Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Collection of current issues, and Attempt to resolve

Ownership, and controversy, and redundancy, oh my....

There are clearly a lot of concerns being raised here, and I'm seeing some issues bleeding into what should've been focused discussions of other issues. Any progress made this way will continue to be either glacially slow, or nonexistent. In trying to sort it all out, it seems to me that the discussion here should be broadened in some way.

Collection of concerns

Let me try to distill some of the concerns here (both old and new), without commenting on if they're right or wrong. May anyone feel free to add items to this list in an effective manner:

Common issues

Concerns shared by more than 1-2 editors:

1. Saying that Hunter owned the laptop should not be done. It is a BLP violation, it is not fully accepted by all RS, and we don't definitively know it to be true
2. Qualifying Hunter's ownership of the laptop, or saying that it's in doubt, should not be done. Various RS report it as his, all of which were reviewed and discussed in the recent RFC.
3. The redundancy in the lead (a la "The Hunter Biden laptop controversy involves a laptop and Hunter Biden...") is terrible. We should write it better than that.

Proposed issues

Concerns brought up by at least 1 editor. We don't have to discuss these unless more people agree. If you share a concern here, make it known in a list below it, and it'll be considered a common issue:

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

Discussion II

Please discuss anything about this thread below this section. I think the issues should remain clear and visible until they can be "settled." Even then, linking to a discussion would be better than removing them from the list, or cluttering the list with summaries or closes.

Common issue #1

Why is it a BLP violation to say that Hunter Biden owned the laptop? BLP says that material must be verifiable, which you admit it is. In fact, it violates BLP to suggest the laptop may not have belonged to him, since it is an unsourced claim. TFD (talk) 04:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Common issue #3

finally, my point in all of this...

Surtsicna makes a good point - the redundancy isn't great. In reviewing other articles about similar controversies - also in AmPol, generally sparked by 1 event/report - it seems that most leads of these articles function as a summary of (in order) what happened, and why it was controversial. Articles I looked at here here here here and here.

In that regard, I'd support a similarly-structured lead. This version by SPECIFICO starts off well, I think. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to screw things up. I really thought you had used the wrong URL, as your link isn't a diff. Your link has no informational value as it doesn't show what change SPECIFICO made, only the final result. One cannot compare the new version with the old version using that link. In this case that is important. My real diff gave that information. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Your link has no informational value is wrong. it doesn't show what change SPECIFICO made, only the final result is right. My aim was to compare that revision of the lead to the existing articles I linked, to note the similarity of starting off with a dated event. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

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

User:PhotogenicScientist, what is the BLP issue? TFD (talk) 05:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't expressing that concern in my voice - only listing it in my attempt to collect concerns PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Another 'kinda new' discussion? As if things on this talkpage isn't already spinning into chaos. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• Procedural Question so what do we do about the status of the lead until this RFC ends? Currently there's a new version in there that hasn't been discussed anywhere before. I think process wise the correct thing to do is revert back to the current consensus version (the one from the RFC a few weeks ago). Thoughts? Mr Ernie (talk) 20:52, December 7, 2022‎ (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: IMHO, restore the consensus lead, that was established by the last RFC. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie Seconded to reverting to a post-RFC version, for now. Which anyone is within rights to do, even per the 1RR restriction: "Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions."

I think this version would be the closest fit. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

An admin at BLPN has clarified that the old text was a BLP violation. Reinsertion at this point would absolutely constitute a behavior problem. Feoffer (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

An administrator 'here', seems to have said it's alright to restore the status quo ante. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

You are mistaken. No admin has the authority to authorize you to commit a BLP violation, as will be discovered if the text is readded. What was said in no way is meant to encourage you to disregard BLPN. Feoffer (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

If enough editors want the status quo ante restored, it will be restored & there'll be nothing you can do about it. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you've been misinformed about Wikipedia policy, but I can promise you, the admins and the foundation and the courts will not allow us to publish unsourced contentious claims about living people. I understand how you've been led to believe that we all vote on reality, publish our best guess on reality, and ever-after abide by the vote, but that's just not how we work -- you can't publish unsourced contentious claims about living people in the United States. It's not up to me, it's not up to the admins, it's not even up to the foundation. I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just telling you reality. Feoffer (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

I'd do the same, Mr Ernie. But having Feoffer revert me twice already, is quite frustrating enough. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

If you're referring to Masem's comment in this thread, I have seen them refer to this discussion as BLP matter, and I have seen them opine that it would be "inappropriate" to present the ownership as fact (yet admit that there is no policy-based reason for this). What I haven't seen is a clear labeling of this as a BLP violation, or a guarantee of action/enforcement against the content.

Masem, if I've misunderstood anything, or if there is an actionable rule against referring to the laptop as belonging to Hunter, please clarify. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

It is a BLP matter as some weak sources (like Fox News) want to assert the laptop belonged to Hunter and that its content showed possibly illegal or at least politically inappropriate actions that Hunter, and via relation, Joe Biden have done to interfere with the 2020 election. No, there is no evidence of such but that a parody the whole story is the believe that BLPs have done something wrong make it a clear BLP issue, as we cannot make it appear they have done anything illegL per BLPCRIME, despite the table thumping Fox does. Masem (t) 22:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

What Fox News sources? The issue has nothing to do with the contents of the laptop, only that it belonged to Biden. The sources are presented in the RFC - no Fox News. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm saying in broad terms, that Fox News and the farther-right sources all are thumping on their believe that the laptop - both ownership and contents - are a smoking gun related election interference. Obviously we are not using those sources, but we should be aware that that is a significant part of why this story is anything, hence why we have to be careful around the BLP implications until we have a complete, verified picture of the whole situation. Masem (t) 20:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. Let me be more clear: Would it be a BLP violation to state in this article that the laptop in question belonged to Hunter Biden? (keep in mind, a fairly comprehensive list of RS and what they say about it was compiled here during the RFC).

I'm not concerned at the moment with any alleged crimes or unethical behavior (none of that is really under discussion right now, mainly for reasons you mentioned). PhotogenicScientist (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

When I look at those sources in the RFC, I get a mixed message, that some sources think it is the case, some others of similar reputation think it is not, but are less skeptical that it could have been Hunter's. Because part of the story is that material on the laptop is purported to be incriminating, we should be taking cautionary steps as to the ownership since this is not yet a fully-agreed on stance in the RSes. Thus, saying the laptop was Hunter's in Wikivoice is wrong and a BLP problem. Masem (t) 21:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

since this is not yet a fully-agreed on stance in the RSes This is where you lose me. By all readings of policy, I'm not sure from where you draw this conclusion. WP:DUE, from the policy on neutrality, requires that "articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." On the converse, WP:PUBLICFIGURE, from WP:BLP itself, states "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."

THAT is the criteria for blocking potentially libelous claims or allegations from being included - that it should be attested to my a multitude of RS. Which we have.

Honestly, I wish you would back up your reading of WP policy with links to actual policy. I want to understand here. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I think you are exactly correct - and the change to "data" fixes that problem, IMO. We have plenty of time to get into the implausible origin story and the mixing of unauthenticated and known-bogus data later. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Masem requesting further clarification above provided PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Masem, saying Hunter Biden owned the laptop is not a BLP issue because owning a laptop is not an offense under the U.S. Code or under the statutes of Deleware. And no evidence has been provided that any crimes might have been committed by what was found on the laptop. And even if there were, prosecutors would still have to proof that the evidence was not planted. The mainstream news media have attorneys who check what they publish and they have decided that they can say the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden without fear of action for defamation. TFD (talk) 05:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

It is 100% a BLP issue because around the story it is claimed there have been activities related to BLP (including Hunter Biden) that may or may not be illegal. Just because no crimes have been determined yet, it is the attitude of those news orgs and politicians fighting on the story (eg NY Post, Fox News, many GOP, Elon Musk, etc.) that keeps it fully in the BLP realm. Until there is a crystal clear picture of the laptop, who had owned it, why it ended up there, and that there is nothing incriminating around the laptop's contents and the events around it, it should be treated as a BLP. It is in the same manner that while Pizzagate is fully a fabrication of the right-wing news media, it still involved the lives of the people claimed to be in it, and thus was a BLP issue at the start. Masem (t) 14:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

TFD, that's a facile denial of the issue that's the core of this "controversy". Similarly, it's not illegal to own bear spray, but it's illegal to discharge it in the face of a police officer. It's not illegal to own a lace doily, but it is a crime to use one to suffocate the neighbor's pet cat. SPECIFICO talk 16:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

IMHO, leave it as is, as it's more accurate. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@El C: & @Awilley: it appears that Feoffer is suggesting that the status quo ante can't be restored 'nor' option 1 (if chosen by TFD's RFC) can't be adopted, because of BLPN. What's exactly going on? GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I have restored the RFC version until a new consensus emerges. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The RFC did not endorse any one version. Your rationale for reverting is inappropriate. (This isn't a minor point; it's important that RFCs only establish exactly what they conclude or we risk running into Motte-and-bailey problems where the answer to a simpler question is used as if it answers a more difficult one.) The RFC only justifies removing "alleged" or phrasing that fundamentally means the same thing. --Aquillion (talk) 07:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Myself & a lot of other editors disagree with your assessment, Aquillion. Mr. Ernie's restoration was the correct move. GoodDay (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeing "a lot" of other editors. Nor am I seeing good-faith engagement with an important point about BLP. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm seeing a continuing effort to create doubt that HB ever owned the laptop. GoodDay (talk) 14:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Aquillion:, it looks like we may have a potential Win-Win compromise taking shape, with at least ten editors signed on. Could you also support this as an improvement? Feoffer (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

RfC about ownership of the laptop

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.

---

Should the lead of the article say:

(1)"The Hunter Biden laptop controversy involves a laptop computer that belonged to Hunter Biden," or

(2)"The Hunter Biden laptop controversy involves a laptop computer, its contents, and the question of its ownership by Hunter Biden." TFD (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

(3) "The Hunter Biden laptop controversy involves a laptop computer and questions about its contents, provenance, and ownership by Hunter Biden." Proposed by Valjean

(4) "Three weeks before the 2020 United States presidential election, the New York Post published a story about a laptop computer, stating that it showed corruption by then-presidential candidate Joe Biden. The story was used by supporters of Biden's opponent, incumbent president Donald Trump, to fuel controversy regarding the ownership of the computer, its contents, and the events surrounding its discovery. The owner of a Wilmington, Delaware, computer repair shop, John Paul Mac Isaac, said that the laptop had been brought to his shop in April 2019 by a person who said that he was Hunter Biden, son of the presidential candidate. Isaac said that the person never came back to retrieve the computer." Proposed by SPECIFICO SPECIFICO talk 18:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

(5) "The Hunter Biden laptop controversy involves laptop data that belonged to Hunter Biden, son of Joe Biden." proposed below by Feoffer GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

NOTE A discussion of this question at BLPN is archived here.

The BLPN-in-question discussion, came to 'no conclusion' or 'consensus'. GoodDay (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Survey

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

  @GoodDay:, can you think up any language that might satisfy both you while also satisfying ValJean, Specifico, DN, et al. Right now, you're telling people like that "I win, you lose" and obviously, that doesn't seem to be getting a lot of traction with them. Maybe you should look for way to tell them "Let's both win". I know you're not a fan of the compromise language I've put forward, but maybe if you tried to take part in crafting compromise language yourself that everyone could support, you would see a solution the rest of us missed. Feoffer (talk) 03:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

  Each editor may choose any of the 4 options in this RFC. I do wish you'd put your own proposed option in this RFC (see above) as OPTION 5. Write it out & place it under Specifico's proposal. GoodDay (talk) 03:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

  I'm easy, stop trying to obsfucate the fact that Hunter Biden forgot a laptop at a repair shop or provide credible sources GRU dropped it off. From there, I'm happy to work to inform the readers of the lies, shannigans, non stories and other details. Slywriter (talk) 03:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• 1 Agree with GoodDay. TFD (talk) 07:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  @TFD:, I want again apologize for addressing you with a subset of your username -- I did some googling and educated myself about why contraction might be offensive and I really do apologize.

  So hey, this dispute has been going on for a lot of months, people arguing back and forth, for a long time before I got here. I wanna put an end to it.

  Endwise pointed out that the REAL STORY is about the data, which has been confirmed to belong to Biden. IF, and it's a big if, but IF it would finally resolve this dispute, could you support this potential compromise language that just straight up says the data belonged to Biden without muddying the waters by talking about something that hasn't (yet) had its forensic analysis published. Feoffer (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

• Neither because the lead sentence should not be a textbook example of WP:REDUNDANCY. Wikipedia can and should do better than circular definitions such as a Hunter Biden laptop controversy being a controversy about a laptop associated with Hunter Biden. Just throw out the repetition. Surtsicna (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

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

We can do both simultaneously and save us some time. Surtsicna (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• 2. That covers more of the real issues. Version 1 is just restating the title of the article, so it isn't contributing anything of value. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Version 3 would be even better, as we should even add the question of "provenance" of the laptop since that is a serious issue: Version 3: "The Hunter Biden laptop controversy involves a laptop computer and questions about its contents, provenance, and ownership by Hunter Biden." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Versions 3, 4, or 2 Andre🚐 18:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but Option 3 isn't an option in this RfC, but it can be discussed below. It's a much better option. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Fixed Andre🚐 18:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC) [re-fixed Andre🚐 23:16, 15 December 2022 (UTC)]
• 2 - The origin, New York Post, is currently listed as Deprecated generally unreliable. Most all the secondary RS used in the article use terms like purported, alleged, believed etc...The only thing that may seem verified so far are a portion of the emails. Maybe this will change in the future, until then we shouldn't make such a POV claim in Wikivoice without verification... DN (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC) (edit) I would also find this version [1] by SPECIFICO (located in the TP section below titled "Collection of current issues, and Attempt to resolve"), an acceptable compromise. DN (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  NY Post is not depreciated. It is considered Generally Unreliable Anon0098 (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  I stand corrected, it is generally unreliable, thanks. I feel the point is still clear. DN (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  Your view on the secondary sourcing to me seems both incorrect, and already rejected by the last RfC. Additionally, we are not using NYPost as a source. Endwise (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: My head is spinning after catching up on all the posts on this page, but as I've already said, I prefer SPECIFICO's version. If I were Hunter Biden, I would totally be participating in this discussion under my anonymous Wikimedia username. I'm pretty sure he would prefer the SPECIFICO iteration, too.;-) Carlstak (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks Carlstak. I honestly needed a darn good laugh ;) GoodDay (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• 1 no new information has come out to warrant another RfC on this. In fact, the new CBS forensic analysis only serves to strengthen the argument for the result of the previous RfC Anon0098 (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Other – the version provided by Valjean originally in another section summarizes the controversy very well. Valjean's original version:

"The Hunter Biden laptop controversy involves a laptop computer, its contents, and the question of its ownership by Hunter Biden, son of then-presidential candidate Joe Biden, and whether the data on the hard drive reveals unethical behavior by Hunter Biden or his father."

--Guest2625 (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

And then the lead should be trimmed to indicate in a clear fashion the history of the controversy and the current state of affairs (i.e. computer is owned by Hunter, content has been partially verified as genuine, and lastly that no unethical behaviour was revealed). --Guest2625 (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC) (Option 1: until a new lead is agreed on that concisely states the controversy, history, and state of affairs --Guest2625 (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC))

• Comment This is looking more and more like a straightforward re-hashing of the previous RFC, which closed a little over 2 months ago. That RFC, and a subsequent discussion at ANB, received significant participation from a wide variety of editors. Unless there has been a significant change in sourcing, or strong new opinions presented, or some policy-based reason to invalidate the previous result, I don't believe this current RFC should even hold weight, and the previous result should stand.

I'll re-state my opinion from the previous RFC, which was ultimately supported by the closer: Enough RS report that the ownership of the laptop is not in dispute, that it should be written as such here. So, option 1 here. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• 3 > 2 >> 4 >>> 1: The two options I like the most (3 and 2) both make it clear what the actual controversy regarding the laptop is. That these things are controversial is undeniable even if evidence is mounting that the laptop really was Hunter Biden's. The previous RFC had plenty of people who were clear on this point despite voting we should say the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden: there were lots of people there who said that the ownership wasn't really the main point of controversy, but the provenance of it was. 4 is extremely neutral but also way too long. 1 is so short it's missing key information. Loki (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  I added options 3 and 4 to reflect the proposals of other editors. Despite their strong feelings about avoiding the article name in the first sentence, I don't like that format - certainly not when there's other information that needs to go in the first sentence. Anyway, #4 is that editor's entire opening paragraph, which is why it's so long vs. the others which are only the first sentence. I think I prefer 3 and 2 but I do not think we should be locking down specific wording when the disagreement here is solely about whether we have Verification that Biden did in fact own this physical laptop. SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  Whether the laptop was actually Hunter's is not at all what the actual controversy regarding the laptop is. The actual controversy is regarding the emails (and their implications for Joe Biden), and other secondary things like the chain of custody and the responses by news orgs/social media orgs/etc to NYPost's story. Whether the laptop was really Hunter's is not something reliable sources get into much. Nowadays, they typically just say it's his and move on. Endwise (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Endwise: and Specifico -- you two have been going back on forth since August trying to resolve this dispute; During that time, a dozen new editors have joined the dispute with no end in sight.

  Endwise, you may have inspired a potential compromise with your excellent insight that "Whether the laptop was actually Hunter's is not at all what the actual controversy regarding the laptop is. The actual controversy is regarding the emails (and their implications for Joe Biden"

  IF (and it's a big if), but IF it would permanently end the dispute and result in a consensus everyone would defend -- is there any chance you could support this compromise which would explicty echo your insight that the controversy is about data that belonged to Hunter Biden.

  Specifico -- IF (and it's a big if), but IF Endwise could agree to that compromise, could you help him defend it if other people show up in the future trying to dispute it? Feoffer (talk) 03:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Feoffer: you say this RFC is "too soon" & yet here you are seeking support for your edit', from others in this RFC. GoodDay (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1. Editors have not argued that sources have substantially changed from this view since the last RFC, and we should be writing in plain, concise English. In fact, from what I can see, if sources have changed recently, they now even *more* universally describe the laptop as Hunter's matter-of-factly. See the collapsed ramble below for my take on the view of recent sources:

Recent sources, ramble

As a sanity check, mostly for myself really, here are the first news sources I found on Google, searching for "Hunter Biden laptop" for results in the last week, ignoring op-eds and unreliable sources (which were a lot of the results): Politico: "Hunter Biden’s leaked laptop files... the New York Post’s coverage of the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop" Al Jazeera: "a New York Post article detailing materials found on a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden" Mother Jones: "how to deal with material from Hunter’s laptop... salacious videos and pictures from Hunter Biden’s laptop..." etc. The Telegraph: "story based on emails from a laptop belonging to Mr Biden's son, Hunter." The Times: "New York Post story revealing the contents of a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden" These all seem to matter-of-factly state it was Hunter's laptop. Presumably, there might be recent reliable sources which don't, though I didn't actually find any in my quick search. In terms of actual hard evidence, the only significant difference since the last RfC I guess would be the CBS News-commissioned forensic analysis published on November 21, in which the company they hired said: Computer Forensics Services' chief technology officer, Mark Lanterman, said he believes it's clear the data was created by Hunter Biden."I have no doubt in my mind that this data was created by Hunter Biden, and that it came from a computer under Mr. Biden's control," he said.[2] Do note though that in that article, CBS news went with the headline "what's believed to be Hunter Biden's laptop data", but they otherwise worded the article so as to avoid commenting on its ownership. With all of this, there really doesn't appear to be a problem in terms of sourcing for us to use the wording in option 1.

To discuss the other options: Options 2/3 are really bad. They present a dispute about the ownership of the laptop by Hunter as being a central part of this story, which it really isn't; reliable sources don't really find it important to discuss whether the laptop was really owned by Hunter (they more ask things like "Are the emails real? Do they show Joe Biden was corrupt? Did Twitter/media censor this?" etc.), and when they do mention it, they typically just say it was Hunter's laptop without belabouring the point and quickly move on to the actual relevant part of the story. Regarding Option 4: this reads like we are bending over backwards to create a world salad that allows us to avoid mentioning the issue of whether it's Hunter's laptop entirely. I could get writing like that if we needed to avoid the question, but we actually don't need to avoid it, so we can write in plain language. Endwise (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@Endwise: Some of the data is confirmed. Most of the editors here agree that the data, not the device, is what matters. Yet the device is featured up right at the top of the lead.

Instead of running a sanity check on "Hunter Biden laptop", which in Google will necessarily return the instances that use "Hunter Biden's laptop", what happens if you search on the actual lead text under discussion, "belonged to Hunter Biden". It turns out that relatively very few sources say that, and yet the article uses instances of "Hunter Biden's laptop" to conclude that it "belonged to HB, which few sources say. That's what's at issue, I think. SPECIFICO talk 00:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Either search means the same thing: "Hunter Biden's laptop"="belonged to Hunter Biden"="laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden". No matter, they mean the same thing. Few sources may use "belonged to Hunter Biden" rather than "Hunter Biden's laptop", but they still mean the same thing, ergo substantially all RS are telling us it was Hunter Biden's laptop, so our content is fine. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

We have sources in the lede saying the literal device may not have belonged to Biden! Some of the data is his, the drive may be his, but the device that was turned over to the FBI may or may not have been his.

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea isn't democratic, the Holy Roman Empire wasn't Roman, the Shroud of Turin may not really be a shroud, and RSes say Hunter Biden's laptop may be a device that was never owned by Biden. Feoffer (talk) 05:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Valjean, my comment was addressing the way search engines map query words onto search results. Regardless of the (disputed) question of whether they mean the same thing in ordinary speech, the Google search algorithm treats them very differently -- as can be seen from the results returned by each of the two alternatives. The pertinent point this demonstrates is that searching on a given proposed phrase of article text will return sources that appear to support that text -- that's how search engines operate. On the other hand, a search query formulated to be more general will, in this case, produce quite a different set of results. SPECIFICO talk 20:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

• 1 per sources listed by Endwise and others here and in the last RFC. I don't actually like this lead sentence and think editors should continue to workshop something better, but the other three options all say there are questions about the ownership, which I don't think is an accurate summary of the RS anymore. Levivich (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• 1 per the last RfC. I am at a loss for how we can't go from its HB laptop, then to say it belonged to him? I am not married to "belong to" but we shouldn't be using "claimed" or "allegedly", ect at this point. --Malerooster (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

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

  Because we have sources, IN THE LEDE, that say it might not have been his laptop, just a copy of his data. Feoffer (talk) 05:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

It is NOT lede, its LEAD. They are different and we are encourage NOT to write using the lede style. --Malerooster (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

If you are referring to WP:MOSLEAD, where does it say to use LEAD and not LEDE exactly? "A lead paragraph (sometimes shortened to lead; in the United States sometimes spelled lede)" DN (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

• 1 It doesn't do a good job of summarizing but all the others are an attempt to obscure the origins of the laptop, which at this point is in direct defiance of the sources. Slywriter (talk) 04:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
  • No, it's not an attempt to obscure the origins of the laptop. It's about bad laptop data, as CBS News says, laptop versions that were widely circulated by Republican operatives to attack then-candidate Joe Biden before the 2020 presidential election [...] appeared to have had data added after April 2019, a sign they could have been tampered with, according to reports in other media outlets, including The Washington Post. starship.paint (exalt) 09:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    • You talk about data, but don't address ownership. No one has provided a source that GRU or the Easter Bunny dropped off three laptops, signed for them, picked up two and left one behind. CBS = unaltered copy of data left behind by HB, Rep = altered data does not change that HB dropped off the laptops. Slywriter (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• 1 Per no change since the previous RFC and the following sources:

"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. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

And another today from The Guardian which says Republicans are also fixated on a laptop computer once owned by Hunter Biden, the contents of which were shopped to news outlets by Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s attorney, shortly before the 2020 election. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

• 1 per the last RfC. The sourcing, which already supported this at the time, has become stronger with the addition of CBS.[3] Adoring nanny (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• 3 is the most descriptive and NPOV of the choices. 2 is also acceptable. 4 is too long and doesn't get to the point sufficiently succinctly, and 1 is simply at odds with the rest of the article (and a fair number of sources too). I did not participate in the previous RfC, but this seems qualitatively different. Simply inserting "allegedly" is the kind journalese that I try to avoid so I understand the resistance to using that phrasing. I'll also observe that the "ownership" question is a fairly insignificant part of the story in the greater scheme of things, so we probably shouldn't give it too much prominence in the article. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• Still too soon to determine best lede sentence -- a lot of interesting possible consensus wordings are under active discussion. Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feoffer (talk • contribs)

Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Not sure why you think this is relevant. RFCs are more than simple polls. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• 3 or 4. The "Respect the last rfc" option is irrelevant, it was a bad close by a user completely unsuited to do the job, and an even worse close review. I don't care what the exact wording as, as long as it reflects the reality, borne by sources, that that laptop ownership and the contents therein are separate issues with separate ownership attribution. Also, please stop saying "laptop computer". It's downright boomerish. Just "laptop" is fine. Zaathras (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
• 2 seems simple and neutral. ValarianB (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

• Malformed, or option 1 if this is closed, Strong support 5 with slight alternations; or, if 5 lacks consensus, support 1, oppose 2; strongly oppose 3, 4see below, changed 06:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC). First, this RFC is really about the laptop's ownership, but passes itself as an RFC on wording; I agree with SPECIFICO on this RFC's merits. Second, equally-importantly, other options blur a crucial distinction: the "clean" laptop itself was fully authenticated; but the copies circulated by Republican operatives — which the NYPost's story was based on — were found to have been tampered with. That's a key element of the story, and blurring these lines unduly legitimises the controversy, and the NYPost's reporting.

Keep in mind the mark of a truly good encyclopaedic article: our writing should be good enough that it's able to change the minds of people who think were was a "coverup". That means highlighting facts that were ignored by partisan reports, but remaining strictly factual, precise, and nuanced. Being too dismissive from the outset, or picking the wrong hills to die on (the laptop's authenticity, as opposed to the authenticity of partisan copies), will do a disservice to our readers, the subject (Hunter), and Wikipedia's mission. DFlhb (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC); edited 09:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm talking to myself now, but one way to resolve this would be to slightly restructure this article and add a top-level [laptop] §Contents section about the clean & fully authenticated copy, and the reporting by WP:RS on the contents of that, and cover the partisan mudslinging (including any NYPost claims that aren't shared by WP:RS) in one separate section. The article should make it clearer what the "clean" laptop supports/doesn't support, so we can establish some ground truth. DFlhb (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

What you say makes sense to me. I'm not sure how we get there, but there's a lot of room for improvement here along the lines you suggest. picking the wrong hills to die on, the laptop's authenticity Do you think this would be a step in the right direction? I know it doesn't solve all your concerns, but it would focus us on the data rather than devices, and it's gotten a fair amount of support as a potential next step. Alternatively, any language you might suggest would be welcome. Feoffer (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I finished reading the BLPN discussion and doing my own survey of sources (should have done that before, huh?) It's now clear to me that based on WP:RS: the laptop possession is unproven; its contents are fully authentic, and the NYPost's reporting was not based on the laptop's contents, but on material provided by Republican operatives. IMO, all the articles editors bring up to support laptop ownership are passing mentions, while articles that address the question in-depth note that the ownership is still in question. I still oppose the RFC, but, in case it gets closed, I'll state my !vote here clearly: strongly support 5, but phrased as: The Hunter Biden laptop controversy involves laptop data that belonged to Hunter Biden, son of then-presidential candidate Joe Biden. (with the bold, and the detail on Joe's status at the time). If option 5 doesn't win out, I strongly prefer option 1 over the others. Option 1 adopts the same suboptimal shorthand as some WP:RS (that use "Hunter's laptop" as metonymy for the data on it). But option 2 hangs the data's authenticity on the laptop's ownership, so by putting the latter in question, it also implies doubts about the former; it's far from ideal. Options 3 and 4 directly imply that there are still questions over the data, which is no longer tenable after the CBS report. DFlhb (talk) 09:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC); edited to clarify my vote 00:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

DFlhb, you choose whatever you think is best. Don't let Feoffer, or any other editor try to persuade you toward their own preferences. GoodDay (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• 3 - we have a laptop with bad information mixed in with original information, and option 3 best conveys this idea, while option 1 utterly fails to do so. As Zaathras said: laptop ownership and the contents therein are separate issues with separate ownership attribution starship.paint (exalt) 08:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• 1 Nothing has changed since previous RFC. Arkon (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
• Comment for closer -- The potential compromise language ("option 5") has extensive support from all sides. No one disputes that the compromise language meets WP:V. Feoffer (talk) 14:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

  To closer. The above comment, seems to be attempting to obtain the propser's desired outcome. Best to ignore & reach your own conclusions. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

  I also have serious concerns about this survey response. See my comment in the discussion below. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

• 5 or, failing that, 3. 2 and 4 are also acceptable; only 1 is unacceptable, since it grossly distorts the relevant coverage. Coverage both at the time and from mainstream sources today emphasizes the questionable nature of the laptop's data overall. See eg. [4]: (The New York Post declined to share the laptop material with other news sources, stymieing efforts to validate what was included. When The Washington Post did eventually receive a copy of the drive, we were able to validate a number of the emails it included, though it was obvious that files had been added or altered. Even the computer repair-shop owner who was Giuliani’s original source for the material noted that files had apparently been added to the collection.) Version 1 remains unacceptable because it acts as though the key question was and is always just the ownership of the physical laptop, which has never been the case and which the sources do not support. Also, as pointed out repeatedly, the previous RFC was not over this question, so the arguments of "respect the previous RFC" is invalid - the previous RFC was just over whether we can cast doubt on whether the laptop belonged to Biden in the article voice, not over whether that ownership should be a major focus of the lead. Arguments above that only discuss the previous RFC and which make no argument as to why we should prominently discuss only the physical ownership of the laptop should be disregarded. --Aquillion (talk) 11:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Aquillion, a little while ago you made comments saying that, generally speaking, three sources is sufficient to say something in Wikivoice, unless other sources dispute it. Here are 4 sources that say the laptop belonged to Biden.

  "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 Republicans are also fixated on a laptop computer once owned by Hunter Biden, the contents of which were shopped to news outlets by Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s attorney, shortly before the 2020 election.

  There's another handful of sources that just say "Hunter Biden's laptop." Now we can argue about whether or not the ownership should be the major focus of the lead (in fact I proposed a complete rewrite of the lead to avoid this issue altogether), but we have to move past this misinformation that the laptop was a plant or a Russian operation in order to make significant progress on this article. The FBI has had the laptop since December 2019, and if they'd found a single shred of anything that resembled a whiff of evidence that the Russians were involved it would have leaked a thousand times over by now. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

  Again, you're repeating arguments from the previous RFC which are inapplicable to this one; this RFC is not about whether the physical laptop belongs to Hunter Biden or not, and all arguments that focus on that point are irrelevant. This RFC is asking whether we should emphasize the ownership of the physical laptop in the lead as if that is key to the story, which is not and has never been the case (since the beginning, the key issue raised by most of the highest-quality sources has been the providence of the laptop and the data-dumps presented from it - their chain of custody and who had access to or tampered with its contents at which points.) Also, the rest of your post shows just why the dispute is important - it is completely inaccurate to say that but we have to move past this misinformation that the laptop was a plant or a Russian operation (to the point of being a WP:BLP violation, since you are implying that it is established that all of the contents of the laptop, much of it BLP-sensitive and used to push BLP-sensitive accusations, is confirmed, which directly contradicts the sources.) None of your sources support your assertion that the laptop's overall content or the narrative it was used to push were clearly not misinformation; in fact, quite the contrary, the sources that go into detail on the laptop unambiguously state that the contents that were presented were tampered with and additional material was added, which means it would be more accurate to say that it has been confirmed that aspects of it were a plant, just one that was done by placing both real and false data on laptop (obtained thorough unknown means) that once belonged to Hunter Biden. The fact that you glibly make the leap from sources stating "the physical laptop belonged to Hunter Biden" to "therefore its contents, which were tampered with and contain many unverified emails, must be accurate and could not possibly be a plant" - a WP:SYNTH violation that goes wildly beyond what any reputable source says - illustrates why option one remains unacceptable. You are stating outright, here, that you want to use that sentence to encourage the reader to reach a conclusion that none of your sources support. --Aquillion (talk) 01:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

  One part is incorrect. The laptop has never been shown to be tampered with. In fact, it is in an unusable state. The laptop data was recovered onto an external hard drive. That drive has had several copies made and circulated. FBI has one, CBS has another, Republicans have a third. CBS is unaltered, Republican is altered, FBI is unknown. The actual WP:SYNTH is equating the Republican hard drive with the laptop itself. The laptop belonging to HB doesn't suddenly validate the Rep data. In fact, CBS having a clean copy from the original laptop shows the Rep data was falsified. Slywriter (talk) 02:40, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

• 5 doesn't derail the reader by devoting UNDUE weight to device ownership. Per Endwise: "whether the laptop was actually Hunter's is not at all what the actual controversy regarding the laptop is.". Strong oppose the controversial option 1 as failing WP:V per Mr. Swordfish . The suggestion that 'we should be able to say the laptop belonged to Hunter based on a review of many RS' is SYNTH. Feoffer (talk) 01:57, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
• 1 Multiple reliable and perennial sources, such as those listed by Endwise, have confirmed that the laptop was owned by Hunter Biden. Additionally, in my opinion the previous RfC covers this issue. Grahaml35 (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Mr.Ernie has already reverted to their preferred version on 12/9

[5] We haven't even wrapped up the current attempt at an RfC. What's the rush? DN (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I reverted to the last stable consensus version. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The stable consensus version was changed again. GoodDay (talk) 04:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Since the last RfC at RfC about ownership of the laptop there has been discussion about whether "his" laptop meant the laptop belonged to Hunter.

As I pointed out at the last RfC, "Although early news reports could not confirm ownership, there is now no question the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. The only question is the authenticity of the emails found on it."[2:09, 28 August 2022]

TFD (talk) 07:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Badly formed RFC. Until we can find a source to support version 1, no amount of local consensus on talk can protect it. Per BLP: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". See the discussion at BLPN. Recommend withdraw. Feoffer (talk) 07:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

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

I'd post to BLPN asking for help bringing the sentence in line with WP:V and if no source was forthcoming after a few days, I would remove the offending content and treat its restoration as a behavior issue. Feoffer (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't you support a version that discusses a version that discusses the authenticity of the emails, then? Version 1 doesn't do that (and that wasn't a question raised at or settled by the previous RFC, which focused solely on whether we should express doubt about whether the computer itself belonged to Biden.) --Aquillion (talk) 11:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I found a source that said the FBI is investigating and trying to find encrypt keys etc. to help determine whether or not the Russian FSB was involved and was this a plot by Putin (and others) to undermine the DMC and support the former president, they believe (i.e. not 100%, no fingerprint data etc.) the HB did have custody of the laptop earlier in the piece but it was probably lost in late 2018. The current contents are really the meat of the matter and what is genuine and incriminating and any that are both from RNC POV, although that is not the focus of the FBI efforts, so we must view this as an open matter and reflect the same in the article, despite any personal wishes to incriminate or exonerate.2404:4408:638C:5E00:4D2B:42FE:7355:8C5C (talk) 08:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The current consensus, whether editors like it / agree with it or not, settled by RFC, is that we do not need a qualifier about the ownership of the laptop. There was an attempt yesterday at a local consensus to find a new wording to avoid this topic, but once challenged local consensus doesn't override a recently settled RFC. Maybe we can rephrase this one to have option 1 as written, and option 2 could simply be "Should the first sentence be rephrased to avoid mentioning the ownership?" Mr Ernie (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a bit nuts, after all the discussion here and at BLPN to repeat the same RfC. Please withdraw and let discussion and editing continue. Participants in the September RfC have been pinged. What tends to happen in cases like this is that editors lose interest and the participation dwindles to a dysfunctionally small corps who dig in their heels. Please withdraw this RfC for now, forget about locking down the article or discussion, and continue ordinary-course editing and talk page engagement. SPECIFICO talk 13:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Why would you ping editors from the previous RfC if you think that saying "purportedly" and "allegedly" are distinct? Why would you oppose an RfC, which by its nature attracts new editors, if you think that editors have lost interest? TFD (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't ping them, somebody else did. I sympathize with your view however. I don't think the little go-round yesterday really had the weight to toss out an RfC in a few hours. However the current thread at BLPN, not to mention the substantial concerns at the close review and the non-admin close that (contrary to recent assertions) was not settled at the AN review, do suggest that a fresh approach was needed. Actually, I bungled the close review request. I thought that it would lead to a second closure by an Admin, not to a typically diffuse thread among editors at the sitewide noticeboard. The outcome of the RfC was not to use "alleged". The current version doesn't use alleged. And I think the current wording of the first paragraph gives a better overview of what's to follow in the article text. I think there is agreement on that point. The article text deals with ownership in detail. Anyway I do hope you'll withdraw this for the time being and help with the incremental change that tends to build better articles. SPECIFICO talk 15:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, now the initial, poorly-written "non-redundancy" version 1.0 is back, so you have the worst of both worlds. I took some time and effort to rewrite that version in comprehensible English, but it's now been reverted without explanation. I'd ask editors to compare the two non-redundancy versions and see which they prefer. SPECIFICO talk 15:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

It's back to the RFC consensus version now. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

It is atrocious now. Sorry to be blunt, but it makes a mockery of Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: What did you think of my copyedits to your non-redundancy version that is now reverted? SPECIFICO talk 16:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I love how yours gets straight to the point. Normally, when I first excise the superfluous bolding, I try to keep the sentence as similar as possible to the previous, circular definition, just to prove that it does not need to be that silly. Surtsicna (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Surtsicna PLEASE, bring up your bolding argument 'after' this RFC runs its course. All you're doing is creating confusion. Figuratively speaking, we're arguing over whether to have a house or a barn. Where's you're arguing over what colour it should be. Let's take care of one item, at a time. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• Version 1 just restates the title of this article, so it isn't contributing anything of value. We also need to mention "provenance":
• Version 3: "The Hunter Biden laptop controversy involves a laptop computer and questions about its contents, provenance, and ownership by Hunter Biden."
• Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Can we please get away from the 'bolding' argument & concentrate on the 'ownership' argument? That is what the two options are in this RFC? Make a choice, 1 or 2. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I did make a choice above. I chose number 2. This is the discussion section. This is where other options can be discussed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Didn't mean you Valjean. Just asking that we collectively, worry about the 'bolding' stuff, later. :) Do wish though, you would withdraw the '3' option. This RFC began with '2' & if editors start adding more options along the way? There'll be no consensus for anything. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Don't mean to confuse matters. I prefer version 2 or 3. Andre🚐 18:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Another editor has basically added two more options, which is only going to muddy the waters further. The more options there are? The less likely they'll be a consensus for anything. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with adding options that garner support from discussion during the RfC. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Apparently, we disagree. GoodDay (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude:, we have a nascent compromise brewing below, with ten editors so far in support. You haven't actually weighed in on the actual issue, so I have no idea where you stand. Do you think this would be an improvement you could support? Feoffer (talk) 02:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Version 3 is an option. It covers all the bases for a first sentence. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Question is, will the results of this RFC be respected? GoodDay (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

So let's see, current sources say the Laptop is Hunter Biden's. Recent sources have in-depth analysis including forensics that at least some of the data is Hunter Biden's, but instead an RfC exists to use wishy-washy language to describe the events and completely ignore the sourcing available. Orwell would be proud. Slywriter (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mr swordfish: & @Feoffer: please sign their posts, in the 'survey' section. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the reminder. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Currently, the cite for the first sentence is an article titled ""Copy of what's believed to be Hunter Biden's laptop data turned over by repair shop to FBI showed no tampering, analysis says" (emphasis mine). How do we get from there to flatly stating it "belonged to" HB?

The only other cite in the lead paragraph is titled "What We Know and Don’t About Hunter Biden and a Laptop" and does not say it "belonged to" HB, instead casting doubt on the story of how it came into the possession of the Delaware shop owner.

At the very least, we would need to provide better cites if we want to say "belonged to", although that would be ignoring the large number of articles that use phrases like "what's believed to be".

Wikipedia policy is quite clear on this:

Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.

How is it that "belonged to" is still part of the article when its inclusion clearly violates the policy on verifiability? We can do better than this. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

The short answer: That ref was added less than a week ago, and has support from only one other editor. I tried removing it because it didn't seem like a good use of an inline citation, for pretty much the same reason you described - the ownership question has been discussed by MANY more sources than just this one. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok, the cite has only been up for a week or so, but that doesn't answer the question about why we have an assertion in the first sentence which is not supported by an inline cite, as per policy.

Agree that the ownership question has been discussed by many more sources than the CBS one, with varying degrees of certitude. I'm sure it's possible to cherry-pick a source for the assertion; I'm surprised that hasn't happened already. Of course, that might resolve this immediate issue, but not the more general problem. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Inline citations in leads are a gray area. They are certainly helpful at providing sourcing for possibly challenged statemments; however, adding too many citations clutters the lead, which is meant to summarize the body, where plenty of sources are already inline cited. The relevant guideline is WP:CITELEAD, which ultimately says: "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article."

In this case, the attribution of ownership is done by reference to a multitude of sources. We COULD cite them all, but it would look bad imo. In any case, the editorial consensus at present was that we should be able to say the laptop belonged to Hunter, based on a review of many RS (some of which were compiled here). PhotogenicScientist (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Because it takes consensus reached at an RfC to overturn previous consensus reached at an RfC. You can't just hand-wave away the numerous sources that use "Hunter Biden's Laptop" and are listed above. Slywriter (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I left neutrally worded messages at the talkpages of WP:USG, WP:POLITICS & WP:LAW, to garner more input. Seeing as the 'survey' bit is slowing down. PS - That's better then adding a dispute tag which only creates frustration among us, as it comes across as being a replacement for the word "allegedly". GoodDay (talk) 07:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces:, @Anon0098:, @PhotogenicScientist:, @Malerooster:, @Levivich:, @Mr Ernie:, @Guest2625:, @Arkon: & @Adoring nanny:, a fifth option (by Feoffer) has been added to the RFC options. GoodDay (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@Soibangla: my apologies. I thought Feoffer, had already made you aware of this RFC. GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC) NOTE - This is not a BLP issue. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Potential compromise language

@Mr swordfish:, would this resolve your concerns over how we summarize the 11/22/22 source? Feoffer (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@Zaathras, Darknipples, Andrevan, and JzG:, would you consider that summary an improvement? Feoffer (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it's an improvement Andre🚐 22:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes. DN (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Somewhat. That there is some data (emails, images, etc...) that belongs to H. Biden is true, but there is disinfo mixed in, as the laptop changed hands and was accessed remotely. It is difficult to capture the full nuance of the situation in this article prose, it seems. Zaathras (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

True, but we can get into that in the body. Any actual controversy (as opposed to manufactroversy) centres on the data that did belong to Hunter. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Yup, that will do nicely. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Carlstak: -- I want to apologize for not consulting you before I made an earlier bold change a few weeks ago without waiting for your feedback. It's important for me to not move forward until I've heard what you had to say -- up or down. If we can get a consensus for a compromise based on CBS's language, would it have your support? Feoffer (talk) 12:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean, LokiTheLiar, and ValarianB: -- you have all expressed concerns about the old versions -- if we could get support for the compromise, could you support it? Feoffer (talk) 12:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

This appears like a form of canvassing. You're pinging editors & asking them to support something that you support. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Jesus. No worries, Feoffer. It looks fine to me. Thanks for remembering me, whether or not this is canvassing.;-) I'm consumed with an offline project and an article translation I've been working on for a while, so I've got no appetite or spare mental energy to participate in the general discussion. I'm expecting to see a WP article about all the controversy on this "Hunter Biden laptop controversy" talk page some day, and can only shudder to think what its talk page will look like.;-) Carlstak (talk) 14:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that compromise is better. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I also agree that compromise is better. Loki (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Not much time to be around during the holidays. Looks fine. ValarianB (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I restored the "..belonged..." bit. PS - TBH, I wish the intro would've been left alone, once the current RFC was started. Constantly changing it during the RFC, is chaotic. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Definition for "Of" - used to show possession, belonging, or origin.

It makes zero change to the meaning of the phrase while simplifying the sentence. And these debates are running in circles focused on a very narrow issue, WP:BOLD is sometimes the way to find language everyone can live with. Slywriter (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The intro should be as it was, when the current RFC began. Constantly tinkering with it, while the RFC is ongoing, doesn't help. As I've repeated before, the entire intro in a matter of weeks, may well end up be entirely different. We don't know 'yet', what may or may not be dug up, once the Republicans take over the House & begin their own investigations. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALBALL so I don't care about January. The closed RfC only concerns use of alleged, which the language change does not introduce and the above RfC well I have no idea what it will try and accomplish or change because it looks to muddy the language not clarify. Slywriter (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

"...belonged to Hunter Biden" would be best for now, as restoring the entire status quo ante, would likely be reverted fully or partially. The content of this page (let alone the intro) in the last two weeks, has been unstable. GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• Agree with this compromise (though see my slight copy edit of it in the survey section) DFlhb (talk) 09:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
• I didn't see this until now, but for the record I'm fine with it. Endwise (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

  See what please. The language keeps changing. SPECIFICO talk 18:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry if I was unclear. I mean what's now listed as option 5. Endwise (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Procedural advice?

Thirteen editors from all sides of the discussion have now signed on to potential compromise language that refocuses the lead specifically on data, much of which has been forensically verified. If this language is supported by consensus, what is the appropriate way to demonstrate that consensus? Some have advised the creation of a new RFC focused just on this compromise proposal, while others have suggested the proposed compromise be folded into the current RFC as "option 5". A third school of thought holds the existing discussion is sufficient and we don't need anything especially formal.

While I welcome feedback from anyone, @Awilley: seems to be the local admin monitoring this article most closely and that's whose advice on how to proceed woudl have the most weight. Feoffer (talk) 09:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Much of what I might write here by way of advice I already wrote on TFD's talk page. The RfC above is a mess and I'm surprised it's still running. An RfC should be a simple yes-no vote that strikes at the heart of the disagreement. "Should the lead state without qualification that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden? Yes or no?" Find a clear consensus on that, and then you can start hammering out how to best word that. I hate RfCs that offer multiple choice wordings because 1, they're messy, 2, they rarely start with the best wording (that will be found by collaborative editing later), and 3, once the RfC ends the poor wording is set in stone, so instead of being improved by collaborative editing it can only be changed by another RfC. A problem with the first RfC is that it only asked if the word "alleged" should be used but it's being interpreted as imposing the specific sequence of words: "The Hunter Biden Laptop controversy involves a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden" which I suspect is blocking collaborative editing that could lead to better wordings that would be acceptable to a wider range of editors.

On your potential compromise, IMO, for it to be worth anything you would have to bring on board at least one of the hard-line "option 1" folks. If it's just a bunch of anything-but-option-1 people saying "yeah that works too" then it's not really a meaningful compromise.

I don't know if you'll find this advice helpful. My ideal is far from the reality that currently exists here. ~Awilley (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

There's 11 editors who've (in the survey) opted for option #1. Indeed, peddling a proposal to only/mostly editors who were already against option 1, is rather, problematic. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I was a "hard-line option 1" who now prefers the compromise proposal, though that's because I changed my mind on the "belonging to" question.

I agree on this RFC being flawed, but disagree on why. I strongly oppose the idea that the laptop was proven to belong to Hunter, but it's clear to me that the previous RFC did come to a consensus that it was. A new RFC (which would, in theory, be in 'my' interest) can't sneakily override that, without being explicitly framed as such. There should have been consensus to start a new RFC, and it should have been framed as: "the past RFC was an incomplete review of sources, let's ask the same question but do it more thoroughly".

(I'll note that a major circumstance has changed since the previous RFC: many !voters said the laptop ownership was proven, but its contents were in doubt. The ownership was based on a misreading of sources, but the second part, the laptop's contents, have since been authenticated in their entirety by CBS. The current state of affairs is that the laptop origin is unproven; its contents are fully authentic, and the NYPost's reporting was not based on the laptop's contents, but on material provided by Republican operatives. The fact that the article does not make this correct but subtle distinction is a great shame, and IMO a BLPvio). DFlhb (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

With the Republicans taking over the House in January 2023 & opening up investigations into Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, etc. It's possible, that 'more' changes are to come. I highly doubt that the intro will look the same by (for example) next summer. When this whole thing is over (one way or the other), I'm sure we all will be relieved. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Well unfortunately, and much to their likely chagrin, Republicans will not be taking over mainstream media outlets in tandem with the House. So if you are expecting a sea change in how this topic is reported on, and hence in the source material we will be able to use in this article, prepare to be disappointed. Zaathras (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The intro will likely be changed, by the summer of 2023. We just don't know how or in what manner. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I think my proposal (at the bottom of this page) will make it easier to fit in any future Republican allegations (as long as they're due, of course). No way it fits anywhere in the current structure. DFlhb (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

When the RFC tag expires, I'll request that 'only an administrator should close it & render a decision. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

On your potential compromise, IMO, for it to be worth anything you would have to bring on board at least one of the hard-line "option 1" folks. @Awilley:, I should have clarified -- I only asked for procedural advice because we already had the support of some hard-line "option 1" folks. DFlhb had signed on, and indeed, the entire compromise language was based on a suggestion by Endwise, another hard-line option 1 person who has also signed on to the compromise. Feoffer (talk) 03:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

It appears that there is more support for Feoffer's text than for any of the alternatives listed in the RfC. Somehow that support needs to be registered within the RfC so that when it's closed we don't replay the last 3 months' stalemate. I'd suggest you add it as option 5, ping everyone who's responded or participated over the term of the current RfC, and perfect the record for the closer. My own view is that this is good enough language to resolve the primary point in contention, but that better approaches will evolve through normal editing process once the belonged to matter is put to rest. SPECIFICO talk 12:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest you add it as option 5, ping everyone who's responded or participated over the term of the current RfC We can if Awilley thinks it necessary, but we're not a bureaucracy -- we likely don't have to re-ping people who've already expressed support. Feoffer (talk) 13:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Not all option 1 hardliners have agreed to your compromise proposal. The chances that they might, would be enhanced if you moved that proposal (you don't need Awilley's permission) into the RFC as option 5. But simply write out what the option is & don't brag it up. GoodDay (talk) 13:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

🦹🏻‍♀️ The fact that we're not a bureaucracy is the reason I wouldn't suggest going back to Awilley again unless something new comes up. The closer is going to look at the !vote section as the record of editors' views, so the file there should be complete and stand on its own. Expressing support in a separate section or without reference to the other options is likely to extend the controversy, IMO. SPECIFICO talk 14:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I was bold & added your proposal to the RFC. I have pinged the rest of the so-called hardliners. Having someone (me) ping editors about your proposal (I don't support it), will remove canvassing concerns. GoodDay (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The point of adding it to the RfC options was to record all views there. So please also ping the editors who have commented on Feoffer's version or who may have commented in the RfC without recording a !vote. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK, Feoffer has already pinged everybody else. But, if you know of others, within the RFC? By all means ping them. That way, no one can claim canvassing by anyone. GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

No, it's quite the opposite. You need to ping everyone at once even if some of them are redundant, because the reason for the ping is to let them know that it's been added as "option 5" to the RfC and they need to state their !votes within the RfC, not within the discussions Freoffer has initiated to try to find support for his suggestion. Please make a supplemental ping list that fills out the pings to everyone who's commented on the matter, or if you prefer everyone who's edited this talk page over the course of the RfC (regardless of wether they recorded a !vote.} Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Point out these other editors & I'll ping them. This entire talkpage, has become a virtual maze. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Nah -- we're not a bureaucracy. An admin closer will know that comments in favor of the compromise count, nobody has to use the magic words 'option 5' for their opinion to count. By the same token, the remaining option 1 voters who don't support the compromise don't have to show up to state their opposition to the compromise.

There's a reason we use admins instead of bots to close. Feoffer (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I still disagree - anyone now preferring option 5 on the RFC should say so in the survey section, in their own words. I don't think an uninvolved admin will want to wade through this ludicrously lengthy discussion section to verify all editors' opinions. The survey section is placed at the top, and I'm pretty sure it's what reviewing admins will consider most strongly when looking to close. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Feoffer, you're not suppose to attempt to influence the closer. Therefore I reverted your obvious campaigning above the 'survey' section. All 5 options should be presented equally. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@Awilley: Feoffer appears to be attempting to unduly influence the RFC closer (in the 'survey' section), in favour of his proposal & so I've counter-posted, with advice that the closer ignore his post. All 5 options, should be presented equally. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Awilley, I found this & this to be attempts to influence the closer, due to the wording & more importantly placement, above other listed options. I reverted both attempts. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Feoffer's comment above in the RFC survey is wildly inappropriate. This "compromise" was built through blatant WP:VOTESTACKING [6] [7]. Slywriter pointed this out right away, and their comment was removed. GoodDay also pointed this out fairly quickly. I also noticed this and thought it was inappropriate, but I don't suppose there's anything wrong with discussing something with select editors. Where Feoffer crossed the line is trying to act on it by unduly influencing the RFC.PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, Feoffer claims this has extensive support from all sides, since 2 "hard line option 1" folks have signed on, which misrepresents the strength of this compromsie. It seems they're referring to DFlhb and Endwise; neither of those editors had expressed what I would describe as hard-line opinions. DFlhb's opinion seemed more to be that the RFC was malformed as there were other issues at hand, and Endwise's contributions have always been from a seemingly data-centric viewpoint. There were plenty of editors with stronger opinions Feoffer could've pinged, but never did. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

There were plenty of editors with stronger opinions Feoffer could've pinged, but never did I still would have pinged them, given the chance. -- GoodDay is the one who added option 5, not me! I still wanted to get more feedback from people with stronger opinions before finalizing potential compromise language. Feoffer (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Thankfully it 'was' me, who placed your option into the RFC. Why? because I did it the proper (i.e. neutral) way. Just curious, is this the 'first' time you've been involved with an RFC, Feoffer? GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

After checking the timestamps, you did offer that comment only after GoodDay added the new option. So I'll strike my language about HOW inappropriate the comment was. However, my concern about WP:VOTESTACKING still stands. I think it's admirable to try and build compromise on such a contentious article. I also respect your trying to find a creative solution to build one on such a chaotic talk page. If you can truly get most of the people on this talk page on board through good-faith means, then that's a net benefit as far as I'm concerned.

However, I still think your comment directly to the RFC closer is an inappropriate addition to the Survey section. If the editors in this discussion have signed on to the new option, the best way to express that would be for them to modify or add their votes to the survey section. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it's admirable to try and build compromise on such a contentious article. I also respect your trying to find a creative solution to build one on such a chaotic talk page. If you can truly get most of the people on this talk page on board through good-faith means, then that's a net benefit as far as I'm concerned.

I really appreciate this, PhotogenicScientist!! I very rarely act in this fashion, but my 'superpower' on this article is that I truly couldn't care less! I didn't know anything about the topic until Musk mentioned it, and I came to the article as a reader and found I couldn't make heads or tails of it. Later, when all sides agreed CBS was a great source, it became even more obvious that some compromise could be reached, because after CBS, it doesn't really matter HOW people got the data, the 'clean copy' was confirmed. Anyway thanks for the kind words, I don't always know if i'm on the path to a good consensus compromise or not, but I am doing my best with no particular preconceived designs on the outcome. Feoffer (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

You claim you couldn't care less, yet you've been showing clear opposition to Option 1. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Only because I can't source it, and I tried. If CBS had a straightforward confirmation of Biden's ownership of the physical device, I'd have been completely happy to move on. It's really not that big a fix -- the 'clean copy' data was Biden's, why muddy the waters with debates of devices that can't be proved to belong to him? Feoffer (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Ditto. DN (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

There is not a single source that presents a credible alternative to how the laptops got to the shop. Lending credit to the Easter Bunny dropped it off is the equivalent of accepting the clean data could be falsified, which we know is untrue. If it was not his laptop dropped off with his data, with his family foundation sticker,and his initials on the receipt then where is the RS that even attempts to explain how the laptop got there? Slywriter (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Seems like this could be easily addressed by pinging every participant, and asking them to express an explicit choice for or against option 5; that way, no vote-stacking. DFlhb (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Can we all agree on one thing? Only an administrator should close the 'current' RFC, when the tag expires. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

You think an Admins is like a kind of Superhero? Wonder Woman? Batgirl Closer?? SPECIFICO talk 21:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

One of the complaints about the 'last' RFC, was that it was closed by a non-administrator. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking more like Wolverine Anon0098 (talk) 05:05, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Now someone has slapped an PoV plate on the page. If this has been done with hopes of influencing the ongoing RFC? I must tell you, I've seen such a move backfire, in the past. GoodDay (talk) 00:48, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@Masem comes close! DFlhb (talk) 11:16, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Sources and rebuttals

This isn't complicated. Here are sources from last few months that say it's Hunter Biden's laptop. CBS even includes a timeline that makes it crystal-clear that the data was saved in a manner consistent with everyday use and stopped shortly before it was brought in for repairs. So instead of saying "but GRU", "but Republicans", "but the data was altered", please address how Wikipedia can ignore these sources and say anything other than the Laptop is Hunter Biden's?

Skynews coverage of Podcast by Sam Harris saying Hunter Biden Laptop [8]

Economist: [9]

WaPo Fact Checker: [10]

Politico: [11]

Salon: [12]

PBS [13]

NYTimes: [14]

Newsday: [15]

AP: [16]

Toronto Sun: [17]

Variety: [18]

Yahoo: [19]

KHQA Fact Check: [20]

CBS News (Lanterman statement specifically): [21] Slywriter (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I find it incongruous that WaPo analysts and others found the contents a mess that suggested tampering while the CBS analyst found it pristine, especially since the WaPo analysts cited specific examples while the CBS analyst made a broad statement without indicating specifically what he examined and verified. Did he authenticate the crypto signatures of all the emails? We don't know. The CBS piece is pretty weak. soibangla (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Soibangla You misunderstood both. the WaPo didn't claim evidence of tampering, only that they couldn't rule out tampering because of the mess their copy of the drive was in, with the implication that they could authenticate it if they had a clean copy. CBS did have a clean copy without the WaPo issues. The 2 sources are consistent. Amthisguy (talk) 05:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

That's not exactly what WaPo said, they said they found no evidence of manipulation of emails and files, but they found evidence of writing folders to the drive. soibangla (talk) 06:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. This is exactly the way the conversation or dispute should be handled - look at the reliable sources and see what they have to say.

My criteria, and feel free to disagree with it, is that an article that is mostly about some other aspect of the story and uses the phrase "Hunter Biden's laptop" is not enough to justify the usage of "belonged to" in the article. As others have said, "Hunter Biden's laptop" is simply journalistic shorthand for the item in question. So, taking the articles one by one:

Skynews coverage of Podcast by Sam Harris saying Hunter Biden Laptop [22] I don't tend to get my news from YouTube, so I didn't watch. Is there a transcript?

Economist: [23]

States flatly: "The laptop belonged to Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden." Also says that the mainstream press was "unable to confirm that the hard drive came from Hunter’s laptop..."

WaPo Fact Checker: [24] Refers to "...materials found on a hard-drive copy of the laptop Hunter Biden supposedly left behind for repair in a Delaware shop in April 2019." I don't see anything in the article that supports "belonged to". Perhaps someone could point that out?

Politico:[h ttps://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/08/twitter-files-hunter-biden-laptop-00072919] Article is mostly about something else. Uses the phrase "Hunter Biden's laptop" but doesn't go into any further detail.

Salon: [25] Opinion piece from Digby. Uses the phrase, "Hunter Biden's laptop" but is mostly a rant about a bunch of other related things.

PBS: [26] Article is not primarily about the progeny of the physical device, but it does say "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."

NYTimes: [27] Carefully refers to it as "...a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop." Does not say it "belonged to" HB.

Newsday: [28] Describes "...a laptop the junior Biden, a troubled man with drug issues, allegedly abandoned at a repair shop."

AP: [29] Repeat of the PBS story.

Toronto Sun: [30] Article primarily about something else. Headline refers to the "Hunter Biden laptop saga" which is hardly dispositive. It does use the phrase "Hunter Biden's laptop"

Variety: [31] States "Other news outlets, including the New York Times, have since reported that the laptop did in fact belong to Hunter Biden." But the Times article linked to says no such thing (see above). Perhaps there are others? Variety is not saying.

Yahoo: [32] Headline refers to "Hunter Biden Laptop Story". Agree that there is a Hunter Biden Laptop Story, but that doesn't merit the use of "belonged to".

KHQA Fact Check: [33] Article is mostly about something else, but it does refer to "...the contents of Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop..."

CBS News (Lanterman statement specifically): [34] Headline is "Copy of what's believed to be Hunter Biden's laptop..."

Lanterman's statement: "I have no doubt in my mind that this data was created by Hunter Biden, and that it came from a computer under Mr. Biden's control,"

Note that Langerman does not say that the physical device that the shop owner came to own was the same physical device as the "computer under Mr. Biden's control" and that the authors of the article are careful to couch the ownership issue in unsettled terms i.e. using the phrase "believed to be".

So, what to make of it all? I think a good faith reading of some of these sources would justify usage of the phrase "belonged to". Reading the totality of these sources, I'm unconvinced that we're on solid ground using "belonged to" in the article. If we're going to accurately reflect the current state of reporting we'd need to be more circumspect.YMMV.

And with that I'm bowing out of this discussion. I'm reminded of the saying that "In academia, the battles are so fierce because the stakes are so small." Good luck with reaching consensus. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Beginning in January 2023, it's quite possible that this page will go through massive changes. GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Swordfish, thanks for that summary. I too reviewed the sources and did not find that they support the statement "belonged to..." One additional point, the KHQA fact check is certainly not RS for this content. KHQA is a Sinclair Broadcast Group outlet, not highly regarded for its fact checking. SPECIFICO talk 23:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

You looked at the PBS source which states “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,” and concluded it does not “support the statement ‘belonged to…’?” I think I might have found the disconnect here. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Here’s two more. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The guardian article isn't about the HBL, it's about Tucker Carlson's "attacks" on HB that include independent verification of some of the data, so I doubt very much it would pass the smell test at RSN. The FT article is pay-walled. DN (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Here’s another from The Guardian which says Republicans are also fixated on a laptop computer once owned by Hunter Biden, the contents of which were shopped to news outlets by Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s attorney, shortly before the 2020 election. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Citing links to what look like random google search results queried to confirm pre-existing bias cannot help us to establish NPOV or V or to comply with BLP regarding this narrative. And without specific discussion of the sources and their suitability, we cannot expect the closer to make the arguments or inferences in that are being asserted but not justified by this link list. SPECIFICO talk 15:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Follow the logic here- a laptop that does contain HBs data is dropped off (CBS clean copy of the recovered hard drive that was transferred to an external hard drive and subsequently shared with CBS) along with two other laptops that needed repair. A signature similar to HB is on the receipt. Two laptops that can be easily repaired are picked up. The third never gets picked up. No credible source has ever explained why GRU/Easter Bunny/Tooth Fairy would drop off three devices to pick up two and leave a third behind. The simplest answer is HB did forget a device there, FBI and CBS got unaltered duplicates from the recovered hard drive and Republicans got an unaltered copy that they then manipulated. CBS vs Rep copies shows the original recovered data did not have the more "incriminating" and likely falsified data. CBS analysts says the data was added to the laptop (subsequently transferred to an external hard drive as part of the recovery) was incremental and consistent with daily use and not loaded at once. This is my last word on it, but it takes a lot of squinting to blame the Tooth Fairy instead of a forgetful Hunter Biden. Slywriter (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Basically agree, which is why option 1 is my second choice after option 5: on this issue, the media doesn't know anything we don't. The only two people who will ever know the truth about the laptop itself, are Hunter (who says he doesn't know) and the repairman (who is legally blind). Regardless of how the media words it, they'll never know for 100% certain if it's his, and neither will we, regardless of the fact that (I agree) it's overwhelmingly likely at this point.

I just think we have a perfect solution:

• option 5 neatly sidesteps this
• then the lead can briefly give the facts (the signature & laptop stickers were Hunter's, but he can't recall dropping it off), and readers can make their own conclusion
• then cover the CBS report
• mention the NYPost, then mention their data showed signs of tampering, then mention the October surprise aspect, Giuliani, Bannon.
• then mention the allegations being debunked (the FBI had the fully-clean laptop data, and found no evidence of money laundering)

Tadaaa! Lead fixed. With five puny bullet points. DFlhb (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

One more before I go, from today's WaPo. Fact-checker Glen Kessler, who takes great pains to get things correct, describes it thus:

"...a hard drive copy of the laptop Hunter Biden supposedly left behind for repair in a Delaware shop in April 2019." [35]

Note the carefully worded, precise language. We really should be this careful. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Each side has their sources & the arguments over which ones are reliable will likely continue. Just another day, on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Most are more or less reliable, with the exception of blatant misfits like Sinclair Broadcasting. The issue is more WP:V weight and WP:BLP. We have tools and standards by which to judge those. SPECIFICO talk 20:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

A lot may change in the coming weeks. Attempts to delete/merge this page, won't change the likelihood that both the Joe Biden, Hunter Biden & related pages, will be getting more attention. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO, what is the BLP issue? TFD (talk) 05:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: There's no BLP issue. PS - Not sure why Specifico is linking to an archived BLPN discussion (which resulted in 'no consensus' or 'conclusion') at the top of the RFC. GoodDay (talk) 01:19, 2 January 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.