.DN (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@Awilley: if only you had followed my advice & 1-month protected this page. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

"No evidence of illegality by the Bidens"

The word for word quote from politifact, the source is "Nothing from the laptop has revealed illegal or unethical behavior by Joe Biden as vice president with regard to his son's tenure as a director for Burisma" Nothing in the source or elsewhere in the wikipedia article suggests extending that claim to Hunter Biden, who is under investigation for tax fraud. Amthisguy (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Good point. This is classic SYNTH. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
I thought we had agreed to reword that line for precision a week or so ago? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
+1 We agreed it should read "by Joe Biden". Also, That's not what is meant by WP:SYNTH. This term has been misused several times recently on this page. Please review the substance of the policy at that link. SPECIFICO talk 21:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)00:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
On November 5 I closed the lead with[14]:

Despite extensive scrutiny of the laptop contents by multiple parties, by September 2022 no clear evidence of criminal activity by the Bidens had surfaced.

which was a paraphrasing of Intelligencer[15]:

And for all the time they have spent scrutinizing his emails and his dick pics, Maxey and others have yet to find any incontrovertible evidence of criminality.

which is not limited to Joe or Hunter; it says any criminality.
At some point this was removed from the lead. I argue it should be restored. soibangla (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
The current state of the lead does not reflect this sourcing. Also throwing in a bit of OR, some of the drugs Hunter consumes in photographs / videos are illegal. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Which would be OR. I know there are allegedly pictures showing Hunter Biden using drugs, but we should stick to what the RS say which is that the laptop data hasn't provided any evidence of criminality. Because a pic of someone smoking what appears to be a drug does not change that. However, according to Washington Post back in October, [16] Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss, a Trump appointee, must decide whether to charge the son of the current president with chargeable tax, gun-purchase crimes. The investigation into Hunter Biden began in 2018 So maybe we should change the description to refer to the lack of illegal or corrupt business dealings. Trump and others argued the data on the laptop showed evidence of unethical and possible illegal business deals; Joe Biden and his supporters denounced the efforts as a smear..... It could not be determined for this article whether the laptop and its contents were useful in the Justice Department investigation. See WP:BLPCRIME Andre🚐 23:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Well yeah, The current state of the lead does not reflect this sourcing because it was removed. You have a trivial gotcha with the drugs, but the issue is whether the Bidens were engaged in illegal corruption involving Burisma and China. soibangla (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
The wrong text is currently back in. I suggest we remove it until consensus emerges for a particular wording, as opposed to just having wrong stuff in there. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Hunter's tax investigation began in 2018, long before the laptop. soibangla (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll leave it to the rest of you, to figure out what was/wasn't on H. Biden's laptop & how to write it up. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks GoodDay. I hope we don’t disappoint you. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
I've amended to Joe Biden instead of the Biden's while this is sorted. I think we all agree that the sources show nothing on President Biden. I do think the Biden's is accurate as there is no sourcing showing the laptop is central to ongoing investigations. Slywriter (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
That is preferable for now to Ernie's wholesale masking of the reality of the subject matter, sure. People tend to forget that the crux of this entire right-wing conspiracy is that H. Biden was in the Ukraine at the behest of J. Biden, i.e. "the Big Guy". This entire amateur affair was an attempt at am October surprise to tank then-candidate Biden's election bid. Zaathras (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Reframe the article around WP:RS, then merge

It's a mistake to frame this "laptop controversy" as being about the laptop itself, and the NYPost articles. We're backing ourselves into a corner. The laptop story is fundamentally about persistent partisan allegations of crime. It is being treated as such by the media (NYT, The Economist, Vox, NYMag), who have separately analysed the data to attempt to verify these allegations (NBC), and found most were unsupported.

Two intertwined proposals:

  1. The way to fairly treat such a subject, is not to unduly emphasise partisan reporting. The NYPost's reporting has itself become newsworthy, which justifies covering their claims; but it is not grounds for organising this article around their claims, since they remain an unreliable source. This uses Wikipedia to launder talking points, and anchors our article firmly in partisan miasma. This article should instead be centred around WP:RS coverage of the allegations, treated with the appropriate caution. It currently focuses way too much on the smoke, when it should be centred around whether there's a fire.
  2. The second proposal flows from the first. Since the main topic should be the allegations, not the NYPost's partisan reporting, the laptop controversy remains indissociable from Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. They both have the same origin point (Giuliani), and allege the same things (Biden-Ukraine). Here's the correct timeline: the repairman's copy of the data was authentic, and given to the FBI. Then a copy was given to Giuliani, who gave it to Bannon, who gave it to the NYPost (NYMag, NYT), and that copy was demonstrably tampered with, with new data from G-d-knows-where (NYMag, WaPo). The NYPost story was based on Giuliani's altered copy; not the laptop itself. That makes the NYPost story (and consequently, the "October surprise") a sub-element of the partisan Biden-Ukraine conspiracy, so a split wasn't warranted. For context, this page was merged into Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory in 2021, and unwisely split back in March 2022.

Give WP:RS coverage of the allegations against Joe and Hunter their own section, trim the NYPost section to focus on the flaws in their story and the October surprise aspects, and have a separate laptop section that explains how it fits into things. Then merge. It's a complex story, and we should make sure appropriate nuance is maintained.

Should the allegations be covered through a WP:RS lens, instead of the NYPost's lens? And should the articles be merged? DFlhb (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Survey II regarding MERGE

Please keep responses bulleted, and prefixed with "WP:RS" or "NYPost" for the first proposal, and "merge" or "keep" for the second proposal. Keep it tidy & concise, or this'll go nowhere.
  • WP:RS and merge, as proposer. We now know the repairman's copy was authentic, and the NYPost's copy was altered. There's no need to spend entire sections on that, which creates needless confusion. As I said earlier, the laptop origin is unproven; its contents are fully authentic, and the NYPost's reporting was not based on the laptop's contents, but on material provided by Republican operatives. If even many editors don't understand this, we can't expect readers to get it. My proposals would trim a lot of the NYPost/laptop cruft, so hopefully these things will become clearer. DFlhb (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Support merge to Hunter Biden, Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, and/or other appropriate articles, per WP:PAGEDECIDE, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:10YT. This nothingburger was never worth spinning off from the article about Biden-Ukraine. This whole laptop controversy article can be boiled down into one sentence: "Some of Joe Biden's political opponents said his son's laptop had incriminating evidence on it, but it didn't." It's just one of a series of events comprising Republican attacks on Joe Biden's son, which have been ongoing for years. In February we will have an article about Hunter Biden hearings in the House; everyone can go there to argue about who owned the laptop. If this proposal ends up having legs, someone should probably apply {{merge}} tags to the appropriate articles. Levivich (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - As this isn't a proper 'merge' request & besides, it's best we wait & see what happens, during the Republican-controlled House investigations. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Merge per my comment in another on this page. There is no controversy except among the WP editors on this page. There was a NY Post story and there have been investigative journalists trying to corroborate it and it turned out little to none of the central points of the story were true. That's not a controversy. Levivich has put it in a nutshell above. We don't have a page on the Ivormectin controversy or the Hillary is gay controversy or the Mitt Romney paid no income tax controversy or the Barry Goldwater wants to launch nukes controversy, usw. There are even fewer RS that refer to a "controversy" about the laptop than say the laptop "belonged to" Hunter Biden. SPECIFICO talk 20:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
    Hate to break it to you, but there is an article on Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 01:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
    Please re-read my post and try to respond to the point I was making, to wit: That page is not called Ivermectin controversy. Or don't, but if you choose to participate please don't further confuse the issue with a straw man argument. SPECIFICO talk 02:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge as no policy or guideline reason provided. If it were merged, it would be a disproportionately long section of the other article, which would justify making it its own article. And if as some editors think this turns out to be a Russian forgery, that would be so elaborate and unprecedented that it would probably justify several articles. TFD (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Procedurally, this should not be buried in a subsection. On the merits, this is a story as evidenced by how many articles have been written about it by reliable sources. HB forgetting laptop, Reps altering data, CBS getting clean data, FBI seizing... This doesn't get hand-waved as meh it's nothing. Slywriter (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Support merge. This article is fundamentally a WP:POVFORK of that one, in that it gives particular weight to one aspect of that theory and frames it in a way that implies that there was an underlying scandal or support for the underlying allegations, which the sources do not support. --Aquillion (talk) 11:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge procedurally, per Slywriter. Also, merging this into any other article would either 1) create an outsized section within that article, or 2) cause lots of sourced content from this article to be removed, PhotogenicScientist (talk) 01:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
@DFlhb there's still no evidence any reporting was based on inauthentic material. We'll need to wait for someone to to compare the "clean" copy files to the other one.
We know folders were added. We don't know the contents of the folders came from anywhere else but the drive itself. We also don't know about any possible more sophisticated tampering Amthisguy (talk) 07:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Support merge. After looking at the above arguments, both for and against, I agree with the perception of a possible POVFORK issue here. "Should the allegations be covered through a WP:RS lens, instead of the NYPost's lens?" - Yes. The details of this topic may evolve and change in the future, but we shouldn't base the WP:WEIGHT of this topic on what may or may not happen in the future. The big picture is about the consensus, or lack thereof, by the majority of RS. DN (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion III

Opening this up is only going to add confusion (if there isn't already), while there's an RFC ongoing. GoodDay (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I think they're about different topics, but if other editors think I should withdraw this until the RFC concludes, I will. DFlhb (talk) 01:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Regarding, This uses Wikipedia to launder talking points, and anchors our article firmly in partisan miasma. - a related point I made a couple of months ago, but I'll repeat in this context: I don't see any "controversy" in the real world. Just controversies among a small number of Wikipedia editors. An allegation (Post story, partisan misinformation) and investigations to confirm or falsify the allegation is not a "controversy". An alternative approach would be to the opposite of what is proposed, namely to identify the Post/Giuliani/Fox misinformation as the subject of the article. Anyway I think DFlhb's points are the basis for fruitful discussion. SPECIFICO talk 02:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I had your days-old proposal to remove Hunter's pic in mind while writing my proposal. It was well-intentioned, but I thought it would be window-dressing, when this article will always fundamentally be about allegations (trumped-up, sure). My main issue is that half the country thinks he's a criminal, and people come here to learn the truth about these allegations, yet we obfuscate them by placing them deep in the NYPost section, interwoven with intricate details about the laptop. Making the allegations more prominent (and highlighting their baselessness or debunkings, e.g. the fact that the FBI found insufficient evidence of money laundering) would be fairer to Hunter Biden. I think Hillary Clinton email controversy deals with a similar situation (exaggerated partisan claims of crimes) far better. DFlhb (talk) 03:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
The laptop has notability beyond any accusations that Trump Republicans made. Readers still want to know what's on it and how it came to be in the repair shop. TFD (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
The laptop is not notable, otherwise it would have its own page. As for this page: Most likely it will end up merged into the Hunter Biden bio page as a short paragraph -- likely not even in its own subheading -- relating to the Trump-Ukraine, Biden-Ukraine, etc. conspiracy theories and attempts to fabricate evidence of a corrupt Joe Biden narrative. SPECIFICO talk 17:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
It has received extensive media coverage and so merits its own article, which is this one, whatever it is called. If it was created by the Russians, then it will go down in the annals of spydom, as the most elaborate forgery ever made. TFD (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Per my comment linked above, there's no current reason to expect that it would be a total of more than 6 sentences in the Biden articles, combined, and then maybe a sentence each in various article on Republican conspiracy theories and those who promote them. SPECIFICO talk 21:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
I'd also add that much of the "controversy" among a small number of WP editors appears to be due to misuse of internet search. Some editors enter search queries that, in effect, instruct google to verify their minority or fringe prior viewpoints. Maybe even views from sources WP considers unreliable or deprecated. Then the search algorithm dutifully returns results for the biased query, and these biased google results are misinterpreted as an unbiased sample of the total of mainstream narratives on the subject. SPECIFICO talk 21:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Really? Just type in "Hunter Biden" into a google search and all the hits are negative stories, except the Wikipedia articles. While you may find him a role model, I can't find reliable sources that agree. TFD (talk) 03:44, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Please reread what I wrote. It's important, and your reply misses the point entirely. SPECIFICO talk 03:48, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Can you provide a credible source the the NY Post allegations are misinformation? LemonPumpkin (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
You have it backwards: we need a reliable source, that ISN'T the NY Post, for something to be included. Otherwise it hasn't been confirmed because the NY Post is considered a tabloid and unreliable here, by consensus and policy. Andre🚐 01:22, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

We don't know what will occur in the coming months. We can only hope that one way or the other, it'll be over with. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

  • What about a rename/move? I'm not sure the proposed merge will improve the clarity of the material, but I think perhaps this isn't the right title. "Hunter Biden laptop" ___ story? incident? event? I mean, it is controversial, but the controversy isn't really about the laptop itself but the data and events surrounding the material.Andre🚐 23:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
    The current title is fine. One would need to open an RM, to have the article title changed. But, I would recommend waiting until the current RFC has concluded & a decision rendered. GoodDay (talk) 03:18, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

"after they were allegedly found on a water-damaged MacBook Pro"

This language is from the first sentence of the "Laptop and hard drive" section under "New York Post reporting". The language used by NYT which is referenced by the cited Vox is “from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop.” Vox goes on to say

"Technically, the Times only vouched for certain emails they’d “authenticated” with the help of “people familiar with them and with the investigation.” But the Times reporters also said the cache of files “appears” to have come from a laptop Hunter abandoned at a computer shop — leaning toward, without quite endorsing, a long-questioned account of how the material got out."

The word "appears" refers to something that is probably true, while "allegedly" does the opposite, and is not an accurate or neutral representation of the RS, and should be changed.

Also from the Vox article

"It’s also not clear that any hack happened here at all. Even though the story of the abandoned laptop is bizarre, speculation that there’s more to it remains just speculation."

and "Some commentators did go too far in asserting that this was part of a Russian plot, when the evidence hasn’t emerged to back that up. The Biden campaign similarly sought to cast doubt on the story by alluding that it could be Russian misinformation — when the underlying emails appear to be authentic." Amthisguy (talk) 12:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

There was an RfC on using the term alleged and it was decided that the article should state that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. After the story appeared in the New York Post, mainstream media covered it but used qualified wording because they did not know how accurate the story was. That's how news is reported. For example, on 9/11, news reporters said that apparently an airplane had hit the World Trade Center. We wouldn't use that language today, because no reasonable person questions whether that happened. TFD (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
With due respect, it's not helpful to compare this story to the epic insane conspiracy theories of decades past. Happy new year, TFD. SPECIFICO talk 15:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
With respect, the existence of Hunter Biden's laptop is not a conspiracy theory although the theory it was a forgery comes close to one. There is anyway a similarity between the theory that the laptop was a forgery and 9/11 conspiracy theories. In both cases adherents rely on the fact that initial reporting was guarded. I picked the example because it's well known. TFD (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
In The Godfather, Brando appeared to be a gangster. But he really was not a gangster. "Appeared" is not "alleged". Superheroes appear to fly and melt solid objects in the cinema, but they are not alleged to have done so. SPECIFICO talk 15:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
And news media reported on election night that Biden had appeared to have won. Only a conspiracy theorist would insist on that phrasing today. TFD (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Also the conspiracy theory Lewis and Clark had reached Portlandia and the round earth thing. SPECIFICO talk 15:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO "alleged" and "appeared" are not interchangeable. In this context "appeared" leans towards being true while "alleged" leans towards being false. And only one represents the source's view, or virtually any RS view after the drive was authenticated, for that matter Amthisguy (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
My point exactly. "Appears" has to do with appearance. As in the examples I gave. To the NY post, apparently, the laptop appeared on day zero to be Biden's because Rudey Guliani told them so. SPECIFICO talk 20:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
We're still waiting for the RFC concerning the intro, to be completed & closed/with a decision. GoodDay (talk) 05:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy/Archive_5&oldid=1136611655"