Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Consensus required restriction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am also bothered by the fact that a significant (and ridiculous, clearly non-consensus change) was made exactly one hour before the recent restriction was added by Callanecc, with no warning on the page itself for the poor 15th editor to come along (as we know here, one can be accused of bad actions that happened months before even having seen this page). Now, if anybody reverts that change, they look like the bad person, when the reality is that Mr Ernie is well aware that the citations are non-responsive. I'm talking about this change [1]. None of the citations address the issue in question. None of them provide any explanation, evidence, or even insight into the phrase "a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden". Not in the least. The closest we get is that the Rudy Giuliani (known for serial lying, frivolous lawsuits, Four Seasons Total Landscaping, and the fact that he can no longer practice law) had possession of it at some time. Adding those citations with the edit comment "adding requested citations" seems to me a bit like thumbing one's nose, as nobody has requested those citations, and I do not think they improve the article as they are all peripheral, not even primary reporting like other sources cited later in the article. Callanecc, may I suggest you revert that change?

With respect to Callanecc's comment "The restrictions on this page are designed to push editors towards discussing changes and establishing a consensus rather than edit warring their version", I want to point out that I, at least, have not been edit warring. I've made three changes total to the article. But I think that the rejection of the citation cleanup I did here [2] which was reverted by GoodDay shows that some editors are acting like they own the page. Those same editors are refusing to establish a consensus and also refusing to accept that consensus can change.

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

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

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

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

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

I think your call for a deadline is overly battleground.

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

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

Both you and Roy recently added a citation needed template to the lead ([3],[4]), so I added several. Now I see that you've removed them. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

who these 14 complaining editors are

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What it comes down to, RoyLeban, is that we have a couple of sources that say "a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden" or "Hunter Biden's laptop."[5][6] You can claim these sources are inadequate or unacceptable for some reason, but you cannot claim that a single source has not been provided since they HAVE BEEN PROVIDED MULTIPLE TIMES. Wikipedia guideline text does not require references in the lede when supported in the body. 2 RFCs and an overturn review have determined the sourcing sufficiently supports such statement. Personally I do have doubts as to whether it belonged to him, but it doesn't matter what I think! What matters is what the sources say and what the consensus of editors thinks. One editor is not important enough to completely derail all the processes and make special exceptions, especially for such a controversial issue. Now if we had a new source that there was some doubt that the laptop was actually Biden's laptop or he is personally denying such ownership, or if another source that was more recent stated that there was an issue with the Russians or Giuliani. I would expect and welcome such a thing! I fully believe the Russians and Giuliani are involved and the laptop is fishy as hell! I have never said otherwise! But we have to follow the consensus of editors and the statements made in RS, regardless of what we personally believe. Andre🚐 20:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I echo what DN wrote. Articles which use a term of reference are not a source per WP:VERIFY. It says, in three places,that a source must "directly support" a statement. For example: "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source[2] that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."

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

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

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

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

In all this discussion, nobody has:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm happy to hear your concerns

Mr Ernie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notification of WP:POVN Discussion

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

this one went viral for about a day

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding today's Kessler story

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

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

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

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

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

Washington Post article on Republican hearings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NYP image

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: New York Post masthead image

Concerning the New York Post masthead image:

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

23:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Poll

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you make that image smaller here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Remove laptop image. It's not an image of the laptop alleged to have been "dropped off" at the legally-blind computer guy's computer repair store, so there is no reason to include it. From WaPo Mac Isaac is legally blind and was not able to identify Hunter Biden by sight. [11] from CBS "Mac Isaac admitted he was unable to confirm it was actually Hunter Biden who dropped off the laptop because he is "legally blind". Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No prob. Feel free to give your input to the discussion that I've opened. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Laptop image. Should it remain or be deleted.

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RFC or not?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Slywriter:, "Disruptive"?? I disagree with what you say the disruption has been. In my view, putting that fake-image back into the article's page has been "disruptive," and a complete waste of time. I don't think it was an intentional disruption, but it has been a disruption and it did not improve the article, but rather, it made the article worse - therefore, sadly, it's been a waste of wiki editor's time & thus disruptive. Best regards~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

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