Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy

this one went viral for about a day

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's another fact check out today that may also be interesting to editors. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Hunter asks for investigations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[It is Hunter's laptop. Admitted by Hunter Biden's lawyer. B-6, pg 8. Continued insistence that there is no evidence, no sources or otherwise arguing that it's not his laptop is purely disruptive at this point and should be treated as such, absent providing reliable sources with a WP:DUE alternative. Slywriter (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well that's useful, I'll spend a few days looking into that. Then again, we got one guy nobody's never heard of saying it was dropped off, by anyone at all, weeks after Bannon said he had Hunter's HDD.[3] soibangla (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RS regarding recent HB legal team response on laptop

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

1. NBC News 2. Associated Press 3. WaPo 4. BBC NA 5. CNN 6. CBS...DN (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC) 7. Axios "The data was reportedly found on a laptop left at a Delaware repair shop" "John Paul Mac Isaac, the owner of the computer repair shop owner where Biden allegedly left his laptop" 8. Politico "POLITICO has not undergone the process to authenticate the Hunter Biden laptop that underpinned the New York Post story, but reporter Ben Schreckinger has confirmed the authenticity of some emails on it. "A committee aide described themselves as highly confident that the information gleaned from the laptop was connected to Hunter Biden, but argued that the onus was on skeptics of its veracity to prove that any specific email or document on it isn’t valid."...By this account, our lead seemingly creates the same POV that this Oversight Committee aide is projecting. "Hunter Biden and his team are also going on offense, urging the DOJ, Delaware attorney general and IRS to investigate many of the figures who came to possess the files culled from his alleged laptop — and some of the “inconsistencies” in stories about how those various offices came to access the records." DN (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC) 9. TIME (excerpts taken from a FOX NEWS Report) "What is there to know about Hunter Biden’s laptop? The story of Hunter Biden’s laptop is a long saga. The owner of a computer repair shop in Wilmington, Del. named John Paul Mac Isaac says that a man he BELIEVES to be Hunter Biden brought three laptops to his store in April 2019, according to an interview Mac Isaac gave to Fox News. Mac Isaac told Fox he has vision problems and “can’t be 100% sure” it was Hunter who dropped off the machines."... "What about that “big guy” email? Data PURPORTEDLY from a laptop that ALLEGEDLY belonged to Hunter Biden included a May 2017 email from one of his business partners laying out how percentages of equity from a proposed venture with a Chinese energy company could be divided." 10. Newsweek "Abbe Lowell, Hunter Biden's attorney, sent letters to Bannon and 14 others on Thursday demanding them to preserve evidence that may be relevant to a lawsuit involving their roles in spreading the contents of the laptop, which the president's son ALLEGEDLY left in a computer shop in 2019, according to a report from NBC News." DN (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Also @Darknipples:, if you're planing on opening up an RFC (a third one, in roughly six months) about the same topic? It would be best to ping all editors, who participated in the last two RFCs. GoodDay (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. To be clear, so far I have opened exactly ZERO RfCs on this talk page, let alone any regarding RS for HB's legal defense responses. The fact that these reliable sources ALL still use the terms believed, reportedly, alleged, purportedly etc...after all these years is simply notable. Cheers. DN (talk) 05:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I know you didn't open the previous two ;) GoodDay (talk) 06:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Darknipples and @GoodDay: I think we do need another RfC and we should ping not just the editors who contributed to the previous RfCs, but all of the people who have commented here or edited the page in, say, the last six months. As it is, it seems that most of the editors in favor of the unsourced text are the same throughout this long discussion (which predates my involvement by a mile), but the editors who believe sourcing is required are repeatedly frustrated, discouraged and driven away. I think it is important to alert all editors, whatever their opinions might be, and I think we will end up with a different result. Does anybody know of a good way to gather that list of editors? Now that the other two RfCs are closed, it seems like a good time. RoyLeban (talk) 08:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I think we are all tired of RfCs. Opinions are important, but I think this is more of a policy issue. I feel RSN or NORN is the way to go, in order to find more objective, unbiased and neutral feedback from uninvolved editors. Just my 2 cents. DN (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I do agree it's a policy issue. I keep repeating that. A big part of the problem here is the false claims about sources that clearly do not say what some editors say they do. It is hard to combat that, and it's been so frustrating that other editors have been driven away. Which do you think is better, RSN or NORN? Or both? RoyLeban (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Since you still don't get it, maybe Callanecc can stop by and remind you about WP:NPA and to talk about edits, not editors. Or that claiming two RfCs violate policy is bad-faith. Slywriter (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Whatever the correct answer is, it isn't "both" per WP:FORUMSHOP. VQuakr (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Forum shopping is sequential, that is not what anyone has suggested here. SPECIFICO talk 23:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Slywriter, saying I "don't get it" is a personal attack. I suggest you apologize. I completely get it. RfCs, by definition, cannot violate policy, but the result of those RfCs is that an unsourced claim has remained in the lede, an unsourced claim that is actually refuted in the article itself, and that is a violation of Wikipedia policy. The basic problem is that an RfC is about what people think, and that's irrelevant when a policy is being explicitly violated, as is the case here.

With respect to "both" being forum shopping, there is nothing in Wikipedia policy that says that there is a prohibition against bringing up two related issues at the same time in two forums, nor is there any prohibition about asking the question. RoyLeban (talk) 13:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Roy, the arguments you have been presenting to remove the current wording are about verification and original research, so that would be NORN. But as you have said, those arguments were made here on this page in considerable detail and at length. So it's not clear how a discussion on any of the site-wide boards is going to address your concern. In fact, if I recall correctly, those boards have not endorsed the text that subsequently was established by the RfC closures. SPECIFICO talk 22:59, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I honestly try to avoid all those things. I have always followed the rules in editing and I try to resolve things through discussion. This particular issue has been particularly vexing. I'm happy to defer to others as to the proper place to take this. What I know is that it needs to be resolved. RoyLeban (talk) 13:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@RoyLeban: Actually, if I am correct, you are framing this as a fundamental policy issue that comes before the content/sourcing questions that have been discussed extensively on this talk page. So I now think that going to the content discussion boards NPOVN BLPN ORN RSN would not address the specific concern you are raising. If that's correct, I think the place to discuss the policy issue would be AN. And somehow to frame the question in such a way that it does not solicit more repetition of the talk page discussion but rather focuses on your policy concern. I'd just add that, unfortunately, there were several process failures in this matter: First, the initial RfC was begun immediately after the removal of the word "allegedly" was reverted, without discussion per WP:RFCBEFORE. Then, the AN review of the dubious close of that RfC got sidetracked by a controversial comment. And the close review, instead of a de novo review of the substance, took the initial close as status-quo and found no strong consensus against it, without finding that there was strong consensus for the challenged BLP removal of "alleged". The next RfC, without addressing these issues, again took the impaired outcome as status-quo and again found no strong consensus to overturn it. The result is that the recorded RfC result has never had consensus but has been sustained, as you have noted, only by a small number of editors who have objected to changing a result that has never -- over the course of nearly six months -- had strong consensus. Anyway, I'm one of those who has walked away so I do not expect to be further inolved in this. But I did want to acknowledge your point and revise my previous comment that NORN might be appropriate for your challenge.

Also, ((Ping:RoyLeban)) to preempt any complaints about forum shopping, IDHT, etc., you could consider asking an Admin to review your proposed query before posting it at AN or even to collaborate and post the question themselves. SPECIFICO talk 15:14, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Why don't we wait about three months & then revisit this topic. Perhaps, a 3-month moratorium on this topic, should be considered. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

As Roy has explained several times, most of the editors who formerly participated here have taken their moratoria, so there needs to be some reasoned explanation of such a view. Of course you may personally choose to take 3 months off, as many of us have done. SPECIFICO talk 23:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll hang around here. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Any general moratoriums of simple discussions would seem extreme. Moratoriums on RfCs about the topic might make a bit more sense, unless there is new evidence, citations etc, but neither are likely to provide meaningful resolution for all involved. Editors may or may not agree with the current lead, but we are likely only to hear from ones that disagree, but that doesn't mean everyone else agrees. Getting answers from uninvolved editors that have more experience in understanding and applying relative policies regarding OR and RS for ALL of us seems to make the most sense. Concerned editors do need to avoid things like CANVAS, INAPPNOTE and VOTESTACK etc...By that same token, editors that disagree with them should not seek to prevent concerned editors from getting guidance and discussing new RS citations and evolutions on the subject, IMO. We must work together on this to truly find consensus. DN (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Consensus most likely will continue to be the decider on this topic, I reckon. GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that's an interesting point. Should consensus ever override Wikipedia policy? Let's bring that up at NORN and/or RSN. According to WP:DETCON...

Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.

According to WP:CON...

Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

DN (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

If you do go the NORN or RSN route. Please ping every editor who participated in the last two RFCs & the rest who've since posted about this topic, on this talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

GoodDay, that is an absurd request. What is proposed is to solicit the participation of fresh eyes on the issues that have been raised here. That is the purpose of the site-wide boards. It is not to splinter discussion among involved editors, making it incoherent. SPECIFICO talk 03:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

If the NORN or RSN route is taken? I'll ping them all, then. The more editors involved the stronger a consensus will be. GoodDay (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with making them aware, the question is are we all willing to just listen and look for new insights instead of jamming our own recycled opinions into the thread? I'll promise not to interject if no one else does. DN (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Consensus can not override policy and in two RfCs, neither Closer, one of which is an Admin, found a policy reason to reject the wording. Or we could worry about the rest of the article and accept that the well regarded, centrist source of USA Today,WP:RSP#USAToday, which not only refers to it as HB Laptop left at the repair shop but links to an extensive report, so no shorthand games or misunderstanding that they mean it,in payment linked section. Anyway, I'd say NORN bad idea as sources exist. RSN or RFC better if want to run through the sources again.

Slywriter (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, consensus cannot override policy, which is why the RfCs cannot allow us to keep an unsupported statement in the lede. You talk about wanting a 3-month moratorium. Well, it's been 28 months, and there is still not a single reliable source that provides any evidence that Hunter Biden owned a laptop that he dropped off for repair. How long must we wait before following Wikipedia policy? RoyLeban (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

RoyLeban in answer to your question, I feel the important question is whether others are willing to listen to expertise on the WP:POLICIES in question, and therefore how this question should be posed. For example, if the concern seems to be whether or not the use of the phrase "Hunter Biden's laptop" constitutes "verified RS" or if it's simply a "term of reference" we must ask if the requirement for verification and/or reliability is determined by context presenting evidence in the source material. Or, does the "frequent use" of terms like allegedly, purportedly, believed, reportedly etc...constitute an issue with policies such as WP:V and WP:RS? IMO it's not necessarily the sources that are the issue, it's how we are interpreting them in this matter, so I would tend to agree with SPECIFICO and say NORN. DN (talk) 03:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

RoyLeban Either way I think WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is an overlapping factor. DN (talk) 03:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Specfically, the English usage as a term of reference, as in Montezuma's Revenge, Pike's Peak, etc., is not identical to "that belonged to". The leap from the former to the latter is OR. SPECIFICO talk 03:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that we excise Hunter Biden's name from the article. I think the phrases "a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden that was abandoned at a Delaware computer shop" and "published a story presenting emails from the laptop" state three things for which there is not a reliable source:

1. That Hunter Biden owned a specific laptop from which a data dump was obtained
2. That it was dropped off and then abandoned at the repair shop
3. That the data dump came from that laptop

Yes, these things have been repeated many times. But they are all based on the same statements which are not reliable. What we actually have is that Mac Isaac and Rudy Giuliani have claimed these things. Mac Isaac has contradicted himself and Rudy Giuliani has shown himself to be unreliable on numerous occasions.

When these statements are in the lede of the article, it is not merely a term of reference. If the lede was clear and accurate, a reference elsewhere would not be as big a problem.

Therefore, as is the case in every cited reliable source, the phrasing should say "allegedly" or "purportedly" or the equivalent. RoyLeban (talk) 13:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Off topic side discussion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

GoodDay, do as you wish, but do not try to shut down or intimidate other editors. There is no "we" here, except for those who volunteer. "We" do not decide when others can participate or not. SPECIFICO talk 23:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Indeed. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC) FWIW Specifico. I've no desire to intimidate anyone from this topic. If it goes to RSN, etc. The more editors involved, the better. GoodDay (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC) GoodDay, the most constructive thing you can do here would be not to this page as a chat room for personal ruminations and to share your views about content and sourcing with reasoned arguments. SPECIFICO talk 17:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC) I'll keep checking in, on the general topic. Whether it continues to be held on 'this' talkpage or another one. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC) These side discussions about conduct between the two of you, (SPECIFICO, really aren't helpful and don't belong on an article talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Not really sure NORN will override something published by USA Today. RS? Maybe. Slywriter (talk) 05:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @ScottishFinnishRadish:, who closed the 'last' RFC, on this topic. Only fair, he be aware of this latest discussion. GoodDay (talk) 03:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, was this article about the authenticity of the laptop? The title suggests it has almost nothing to do with our article and only mentions the laptop in passing "Fact check: False claim that Hunter Biden paid Joe Biden $50,000 in rent for Delaware home". Seems completely inappropriate to be used as reference in the lead, IMO. DN (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Slywriter's recent edit, how exactly is this a lead worthy citation for...

In October 2020, a controversy emerged involving data from a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden that was abandoned at a Delaware computer shop.

when the only single mention of the laptop is listed as...

Payment linked to office space in Washington, D.C. Contrary to the post's claim, Hunter Biden "did not pay any member of his family rent money for any property" – including that Delaware home, a spokesperson for Hunter Biden's legal team told USA TODAY in an emailed statement. The image of the form came from the hard drive of Hunter Biden's laptop left at a repair shop in 2019, the contents of which were published by former White House Trump staffer Garrett Ziegler.

and makes no mention of "the Data" or the laptop being left at a shop, as claimed by JP Mac Isaac? DN (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

NYP image

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.

---

@SPECIFICO: can you link to the discussion that resulted in the consensus to include this image restored at [4]? VQuakr (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a really interesting claim: "The NY Post story is what set off the controversy that is the topic of this page." So you are saying that the NY Post is not a news source, that they are a political actor that set off a controversy. That completely changes everything! The page needs to change significantly to reflect this, the NY Post can no longer be cited directly as a source, etc. Before we do that, do you have a source for the NY Post being the instigators of the controversy? RoyLeban (talk) 07:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Please review the references and show where the NYPost is used as a source. Also review Wikipedia policies concerning NYPost use in political articles. And stop being obstinate about the reality of this subject, it's origin and sources. You are yet to provide anything other than generalities. If you have specifics, the start posting them instead of these rants. They are purely disruptive with nothing actionable and in this case, not even accurate. Slywriter (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the NY Post is not a direct source (see my retraction below). On the rest of what you wrote, this article (and sources) do not reflect the argument that the NY Post is a political actor here, central to the story, as opposed to just the newspaper that published the first story. I can certainly believe that is the case, but I haven't seen a source that says that (I have seen opinion pieces that say it). And as to my posting generalities, I can't make citations to sources that I don't think exist. I know there are plenty of sources that mention the NY Post, but is there one that talks about their intent? Or that it was specifically the NY Post reporting, as opposed to the fact that somebody reported it? If you have sources, one way or another, please post.

On a related note, I recommend reading the Insider article cited in footnote 37. There is an awful lot that is unbelievable in it. I know if I ran a repair shop and somebody didn't pick up something left for repair, I would clone the drive illegally, then call the FBI and Rudy Giuliani! Nothing weird there!

RoyLeban (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

If the bar was "no reason to exclude", there would be hundreds of thousands of articles with similar images. There's are good reasons that's not the case — not only does it make no sense, it's a violation of policy.

If your argument is that the NY Post is not a source but a part of the story, that is a very significant change to the article, as I stated above.

RoyLeban (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

The NYPost is not a source for this article, as it can not be by our policies. It is though where this controversy started. Slywriter (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Absolute hogwash...This all started with NYP, if not where? This claim would require an entirely new narrative which does not currently exist. Let's see your source. DN (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)(edit/strike)DN (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Shall we just remove this section then? DN (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Slywriter, I stand corrected on the use of the NY Post as a source. The NY Post is not a direct source in this article, though it is an indirect source, since many of the citations are reporting on what the NY Post published. That said, if the argument is being made that the NY Post is a key part of the story, an actor, that is still different from what this article currently says. Is their sourcing for this? RoyLeban (talk) 10:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

New York Post is mentioned fifty times despite not being a source. NY Post was unprecedentedly restricted on Social Media for this story. But sure carry on with your semantics. Slywriter (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I like the way how you take my retraction and use it as an opportunity to criticize me again. What do you want?

As to the rest, you are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to assert that your opinion is a fact, even if others agree with your opinion. RoyLeban (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

RfC: New York Post masthead image

Concerning the New York Post masthead image:

• Should an image of the New York Post's masthead be included in the article? [5]
• Should an image of the New York Post's front page be included, in place of the masthead. See here: File:NY Post Cover 10 14 2020.PNG

23:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

(replaced image with link to comply with NFCC) Slywriter (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC))fixed link and section title SPECIFICO talk 12:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Note - I added the second option, after editors had already given their input on the first option. GoodDay (talk) 08:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Poll

• Omit image, obviously, per MOS:PERTINENCE. It's decoration, devoid of encyclopedic value. VQuakr (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC) Also, omit image of front page. The cover page itself isn't the subject of this article, and it doesn't convey any additional encyclopedic information. Much better to explain what reliable secondary sources have to say about the initial coverage than splash up an information-devoid headline. Also, since the cover is copyrighted and not the subject of this article, I think it's unlikely that the image can be acceptably hosted on Wikipedia under NFCC for this article. VQuakr (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
• Omit image as I don’t see what value the New York Post Logo adds to the article. A more relevant image would be the cover page of the now infamous article. It appears to be purely decorative as the MOS page linked by VQuakr advises us to avoid.Mr Ernie (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

  Replace with actual front page as it is a much more relevant and informative image and per Slywriter. (updating comment after new option was added to RFC.) Mr Ernie (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Neutral - I've no problems with either its the masthead's inclusion 'or' exclusion. GoodDay (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm also neutral about including/excluding the NY Post front page. GoodDay (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
• Replace with actual front page and Omit otherwise. The masthead alone can be seen as purely decorative, but the front page provides educational value to readers. Slywriter (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Slywriter: By "front page" do you mean an image of the Biden Laptop story printed in the NYP? Not sure that is feasible due to fair use restrictions. If you are talking about an already freely available image, can you link it? VQuakr (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

VQuakr, I'll find the mention of it the archives in a bit, but an experienced copyright editor has weighed in previously that it can meet WP:NFCC in a conversation about it replacing lead image. I wouldn't consider that final and a separate discussion can be had on the NFCC issue but that shouldn't stop or discourage advocating as an alternative. If it can not be used and this ends in 'omit', then we have nothing and that's that. Slywriter (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

...that shouldn't stop or discourage advocating as an alternative agreed! I'm undecided on whether I'd support that proposal to add, but it certainly has more merit than the masthead. VQuakr (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

• Omit logo and Omit page image: no value. An argument could be made for the cover page/front page, but even that has little value. Plus, the cover (like almost all NY Post covers) was designed to be provocative and incendiary. Including it slants the article toward anti-Biden bias rather than encyclopedic information. To include it would require providing context, which we would have to source. We also do not have sourcing which says that the NY Post itself was significant to the story, that it matters that they were first instead of any other publisher. For example, had the NYT been first, they would not have published a provocative full-page image and headline. RoyLeban (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
• Keep If it were not for the NYP this WP article would likely not even exist. Whether or not this has WEIGHT at this point is fairly irrelevant, as many RS seemed to try to CAREFULLY tag on to it, despite it's lack of WP:V. Readers and editors alike should know and remember the NYP is where this all started, for better or worse. Too late to pretend otherwise. DN (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Darknipples: No proposals to omit mention of the NYP in this article are likely to gain traction; I certainly wouldn't support one. This query is about the image of the masthead. What is the basis in policy/MOS for keeping the image? VQuakr (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with VQuakr — it seems your argument is about mentioning the NY Post, not whether to include their logo. Nobody is proposing removing mentions of the NY Post itself. RoyLeban (talk) 10:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

• Weak omit Come back with a headline. Just having a picture of the masthead isn't particularly relevant. TheSavageNorwegian 17:56, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
• Masthead no, image of headline yes The masthead is not especially relevant. The image is relevant, meets WP:DUE, is informative, and generally makes sense. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
• Replace masthead with front page - the masthead isn't especially relevant, the front page definitely is. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
• Omit image and omit front page. I don't think it's a proper copyright exception to fair use. And I don't think it educates the reader or adds any useful context to this article. I'd rather run an image of Mac Isaac. Andre🚐 23:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
• Omit masterhead, include front page - the Masterhead doesn't really add much to the article and it's not tangibly related to the laptop controversy. On the other hand, the front page is directly about the laptop controversy, which means it can be included. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 17:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
• Weak omit of masthead. and Strong NO to image of the front page Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Remove or keep the 'laptop' image if yas want, as it's got little to do with this RFC. But, removing the disputed 'NY Post' image in the midst of this RFC, may create confusion. GoodDay (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Nipples even though I agree with your edit you have violated the sanction in place here. Please self revert and let the RFC play out. It will almost certainly end with consensus for your edit but let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Just noting that I've reverted the edit to enforce the consensus required provision. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

FWIW: I wouldn't object to more options being added to this RFC. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I've added the option of the NY Post front page, to the RFC. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I object to this. Some people have already commented and won't comment again. Their opinions and comments will not be reflective of the now current options, and are likely to be misinterpreted. You don't change the candidates after an election has started! This can be discussed later. RoyLeban (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

RoyLeban, Please self-revert your disruptive and non-neutral note that is not grounded in policy nor practice. It is neither extraordinary nor unusual to add options as this is a discussion, not a vote. Options arise, better ways come out. That's the purpose of discussion to reach consensus. Slywriter (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

One need only ping the editors-in-question, who've already participated. It wouldn't be canvassing. GoodDay (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@Callanecc:, going to need your help on this one. Is my addition of a second option (NY Post front page) into this RFC, allowable? GoodDay (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I can't see an issue with it if the editors who have already commented are notified so that they can return. I'd also recommend that you (GoodDay) make it a little clearer that your additional option was added after editors had already commented as that may affect the closer's summary of the consensus. I see RoyLeban has already done pinged the editors concerned. For the record, I agree that Roy needed to remove the note. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Done. GoodDay (talk) 08:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

In the interest of peace and harmony, I removed my note. I added it because I thought the addition of the extra option was a significant change, not just another option, and was therefore disruptive. I don't think my note was disruptive by itself, and it was neutral with respect to the issue itself. I would have had no objection had it been an original option. Given the small number of editors who have commented so far, pinging them here is sufficient.

Note to editors. Please review this RfC. An additional option has been added. VQuakr, Mr Ernie, GoodDay, Slywriter, DN, Thesavagenorwegian.

RoyLeban (talk) 04:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

This Wikipedia policy seems relevant: Manual of Style/Use of graphic logos:

Note that non-free logos should only be used in the infoboxes of the primary article(s) to which they are affiliated; i.e. a company logo may be used in the article about that company, but not in a separate article about one of the company's products.

This doesn't address the issue of a thumbnail of the cover page, but it does seem to prohibit use of the logo alone in this article.

RoyLeban (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

File:NY Post Cover 10 14 2020.PNG|thumb|Front page of NY Post that broke its story of the laptop and sparked the controversy

If that is the case would SPECIFICO's earlier edit be more appropriate? (SEE IMAGE) DN (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you make that image smaller here?

As I've said elsewhere, the cover is intentionally inflammatory — it says "BIDEN", not "Hunter Biden". It has a photo of Joe Biden, and the implication that there was wrongdoing turned out to be inaccurate, as explained within this Wikipedia article.

And it may not be fair use. The bar to include it is high.

RoyLeban (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Talk page is well-below the bar, which is why I have removed from above. And the only real WP:NFCC debate is #8, which is partially subjective. Slywriter (talk) 03:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Seeking clarification. Can the NY Post front page be used in the main article? GoodDay (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I believe this is unresolved. We could ask at WP:IMAGEHELP, though it might be best to make the decision on whether we want the cover in the article first. VQuakr (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree. If the consensus is to include the cover image, then we can worry then about whether it's allowed. If the consensus is include and it's not allowed, then we can include the headline. I think just the headline text would be better anyway because there is an opportunity to provide context, like a link to an article or page about NY Post headlines in general. It's still intentionally inflammatory, but not to the extent that the cover image is. RoyLeban (talk) 11:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

• Remove laptop image. It's not an image of the laptop alleged to have been "dropped off" at the legally-blind computer guy's computer repair store, so there is no reason to include it. From WaPo Mac Isaac is legally blind and was not able to identify Hunter Biden by sight. [6] from CBS "Mac Isaac admitted he was unable to confirm it was actually Hunter Biden who dropped off the laptop because he is "legally blind". Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Recommend another RFC be set up, for that topic. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

GoodDay, on what basis do you say that? Nobody needs an RfC to make a BOLD edit on this site, and nothing in the page restriction or the recent discussion supports your view. SPECIFICO talk 21:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm recommending it, not demanding it. If you or anybody else, wants to add the laptop image into 'this' RFC's keep/delete options, then so be it. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

That is not what anyone is suggesting. Nobody is suggesting complicating this RfC with unrelated choices. But you are again failing to answer the simple question I asked. We don't get to consensus by counting votes here. So your recommendation, if it is to be considered, needs to be supported by your rationale for arriving at that point of view. SPECIFICO talk 21:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I've opened up a separate discussion, on whether or not the 'laptop image' should remain or be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

So for the third time you have failed to explain why you declared your recommendation to launch an RfC. I will comment further to you on my talk page. SPECIFICO talk 21:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@BetsyRMadison:, as you've suggested deleting the laptop image? I've begun a discussion on that very topic. See further down the talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I believe you are mistaken, I did not initiate a discussion on deleting the laptop image. All I did was answer the question in your discussion topic below. All I did was answer a question someone else had asked regarding it. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

No prob. Feel free to give your input to the discussion that I've opened. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 15 February 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.

Regarding today's Kessler story

"The Hunter Biden laptop and claims of 'Russian disinfo'"[7]

"Most readers don't realize that those who write stories, the reporters, seldom write their own headlines. They may suggest headlines, but more often space needs or other considerations force an editor to fashion something different."[8]

We may never know who wrote the bad headline. soibangla (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

This is not some unknowable great mystery of life. All it would take is a few actual journalists just digging in a bit. Has anyone asked Politico? I bet the author of the headline probably remembers writing it. And why the sudden need to question this now, instead of right after the article dropped? Clapper appeared countless times on tv to discuss this topic, and I never heard him try to correct the “bad headline” until now. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

“In fact, the letter mainly argues that Russia may have had a role in obtaining and disseminating Hunter Biden’s emails — which could mean as little as Russian bots spreading awareness on social media.” How can Kessler write this with any sense of professional pride in his role as the fact-checker for the Post? Mr Ernie (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Washington Post article on Republican hearings

This Washington Post article on the Republican attempt to prove the social media collusion reports that, basically, the opposite is happening. E.g.:

“I am aware of no unlawful collusion with, or direction from, any government agency or political campaign on how Twitter should have handled the Hunter Biden laptop situation,” said former Twitter deputy general counsel James Baker, who previously worked for the FBI. Baker added that he didn’t recall ever speaking with the FBI about the matter.

Both former Twitter senior director Yoel Roth and former chief legal officer Vijaya Gadde testified that they recalled no interactions with the FBI about it.

There's much more. It seems like this should be included in the article and, to the extent that the testimony in Congress undercuts the speculation in the Social Media section, it should be revised.

RoyLeban (talk) 09:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure there's some material to be found, but what speculation in the Social Media section is undercut and needs to be revised?

Baker and Roth are not independent sources, at best their statements can be attributed and stated they were given under oath.

WaPo's own assessment of no evidence of collusion could be useful though.

FBI/US Government is mentioned in "Social Media reactions" but its only Zuckerberg's own words and the Intercept report on the lawsuit. If I'm missing a paragraph, please point it out.

Slywriter (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Laptop image. Should it remain or be deleted.

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.

---

I don't know if an RFC is required or a local consensus being reached will do. But, I'll start the conversation 'here'. Should we keep the 'laptop image' or delete it? GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

One thing media has done an atrocious job of explaining is that a laptop did indeed exist as the focus quickly shifts to the copies of said laptop made on external hard drives by Issac. So to the extent that it help makes clear to the reader that a physical laptop exists, it's useful. Slywriter (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Slywriter:, I disagree & here's why: The image of the laptop in the article is not the laptop that is alleged to have been dropped off by Hunter, so is not a 'subject' of the article. Also to put a picture of a different laptop owned by Hunter is WP:OR & WP:NOTTRUTH. Best wishes~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I actually uploaded the laptop image, thinking it was the subject of the article; only later did I learn it wasn't. I'd support getting rid of it. Feoffer (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

The media hasn't explained that the "laptop did indeed exist" because it hasn't been proven. It's been more than two years, and still no proof has been shown, despite the lede of this article. If the FBI has proof, they haven't shared it. A photo of some other laptop has no value and implies something that we all know isn't true. Remove it. RoyLeban (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:DROPTHESTICKSlywriter (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

You know, people are saying that a lot. The stick that needs to be dropped is the argument that the lede in the article doesn't need to be sourced properly, along with the argument that because the article currently has an unsourced statement, it should remain. Over two years and no actual evidence. Look at the history of this article and this talk page. Over and over again, a few editors are blocking the article from being fixed. There will be another RfC and I am confident it will reach the correct conclusion that Wikipedia policy actually matters. RoyLeban (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Much better to have a fair use image of Mac Isaac, who has been quite public going on TV and to court to tell his point of view and clear his good name. SPECIFICO talk 22:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I think that's a great idea!! BetsyRMadison (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed! Great idea! Feoffer (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Just to make sure we stick to facts, saying Mac Isaac is "clearing his good name" is an opinion, not a fact. For all we know, he's a part of a disinformation campaign (it seems more and more likely). At best, we know that he has contradicted himself, so it is not possible that everything he says is true. Given that he is an active participant in whatever's going on, I don't object to having his image in the article. RoyLeban (talk) 10:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not my opinion. He says it on TV. I believe there are archives of his TV appearances widely available. He does indded go on TV to clear his good name. He says so. His attorney says so. SPECIFICO talk 13:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. The way you write it above was not attributed to Mac Isaac, it was written as if it were a fact. Were that statement in the article, it would have to be clear that he says he is aiming to "clear his good name," not that he is actually doing so, attempting to do so, or succeeding at doing so. His statements, and his attorney's statements, are not facts. RoyLeban (talk) 11:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but if you'll review my message, it refers to him going on TV to clear his name, which indicates that was his purpose and his intention. So I think "Mac's good name" is not the same as "Hunter's laptop", if that's what you're driving at. At any rate, there are lots of good images that have been published and republished by other websites as fair use, so I think they would qualify as fair use in this article as well. SPECIFICO talk 13:48, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The legal justification for fair use in the "real world" is more permissive than the fair use criteria used on Wikipedia. There's no valid fair use rationale for an image of Mac Isaac because a freely licensed image could reasonably be obtained (NFCC1). VQuakr (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Please provide the free use image you have found. Mission accomplished! SPECIFICO talk 18:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I acknowledge and accept your attempt in phrasing. I don't agree that it is crystal clear. Should we say something like that in the article, it should be crystal clear. RoyLeban (talk) 06:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm neutral on keeping or deleting the 'laptop image'. But (IMHO) we shouldn't add the 'Mac Isaac image'. Anyways, whatever the consensus turns out to be on this discussion? I hope the result will be respected. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

RFC or not?

Seeking advice: Should this discussion be made into an RFC? Would it in anyway contradict the current RFC about the NY Post? GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

It's been a week since I've opened this discussion, so might as well contact the rest who've participated in it. @Slywriter:, @Feoffer:, @RoyLeban: & @VQuakr:, I think it's time to declare a consensus, one way or the other & then hat this discussion. IMHO, expanding this to an RFC isn't warranted. GoodDay (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

GoodDay: Just self-revert your reinsertion of the image that nobody wants to see in the article. And in the future, do not make an automatic revert of a bold edit when there is no objection from anyone and you yourself have no reason to support your reinstatement. SPECIFICO talk 03:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Wait until we hear from the others. If a consensus of deletion is reached? then I'll delete the image. GoodDay (talk) 03:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• No the image of a laptop that has nothing to do with the article is of zero value. Therefore, an RFC over something that already has zero value will render the RFC a complete waste of time. Best regards~

BetsyRMadison (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• No There's no support for the laptop image. It has nothing to do with this article, since it is not the laptop. If you hadn't knee-jerk reinstated it after my removal, lots of volunteer time and attention could have been devoted to more productive uses than this silly thread. SPECIFICO talk 00:13, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• No From what I understand, the image is not of the SUPPOSED laptop owned by HB, and is of a different laptop, therefore it has no real place in the article. Using this image would probably confuse readers even more than they already are by this article, and further mislead our readers into thinking that the image is of the laptop PURPORTED to belong to HB, even though there still is no RS showing evidence the hardware, currently in possession by the FBI, actually belonged to him. An RFC would not change this very important fact. DN (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm planning on going ahead & deleting the image-in-question, since there's been no objections to doing so. If there are objections? I suspect we'll all know via my deletion getting reverted. Administrator @Callanecc:, shall it be alright to 'delete'? GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

You should not have reinserted it without reason to begin with. It was a waste of time. Please think twice about such reverts in the future when you are not prepared to provide any reason for it. SPECIFICO talk 01:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Why? What is the need to needlessly antagonize, not once, but twice here? It's disruptive."Slywriter (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Slywriter:, "Disruptive"?? I disagree with what you say the disruption has been. In my view, putting that fake-image back into the article's page has been "disruptive," and a complete waste of time. I don't think it was an intentional disruption, but it has been a disruption and it did not improve the article, but rather, it made the article worse - therefore, sadly, it's been a waste of wiki editor's time & thus disruptive. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 02:10, 24 February 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.

How do we fix the lede?

The not-so-helpful archiving bot has made it look like much of the unresolved discussion of fixing the lede to the article never happened. Sad. I've updated the bot to archive at 60 days instead of 30. Perhaps it should be 90.

We still need to fix the article. An opinion piece in today's Washington Post is yet another example that could be cited to allow the unsourced lede: " The contents of one of his laptops, revealed in 2020.... Yet, this is just a tangential reference, not evidence (even ignoring the fact that it's an opinion piece). A closer look at the linked-to article makes it clear (emphasis mine): Thousands of emails purportedly from the laptop computer and ...which Hunter reportedly dropped off.... Yeah, that news article is a year old, but the WaPo has had a year to update it if they believed those qualifying words are inaccurate, and they haven't. The fact is that no reputable news organization has put forth actual, reliable evidence of either of those statements, and, to this day, 28 months after the supposed laptop was supposedly "discovered", no reputable organization will say absolutely that either of those statements is true. Yet, this article does. It is a clear violation of Wikipedia policies on required, reliable sources, verifiability and original research. Unfortunately, some editors do not see it this way, so there is a stalemate.

I would like an informal vote on the best way to resolve this. As others have noted, an RfC is not the right way to do this. While it may be useful to bring back editors who have been driven away, this dispute is about Wikipedia policy, not opinion or politics. Please respond below with your preference(s) and suggestions. The candidates that have been suggested by various people are are:

• Administrators' noticeboard (AN)
• No original research/Noticeboard (NORN)
• Reliable sources/Noticeboard (RSN)
• Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard (BLPN)
• Neutral point of view/Noticeboard (NPOVN)

If you want to respond to say that the unsourced claim shouldn't be questioned, please save everybody time and skip it. Same goes for using this space to debate the issue itself. This review is happening. The question here is what is the best place to do get the policy violations reviewed.

Thank you.

05:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC) RoyLeban (talk) 05:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

AN, NORN, or RSN: At the moment, I'm neutral between these three places, with a slight lean toward AN. I think BLPN and NPOVN are largely irrelevant. 05:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC) RoyLeban (talk) 05:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Off topic side discussion. RoyLeban (talk) 07:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

This is an off-topic side discussion: Roy, the lead is not unsourced. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK. You may use any combination of these sources to satisfy yourself. "The existence of emails about getting Buckley Carlson into Georgetown has been known for some time, thanks to a laptop once owned by Hunter Biden that was obtained by Donald Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and pushed to media in 2020." from the Guardian. "Further details about those activities were found in documents obtained from a hard drive in a laptop Hunter once owned. from the Financial Times. Republican lawmakers and their staff for the past year have been analyzing messages and financial transactions found on a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden. from PBS. From The Guardian, which states House Republicans and their staff have been studying messages and financial transactions found on a now notorious laptop that belonged to Hunter. Or the Washington Post's fact checker Glenn Kessler who wrote about content plucked from the hard drive of his laptop left behind for repair in a Delaware shop in April 2019. Or USA Today which says The image of the form came from the hard drive of Hunter Biden's laptop left at a repair shop in 2019, the contents of which were published by former White House Trump staffer Garrett Ziegler. Or another USA Today piece which says The laptop’s legitimacy has since been confirmed by CBS News, but the contents remain under investigation. Or from CNN, who writes The move comes after attorneys for Hunter Biden recently embraced a more aggressive strategy to push back against attacks from Republicans. Last month, his attorneys fired off a spate of letters urging state and federal agencies to investigate several individuals involved in disseminating the contents of his laptop, which has been the basis for a slew of GOP attacks. This should be enough sourcing. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC) The line The laptop’s legitimacy has since been confirmed by CBS News caught my attention because I hadn't heard that before. Then I clicked on the link in the USA Today story to CBS News to find that it says Copy of Hunter Biden laptop data appears genuine, independent experts find (emphasis added). That is lazy journalism by USA Today. It's nothing new, at least some of the data appears genuine, but the laptop itself is still of unknown provenance. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC) (The video in that CBS News story isn't playing for me, though, so if it says something else, that'd be good to know. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)) It may be lazy journalism, or it may be USA Today accepting the CBS News reporting as solid enough to use the wording they (USA Today) chose. It doesn't really matter either way, since we are free to use text that appears in reliable sources. It might be that all 8 of these sources above are being lazy. But we've had 2 RFC's that thoroughly examined this issue, and the consensus in both of them was that we can accept the wording of these sources. I think I'll step away from this conversation now and let some new participants take part. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC) I'm going to step away too, because I've said my piece, other than to reiterate that I still disagree with that consensus and think we need to be much more small-c conservative in writing about the ownership of the laptop. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC) I don't see any of the large number of dissenting editors returning here for another round of name-calling and empty condescention. For that, we can just watch the Jim Jordan hearings on C-SPAN. In the end, Roy, I'm confident this encyclopedia is not going to hang its hat on Buckley Carlson, no matter how many times he's namechecked. In the not too distant future, the problem will be resolved, but I don't see anything that can be done to hasten that. SPECIFICO talk 20:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC) One point to remember, Muboshgu, is that per my comment last week above there was only one time that a (dubious) consensus was found for "that belonged to..." All the other rounds assumed that belonged to was settled conseensus and merely found noaffirmative consensus to reverse it. That's how we end up with non-consensus text in the article. It would be just as well if we do not echo the claims of "consensus", "multiple-RfC's decided", etc. It's a settled issue for now, but it's not consensus. SPECIFICO talk 20:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC) This topic has been beaten to death many times. The RFC consensus should still stand. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC) That does not appear to be responsive to the point of OP's post. How does this relate to the question OP asked? SPECIFICO talk 23:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Seems to me, there's still attempts to deny that the laptop ever belonged to Hunter Biden. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC) That is not the subject of this thread. SPECIFICO talk 23:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC) I hope you're right about it not being the subject of this thread. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC) The sooner you stop responding, the sooner the discussion dies down. I think SPECIFICO, had the right of it, it's settled for now, and will come up again when the status quo in the media changes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Very well. I trust your observation. GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Not to beat the dead horse some more, but since you brought it up I am still baffled that Wiki is essentially taking JP Mac Issac at his word and putting it into wiki-voice. We'll see where the lawsuits go, but I don't expect the FBI to release their results on authenticity anytime soon. We'll see how well this gamble plays out. DN (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Or follow the sources:CNBC and CNN. Two more where it's Hunter Biden's laptop. At this point, these constant threads of contemplation are disruptive and have been for months. Make a move or WP:DROPTHESTICK.Slywriter (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Ah yes, 2 more articles not about the authenticity of the hardware. Didn't see that one coming...DN (talk) 05:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie, @GoodDay, @Slywriter, you ignored what I wrote and started another useless debate, repeating the same arguments that have been well discussed (and refuted) elsewhere. @Muboshgu, @SPECIFICO, @ScottishFinnishRadish, and @Darknipples, thank you for trying to be voices of reason, but that repetitious side discussion should just go away. I will not be responding and I encourage you to do likewise. I have collapsed it into an off-topic section so the actual discussion here will not be disrupted. (If somebody really wants to repeat the same arguments, feel free to start a new section.)

A policy review is happening. There is nothing in Wikipedia policy that allows an editor to block a review of possible policy violations because they disagree. It would be like allowing guilty people to block trials because they assert that they are innocent. If any editor would like to discuss which is the best place to have such a review, please do so. Please do not be disruptive by arguing against a review. Thank you.

RoyLeban (talk) 07:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The best way to resolve this is to do nothing and focus on improving some other aspect of the encyclopedia, because there is no issue here. It's not against policy to follow the consensus resulting from multiple RfCs, and nor is a change in policy needed because those RfCs didn't go your way. We do not additional discussion of an issue which has been discussed thousands of times before. Endwise (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Endwise, this is an off-topic response. You may disagree that a review of possible policy violations should take place, but you cannot block it. The very fact that you disagree is yet another reason why a review is necessary. Neither RfCs nor consensus are a reason to violate Wikipedia policy. Also, it is inappropriate to suggest to any editor that they should contribute somewhere else rather than a place they have chosen to contribute to. You are free to contribute where you want and so is every other editor. If you wish to contribute to this discussion, the way to do so is to comment above on the best place for the review to take place, not argue that the discussion should not happen. Thank you. RoyLeban (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not "blocking" anything, I'm offering my opinion on what the right course of action is for the disagreements you have regarding the progression of consensus on the lead. I don't think there needs to be any further, external, "meta" discussion about this, but if you do choose to open up a 10th NPOVN/AN thread I'm not going to stop you. Additionally, it wouldn't be much of a discussion if you thought it's only appropriate for people to comment if they agree with you on what the right course of action is. Endwise (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Lawsuits

• Washington Post: Hunter Biden sues laptop repair shop owner, citing invasion of privacy

TLDR, last year, Mac Isaac sued Hunter (and a bunch of others including Adam Schiff, CNN and Politico, and the Biden campaign), alleging defamation over things they said about him/the laptop. Yesterday, Hunter countersued Mac Isaac, alleging invasion of his privacy. Hunter is seeking a jury trial to determine compensatory and punitive damages.

Where should this go? I was going to go add this in but there's no section at the moment where it really fits. It probably warrants its own section, but given how hotly contested this article is I don't want to go messing with it too unilaterally. Endwise (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

BRD is still allowed, I'd have to check but I think you just can't un-revert, it would have to go to the talk page after the first revert. Feel free it's RS as far as I can tell. DN (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Hunter Biden laptop controversy#Lawsuits. Endwise (talk) 12:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Hunter Biden's lawsuit is more evidence the lede should be fixed

A new Washington Post article today (March 17) makes it crystal clear that Hunter Biden has not affirmed that either there is an actual laptop or that the laptop is his, only acknowledging that some of the data is his (emphasis mine below):

Hunter Biden does not concede in his lawsuit that he dropped off the laptop, received an invoice or neglected to pick it up. In response to such claims by Mac Isaac, the filing states, “Mr. Biden is without knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the allegations.”

But he does acknowledge that some of the data that has been released publicly belongs to him, and concedes that Mac Isaac could have obtained it in April 2019.

“This is not an admission by Mr. Biden that Mac Isaac (or others) in fact possessed any particular laptop containing electronically stored data belonging to Mr. Biden,” the filing says. “Rather, Mr. Biden simply acknowledges that at some point, Mac Isaac obtained electronically stored data, some of which belonged to Mr. Biden.”

Hunter Biden argues that if even Mac Isaac did have his unclaimed laptop, Delaware law would have restricted his ability to access or distribute the data on it.

. . .

The data alleged to have come from the laptop has been the subject of intense scrutiny dating from stories that the New York Post published just before the 2020 election.

. . .

The new filing on Friday is the latest evidence that Hunter Biden has adopted a new legal strategy after years of largely keeping quiet about the laptop and the contents it purportedly contained.

The article also discusses other possible sources of the laptops and hard drives, though not in a way that I would consider evidentiary by itself.

This is yet another clear indication that the lede in the article must change. We are putting in wiki voice a statement which is both unsourced and actively disputed by Hunter Biden and his lawyers. This alone should be sufficient to fix the lede. If you respond here, please confine yourself to this point and this point only, rather than repeating arguments that have been made (and refuted) elsewhere. Thank you.

00:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC) RoyLeban (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

His statement should be covered as WP:MANDY is nonsense, but it's not a unequivocal denial. Nor would it change the fact set around the lack of 'alleged' in the lede if it were.

Slywriter (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Who brought up WP:MANDY? Anyway, I thought the position of HB's legal team was already in the article. Should it be in the lead? Possibly...There are plenty of RS that are specifically about the laptop's authenticity, but most of them use words that editors around here don't seem to approve of.DN (talk) 03:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The FBI seized the physical laptop in December 2019 that previously belonged to Hunter Biden. The FBI has the laptop they seized it from the repair shop where he dropped it off, why are people still disputing it was Hunter Biden's laptop? Yodabyte (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

More accurately, it has been reported that the FBI seized a laptop that allegedly belonged to Hunter Biden. The FBI has not confirmed that, nor has Hunter Biden.

It is not a matter of whether I or any editor on Wikipedia is disputing whether it was Hunter Biden's laptop. Our opinions are irrelevant. The issue is that there is no reliable source for it. Sources that refer to it with a term like "Hunter Biden's laptop," like the title of this article, are not sources for the statement. RoyLeban (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The continued claim of no sources is verifiably false. However if you wish to have finality, then proceed to a noticeboard already instead of continuing your months long disruption of this talk page based on your personal interpretation of policy, which has grinded to halt any attempts to improve this page. Slywriter (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

How exactly is it "grinding to a halt any attempts" to improve the page? There have been lots of edits, changes and improvements since this all started. Those that wish not to participate in this particular discussion are absolutely free to make any and all other changes as they wish inside of the rules and consensus, but what would grind things to a halt are moratoriums and sanctions against discussions and making changes, as other editors have suggested. DN (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with DN — nothing I have said or done has affected any attempts by any editor from improving the page elsewhere.

When you write "The continued claim of no sources is verifiably false," can you point to a single citation which is actually about the ownership of the laptop? It has to be one that doesn't use words like "allegedly," "supposedly," or "purportedly". And it can't be one that merely uses the phrase "Hunter Biden's laptop" or "a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden." Those phrases don't prove anything, just like sources that merely use the phrase "stolen election" are not sources asserting that an election was actually stolen. I've been asking for this for quite some time, and nobody has produced such a source. If it's so easy to verify, where's the source? RoyLeban (talk) 04:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Lev Parnas: entire thing could be a Russian operation

I realize this isn't a reliable source Hunter Biden's Laptop: BOMBSHELL Accusations Shed Light on Trump's Plot to Obtain Kompromat, but it's pretty interesting. There's a 10-hour recording of a conversation from yesterday (March 20) in which Lev Parnas says some pretty interesting things, but who has time to listen to that? Hopefully, a transcript will be produced. If what Parnas says (according to the article) is true, it could blow this whole article up.

RoyLeban (talk) 05:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Lev knows a lot he might be reluctant to share due to his legal matters, among maybe other considerations. He was right there with Rudy, diGenova, Toensing, Firtash et al. He was kinda cast aside once he got in trouble. But hey, hard to say. Maybe he should testify under oath to somebody. soibangla (talk) 06:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Little info on contents of laptop

Is there actually so little information regarding the emails content?

From the current version (as of 2023 March 24th) there is but a single sentence ("big guy" one) which suggests anything.

The section mentioning the Washington Post Editorial Board where they talk about "the use of the President's name" seems to come out of nowhere, unless it's exclusively limited to the previous sentence. 191.115.109.143 (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Image of John Paul Mac Isaac

Since editors from the last RfC feel it is worth putting JP Mac Isaac's claim into Wikivoice in the first sentence in the lead, it would be appropriate to have JP Mac Issac's image in here as well per WP:WEIGHT. As to whether or not Hunter Biden's image is as important, more or less, is a matter for further discussion. After all, without Mac Isaac's claim, there would be no controversy, and no article. DN (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Laptop abandoned at Mac Isaac's place?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=1147147049&diffmode=source

well now it is, since it was reverted, but consensus wasn't required to add it. so let's talk about it. soibangla (talk) 04:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

You are a bit late to the party, or you may not have been paying much attention to the TP here. Have you looked at the previous discussions? DN (talk) 04:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Please elaborate on what I've purportedly missed. If I've missed something, I will readily acknowledge it. I'm sure we all know there's been a lot of discussion about this article, so maybe I missed that something has been established as consensus. soibangla (talk) 05:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The claim that Biden abandoned the laptop is extremely controversial. The language asserting that a laptop containing Biden's data was abandoned is the result of extensive discussion. Feoffer (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

This edit is now the subject of an enforcement complaint. SPECIFICO talk 17:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, it's a proposed addition that can be discussed. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Saying that the laptop was abandoned at the shop is clearly WP:BLP sensitive (and, based on my knowledge of what's known and what isn't, simply isn't backed by the sources - the fact that the laptop's chain of custody is unknown is a major aspect of the entire topic), so I do think that at a bare minimum we need at least one WP:BLP-quality source saying so unambiguously. Do we have one? Without that the default would be to remove the sentence in question entirely, unless we can reach a consensus on a rewrite that avoids the BLP issue. --Aquillion (talk) 09:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no RS that verifies that any laptop was dropped off and abandoned at Mac's place. We have only the stories of Trump operatives and visually troubled Mac Isaac. Without solid RS for this it cannot be stated in Wiki-voice as fact. Soibangla's edit was necessary and sufficient to convey what RS verify and should be reinstated. SPECIFICO talk 12:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Abandoned has generally been considered the better word to use because the laptop was obviously never picked back up.

From Glenn Kessler, WaPo Factchecker: a photo of a rental application by Hunter Biden, plucked from the hard drive of his laptop left behind for repair in a Delaware shop in April 2019.

Or USA Today's FactCheck: The image of the form came from the hard drive of Hunter Biden's laptop left at a repair shop in 2019, the contents of which were published by former White House Trump staffer Garrett Ziegler.

NYT wrote Those emails were obtained by The New York Times from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop.

From what appears to be an ABC affiliate Fact Check: This dates back to October of 2020 when the contents of Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop were released to the public and Republicans have had their eyes on him ever since.

Previous discussions mostly found consensus to not try to claim who dropped it off, as the only one who has ever said someone dropped it off was the shop owner, who said it was Hunter Biden. I've just browsed through the archives and I haven't found anyone who really disputes that the laptop was abandoned. In fact, just a few weeks ago SPECIFICO even once proposed this text In October 2020, a controversy emerged involving data from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden that was abandoned at a Delaware computer shop.It began with a NY Post article based on data the newspaper obtained from Rudy Giuliani. in this section. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I think we've focused way more on whether or not it was Hunter's laptop rather than how it got to that repair shop. I don't think we can say it was abandoned by Hunter, just that Mac Isaac said it was Hunter. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The current phrasing of the first sentence likely leads readers into a bad syllogism:

• the laptop belonged to Hunter ✓

• the laptop was abandoned ✓

• therefore, Hunter abandoned the laptop — um...no? soibangla (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

And, @Muboshgu: to your point, Mac Isaac went out of his way to hedge the assertion with his visual impairment. I think too, that editors have agreed that it is the files themselves that are the significant factor in all the subsequent brouhaha or -- if one thinks anyone really cares -- the "controversy" surrounding the laptop. All we really have verified is that the FBI removed a laptop from Mac Isaac's shop. SPECIFICO talk 18:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Is Tablet Mag RS?

This piece was recently published by Tablet Mag and contains a section on the Hunter Biden laptop. It uses much stronger language than we are used to seeing, saying:

The laptops are real. The FBI has known this since 2019, when it first took possession of them. When the New York Post attempted to report on them, dozens of the most senior national security officials in the United States lied to the public, claiming the laptops were likely part of a Russian “disinformation” plot. Twitter, Facebook, and Google, operating as fully integrated branches of the state security infrastructure, carried out the government’s censorship orders based on that lie. The press swallowed the lie and cheered on the censorship.

The very long article is billed as "news" but seems to have an opinion slant to it. Tablet doesn't have an entry at RSN but I have seen it cited in other articles. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks like WP:RSOPINION material. Slywriter (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)