Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PhotogenicScientist (talk | contribs) at 16:07, 21 June 2023 (→Misleading wording: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:07, 21 June 2023 by PhotogenicScientist (talk | contribs) (→Misleading wording: Reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hunter Biden laptop controversy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.

The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 August 2021. The result of the discussion was redirect.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Alternative views Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WikiProject Joe Biden

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Journalism Mid‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics: American Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: Delaware Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Delaware (assessed as Low-importance).

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Gareth Corfield (February 25, 2023). "Misplaced Pages is not woke, insists founder Jimmy Wales". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved March 16, 2023. Misplaced Pages was just as infuriated about the laptop allegations as the US Democratic Party's staffers. Its users marked the site's entry about the controversy for deletion, claiming it wasn't notable enough to bother including.

Current editing dispute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clear bias in the article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

insinuation

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yodabyte is insinuating wrongdoing by the Bidens. First, it does not belong in this article; second, it does not belong in the lead of any article; third, this echoes the type of insinuation Comer constantly engages in on Hannity; fourth, the Comer investigation is not over. Yodabyte's edit should be removed soibangla (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC) Yodabyte has violated the consensus required restriction on the article and I have asked them to self-revert. Hopefully that happens sooner, rather than later. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC) I've restored the status quo. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC) I am genuinely confused as to why the text I added yesterday is being removed. The text is right there in the NYT article "financial documents detailing how some of the president’s relatives were paid more than $10 million from foreign sources between 2015 and 2017". There is literally no insinuation, it is spelled out right there in the article, unless you somehow think the bank and financial documents are fraudulent or somehow forged by Republicans (in addition to RS like the NYT the WSJ also says "bank records show that more than $10 million was delivered to Biden family members, associates and companies from foreign entities"). The paragraph added by soibangla three weeks ago excludes any context from the article and conveniently leaves out that multiple family members of Joe Biden were paid millions of dollars for no apparent reason by several corrupt foreign countries. soibangla is attempting to "insinuate" something by mentioning Hannity and Comer (trying to paint evidence of corruption by the Bidens as some sort of right-wing conspiracy theory). Not that it should really matter but just for the record I am not a conservative or right-wing person, and wanted Trump to lose in 2016 and in 2020. Yes, the text is right there, but that doesn't mean it's relevant to this article, let alone lead-notable, and just because it's there is not a good reason to use it. millions of dollars for no apparent reason by several corrupt foreign countries sounds like it came straight from a Hannity script. The reality is these men were international businessmen who wired money around, and although there has been breathless speculation (you know, on Hannity) that it's just gotta be corrupt, there remains no evidence of it. The money did not get wired "by corrupt foreign countries," as you say, but rather by entities in foreign countries that are not necessarily corrupt themselves. soibangla (talk) 23:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC) Also, soibangla says "the Comer investigation is not over", but if that logic applies, then the entire paragraph should be removed from the lead since the investigation is still ongoing. Yodabyte (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)\ The edit says "by May 2023," because Comer released interim findings a few days ago. This is the sum total we now know after years of these corruption allegations. Please ping me when you talk about me. soibangla (talk) 23:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC) Why does this have WP:WEIGHT? Does it add new and important information in a neutral manner, or is it just a political talking point? While some news is relative, Misplaced Pages is not WP:NOTNEWS. This doesn't seem to offer insight with regards to Hunter Biden laptop controversy. Also, telling everyone that you aren't a "conservative or right-wing person" is not a reason for inclusion. This may be an example of another problem with this article ie WP:COATRACK...DN (talk) 23:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC) At the very least you would have to explain how the revelation is related to the laptop. TFD (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC) soibangla you wrote "these men were international businessmen", can you describe the businesses that operated to earn millions of dollars sometimes in just one year? You mentioned Sean Hannity again in an apparent attempt to link the evidence of corruption to a conservative attack but CNN, NBC, NYT, WaPo, WSJ, CBS, ABC, etc have all reported on Biden family potential corrupt activities in various countries. Here is NBC News from 2019 "“We don’t know what Hunter Biden was paid or what he was paid for but it does raise questions of whether this Romanian individual facing criminal charges was actually paying for a connection to the American vice president” said Kathleen Clark, a Washington University law professor who specializes in government ethics. Also from CNN: "the money flowing to Hunter Biden, his uncle James and even his brother Beau’s widow Hallie, with whom Hunter also had a relationship, does not paint a pretty picture. They were paid millions through a series of companies" If the text I added yesterday from the NYT article doesn't belong in the lead why should the text about "no wrongdoing" remain? Yodabyte (talk) 01:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC) What does any of that have to do with the laptop? TFD (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC) Well I'm not going to wade through all that because it's not relevant to this article, the edit wasn't relevant to this article, and it sounds a lot like "nothing has been found, but still, this seems kinda suspicious" even though no one has found anything pointing to actual guilt of anything. soibangla (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC) You aren't going to "wade through" it because you know that it indicates corrupt activity. Yodabyte (talk) 03:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC) And there we have it. DN (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC) you just made clear why I was right to remove it soibangla (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC) Huh, there you have what? How did I make anything clear? Why are editors here constantly avoiding the elephant in the room and instead pointing to "as of May 2023 no evidence of wrongdoing has emerged". Meanwhile there are literally bank documents indicating money laundering, all sorts of shadiness, corruption, likely criminal activity, tax evasion (Biden is currently under investigation for this) but somehow I'm in the wrong here? Yodabyte (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC) are there literally bank documents indicating money laundering? or are there people like Comer and Hannity et al. relentlessly insinuating there are? outright lying, in fact. if any of these things are shown true, you can be sure I'll be among the editors to instantly jump on it. you can bet the farm on it. just FYI, most suspicious activity reports are false positives, so it's easy for Comer et al. to holler on TV that they have dozens of SARs, leading millions to believe it's proof of corruption. let's see 'em. soibangla (talk) 04:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC) Neither of those sources relate it to the laptop controversy. The first one doesn't even mention the laptop controversy. The second one mentions it in passing, in a bullet point unrelated to the part you quoted. Without sources connecting it to this topic, it's WP:SYNTH regardless of the conclusions you draw from it. --Aquillion (talk) 05:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC) I'm not sure which section to add this in, but I reverted the last removal by Yodabyte. Please observe the 1RR/enforced BRD restrictions. I'm not sure what the SYNTH argument was but the claim that it indicates corrupt activity needs a citation: AFAIK, no corrupt activity has been shown and that is the story here. Andre🚐 17:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC) No, Aquillion is correct it is WP:SYNTH and doesn't belong in the article, especially in the lead. Yodabyte (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC) Aquillion was clearly saying your corrupt activity dot connecting was SYNTH. The long-standing conclusions of the Republican committees that found nothing on the Bidens are not SYNTH. Andre🚐 00:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Pretty sure that is not what Aquillion meant. Please self-revert WP:SYNTH in the lead. Yodabyte (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC) That doesn't make any sense. That's been there for a while. Andre🚐 02:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC) It's been there 22 days, is that considered a while? Yodabyte (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Similar language such as "No evidence of illegality by Joe Biden has been shown from the laptop contents." has been there since January at least if not longer. Andre🚐 02:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Don't see that language in the article. Anyway, the text is WP:SYNTH and needs to be removed from article. Yodabyte (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Are we talking about the same text? Despite persistent allegations that the laptop contents indicated corruption by Joe Biden, a joint investigation by two Republican Senate committees released in September 2020 did not find wrongdoing by him, nor did a Republican House Oversight committee investigation by May 2023. Explain how that reaches a novel conclusion not reached in the sources, please. Andre🚐 03:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Please self-revert it is pure WP:SYNTH, and the first source doesn't even mention the laptop scandal/controversy. Yodabyte (talk) 04:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Again, it's not SYNTH unless we're making a conclusion unsupported by the sources. That isn't the case here. It's true that the first source says no wrongdoing was found with Burisma/Ukraine but doesn't appear to mention the laptop itself. If you want, we can simplify it to the older text that no wrongdoing by Biden was found by Republicans and make it less specific. How about that. Andre🚐 13:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC) So I get banned for making the proper edit in line with Misplaced Pages policy but Soibangla and Andrevan violate policy and have no repercussions? It appears WP:CONSESUS is in favor of removing the text from the lead so there was no reason to block me for my edit earlier today and the text should be removed. Several editors oppose including it in the lead but Aquillion makes the clearest case. Yodabyte (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC) You were blocked for violating the consensus required, enforced 1RR/BRD restriction. Andre🚐 23:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC) The consensus appears to be remove this paragraph from the lead: "Despite persistent allegations that the laptop contents indicated corruption by Joe Biden, a joint investigation by two Republican Senate committees released in September 2020 did not find wrongdoing by him, nor did a Republican House Oversight committee investigation by May 2023" yet it still remains. Even Andrevan said "It's true that the first source says no wrongdoing was found with Burisma/Ukraine but doesn't mention the laptop itself". The second NY Times source also doesn't mention the laptop. The fact that this paragraph is still in the article IMO exposes partisan bias on this website. Soibangla actually reinserted the unsourced and WP:SYNTH text yet again yesterday. For some reason no editor has removed it yet. Yodabyte (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC) It certainly is not the consensus, Yodabyte. And don't take my statements out of context. At any rate, your statement is incorrect. The second source says a laptop Hunter Biden abandoned at a Delaware repair shop and suggested they might be part of a Russian disinformation campaign. Andre🚐 15:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC) I'm not seeing a consensus to delete the paragraph-in-question. Therefore, the paragraph-in-question must remain. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC) So the paragraph isn't even in one of the sources and it's also WP:SYNTH (violating two Misplaced Pages policies if my math is correct) but it must remain in the article? Yodabyte (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC) You continue to be incorrect, and it would be great if you would WP:DROPTHESTICK. Law of holes Andre🚐 18:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC) "You continue to be incorrect", please elaborate because it seems clear (unless I'm totally missing something) that you and Soibangla are incorrect (i.e. a minority) and Aquillion and several other editors have said/implied the paragraph in question should be removed, not just me. pinging: Aquillion DonFB The Four Deuces Mr Ernie for help clearing this issue up. Yodabyte (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC) As I already explained to you, Aquillion did not agree with what you said. Nor did any of the other editors you just pinged Andre🚐 19:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Aquillion literally said "Neither of those sources relate it to the laptop controversy. The first one doesn't even mention the laptop controversy. The second one mentions it in passing, in a bullet point unrelated to the part you quoted. Without sources connecting it to this topic, it's WP:SYNTH" Yodabyte (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Andrevan also said "It's true that the first source says no wrongdoing was found with Burisma/Ukraine but doesn't mention the laptop itself" so you are literally contradicting yourself. Also please don't tell me WP:DROPTHESTICK when you and soibangla are the main editors doing that here. Yodabyte (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC) my involvement in this thread is limited to what you added three days ago, which has been resolved; I have not been involved in discussion of the paragraph I added weeks ago. you have not reached consensus to alter or remove it. soibangla (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC) You ignored my previous message. As I said, it's not SYNTH to use related sources to support assertions provided those assertions are made in the source. I offered to simplify the text. You instead removed it. Andre🚐 20:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC) As far as I can tell consensus has been reached for removal of the paragraph (per two policies-WP:SYNTH and wording that is absent from the sources) or at minimum simplifying the text like Andrevan recommended. Yodabyte (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC) FOLLOW-UP: what exactly is the "older text that no wrongdoing by Biden was found by Republicans and make it less specific" that should replace the current unsourced/WP:SYNTH paragraph? Yodabyte (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC) An earlier iteration of the text was less specific about the Republican findings and simply said a blanket statement that no wrongdoing by President Biden has been found. Of the two NYT sources you mentioned, one of them does explicitly reference the laptop, so we could simplify the text to one closer to just that statement. Andre🚐 22:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC) What source "explicitly references the laptop" I didn't see that but maybe I totally overlooked something, and what text do you propose to replace the current text? Yodabyte (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Yodabyte, instead of me saying everything twice, maybe you could read the source again and read the text again and you can tell me what text you think is a reasonable change that reflects your objection and the sources. Andre🚐 23:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC) The only reasonable change in line with Misplaced Pages policies (WP:SYNTH, WP:V) is removal of the paragraph. For the 20th time now, neither of the sources say anything abut the laptop scandal, yet the text still remains in the lead. Any editor reading this right now can remove it and they would be doing nothing wrong. Yodabyte (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC) You are incorrect. But I think I'm done here. Why don't you go ahead and make your edit again and we can take up the conversation at WP:AE. Andre🚐 23:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC) An admin advised you to do an WP:ER. Other than waiting until your block ends, this is the best way to proceed in a way you can avoid additional sanction. soibangla (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC) I actually suggest against the edit request until there is consensus, otherwise an edit request patroller is just going to hit it with the "get consensus" template and close it, as there's clearly no consensus at this point. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Use of "despite" in the sentence is an example of improper MOS:EDITORIAL. The second clause ("a joint investigation...") casts doubt on the opening phrase ("persistent allegations..."). Neither source for the text (only one of which mentions the laptop, as three editors have noted) states that the investigations concluded that the laptop contains no evidence of wrongdoing. But the second part of the sentence editorially uses the Committee finding to suggest that allegations of wrongdoing based on laptop evidence ("laptop contents indicated corruption") are false. To be neutral, the text must attribute to a source a SYNTH statement about the implication of the Committee report. For example: "Reliable source xyz reported that politician abc said, 'Republicans keep pointing accusing fingers at the laptop, despite their committee finding no evidence of wrongdoing by Hunter Biden'". The text should be removed if there is no attribution that links the laptop's allegedly incriminating contents with exculpatory findings of the Committee. DonFB (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC) The doubt being cast is proper; doubt should be cast on the allegations since they aren't substantiated and both sources indicate that nothing was found involving Joe and Hunter Biden. One mentions the laptop, one does not. However, please propose a change to the text, other than deleting it, that preserves 1) that no wrongdoing was found by Republican committees to substantiate the allegations, and 2) laptop contents did not indicate any corruption by Bidens. Andre🚐 00:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC) Misplaced Pages, in its voice, should never cast doubt--or offer approval--on anything. You used the passive voice, "doubt should be cast", which neatly avoids saying who is doing the doubting. You've read, I'm sure, that Misplaced Pages describes controversies; it does not participate in them--casting doubt is participation. I do think that the committee findings should be included somewhere in the article, carefully, but not in the Synthy way they are now. My comment did not suggest that the article should say the laptop "contents did not indicate any corruption". I haven't decided how best (imo) to describe the committee work in the context of this article, but I believe its inclusion violates NOR as a Synth component and NPOV as an editorial insinuation in the sentence where it now appears. The committee work is not described in the article body; on that basis alone, the text should not have been added to the lead. DonFB (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC) The doubt isn't being cast by Misplaced Pages, but by the reliable sources and by the reader. We simply echo and regurgitate the summarization. It is not NOR or SYNTH: please substantiate your NOR argument. Andre🚐 01:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC) The sentence makes a connection between the laptop ("the laptop contents indicated corruption") and the findings of the congressional committees. But neither of the sources cited for the article's sentence makes that connection. The sources do not report that the congressional committees cast doubt on the significance of the laptop, but the Misplaced Pages sentence clearly casts such doubt by saying: "Despite persistent allegations that the laptop contents...". Neither of the cited sources says the congressional committees found that the laptop failed to provide evidence of wrongdoing. However, that is the unsourced but clear implication and synthesis of the sentence we're discussing. If doubt is to be cast specifically on the laptop or its contents, that doubt must be cast by and attributed to sources, not presented in Misplaced Pages's voice in a sentence that violates MOS:EDITORIAL and by extension, NPOV and NOR. DonFB (talk) 05:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC) What's interesting, and perhaps ironic, is there was a very similar discussion regarding the lead sentence. I won't go into it, but it's funny you would bring this up. DN (talk) 06:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC) Truth be told I don't subscribe to either publication so I typically use other sources, most of which concur with the article. Are we sure we are not taking anything out of context or leaving out any qualifiers with regard to sentences such as "the laptop contents indicated corruption"? DN (talk) 06:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC) But actually, one of the sources cited does make the connection. Andre🚐 15:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC) What text in the source does so? DonFB (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC) The NYT article relates the issues explicitly: Officials allied with Mr. Biden played a role in wrongly discrediting Hunter Biden’s laptop. The report from Mr. Comer came as a second Republican-led House committee is investigating a related issue. This clearly states that the allegations of Bidens' wrongdoing, which were not shown by the committees, a valid summarization, found no corroboration of the conspiracy theories about the laptop. Andre🚐 21:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC) Just noting that I have blocked Yodabyte for one week for their blatant canvassing and asked DonFB to self-revert this edit, as it is a violation of the consensus required restriction placed on the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC) DonFB, thank you for reverting. It violated Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated, as the material in the lead was removed earlier by Yodabyte and challenged. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC) additional sources for no wrongdoing "GOP report: No wrongdoing in Biden son ties to Ukraine firm, but still 'problematic'". ABC News. Retrieved 2023-06-08. "Republicans are using financial records to investigate Hunter Biden. Here's how". PBS NewsHour. 2023-05-10. Retrieved 2023-06-08. Andre🚐 21:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC) I wrote that the sentence "makes a connection between the laptop...and the findings of the congressional committees" (emphasis added). I continued, "But neither of the sources cited for the article's sentence makes that connection". That remains an accurate statement. I don't dispute that the sources report the congressional committees found no evidence of "wrongdoing" or "misconduct" by Joe Biden. But the sources do not describe a relationship between those findings and the laptop, as our article improperly does, saying dismissively, "Despite allegations that the laptop contents indicated corruption by Joe Biden..." That formulation, "Despite X, Y is true", is editorialized original thought, because the sources for the sentence do not verify a relationship between the laptop and the reported congressional findings. In fact, none of the sources we've discussed--either those in the article or those you posted here--describe any linkage or connection between alleged laptop evidence and findings of the committees. DonFB (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC) So what text would you propose to address this? We want to retain that as you say, no evidence of wrongdoing or misconduct was found by the congressional committees which investigated the laptop and released reports about them. Is your claim that this is a neutral matter and we should treat as both-sides likely that such misconduct or wrongdoing could still exist? Andre🚐 00:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC) I gave my answer for proposed text last night, when I deleted the sentence. Yes, I have changed my mind about including committee findings about no evidence of Joe Biden wrongdoing in this article. Before deleting, I sat down to write some text about the congressional report to insert into the Body of the article (to replace text in the lead, which besides violating policy as I have explained, remains unsupported by anything in the Body, and should therefore be removed, according to standard practice, which says if material is not in the Body, it should not be in the Lead). My attempt to write something went nowhere, because I found no credible way to make the information relevant to the topic of this article: the laptop. The only way to do it would be to do what an editor has already done: Write text that breaks policy by synthesizing a statement that the committee report about Joe Biden refutes information from the laptop. Just above, you wrote no evidence of wrongdoing or misconduct was found by the congressional committees which investigated the laptop. If you know of a source which says "congressional committees...investigated the laptop", let's see it. Neither of the sources for the contested sentence in the lead reports such information. I would point out that dozens, perhaps hundreds of articles about the Bidens, recent election campaigns, DOJ/IG investigations, congressional probes, Trump topics, and on...and on, are available for inserting the information about the committee reports finding no Biden wrongdoing, where that information would be relevant to the topic of an article. This article is about the laptop, not about sweeping investigations of the Bidens. The information about the committee reports on Biden non-wrongdoing doesn't belong here, unless editors can show sources where the topic of committee findings of non-wrongdoing is linked to the topic of the laptop or its contents. In any case, I do have some proposed text for the Body, not the Lead, which summarizes information relevant to the laptop from one of the existing sources cited in the lead about the committee reports: The House Judiciary Committee, controlled by a Republican majority, issued a report on May 10, 2023, that said an open letter by 51 former intelligence officials influenced the public to disregard information from the laptop, which contained details about Hunter Biden's drug use and sex life. Republicans believed the laptop information would hurt Joe Biden's chances of winning the presidency in 2020. The letter suggested Russia might have contaminated the laptop with disinformation, but stated that was an opinion and not supported by evidence. The source is: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/10/us/politics/hunter-biden-house-republicans-report.html This proposed text can go in the "Congress" section of the article, currently occupied by MTG impeachment text, which is completely unrelated to the article topic, the laptop, and which I also deleted but then restored after violating the Contentious rule. The MTG text should be re-deleted as irrelevant and replaced by my proposed text; tweaks invited. DonFB (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC) That's not a compromise at all and completely ignores the fact that the sources do indeed say that a) the republican committees were analyzing the laptop, and b) found nothing. You're welcome to continue along this fringe conspiracy line though but I have no interest in doing so. There is no consensus to remove this text altogether: that's not proposing a compromise. Andre🚐 16:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC) The proposed change seems a bit POV in itself, but without access to NYT it's hard to say, so it would be difficult for me to support. DN (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC) Are you referring to my proposal to replace the impeachment text with text about the House committee's complaint about the intelligence officials' letter? The impeachment text shows no relation to the article topic, the laptop. The House committee comments about the letter are related to the topic. My proposed text on the committee comments is a straightforward summary of that section of the NYT article. The text does not have to be the last word on that aspect of the laptop controversy; reams have been published about the letter--its origins and reactions to it. But the letter sub-controversy is at least related to the laptop topic, whereas the impeachment text appears to come completely out of left field and shows no relationship to the laptop issue, nor makes any mention of it. DonFB (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC) Still doesn't seem accurate nor constructive. The House Republicans did indeed make several statements and issue reports and comments about Biden's laptop. What they didn't do is allege or show any wrongdoing. The source we have from the NYT states that they basically reprimanded the FBI and intelligence officials. Mainstream RS have interpreted this to say that Republicans issued reports but did not allege or show any wrongdoing. Therefore, we say the same thing. Can you propose text, for the lead, which would summarize it similarly? Andre🚐 22:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC) Yikes, my proposal for text about the ex-officials' letter is simply an effort to include encyclopedic information about the overall laptop controversy--not some kind of axe-grinding about wrongdoing one way or another. Nor do I think my proposed text necessarily belongs in the lead; it probably does not. The lead has its own problem that I will follow up on. The article currently has a section called "Congress", which now contains only text about impeachment that shows no connection to the article topic--the laptop controversy. If we have a Congress section, let's put information in it which describes what congresspeople/committees say about the laptop or issues directly related to it, like the letter suggesting the laptop contained Russian disinformation. DonFB (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC) I stand corrected about the content in the "Congress" section of the article. To my surprise, the impeachment resolution of January 2021 includes the word "laptop". It would have been helpful if the editor who added the text had included that information, so the relationship between the topic of this article, "laptop controversy", and the impeachment resolution was made clear. Here is my proposed edit to the text to show how the impeachment effort was related to the laptop: On January 21, 2021, the day after President Biden's inauguration, Republican representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia filed one article of impeachment against Biden. Included in her resolution's claims of corruption was a statement that, "Specifically, the ongoing FBI investigation into Hunter Biden’s laptop revealed that Hunter received a 2.8 carat diamond gift from a high-ranking Chinese official in 2017." No fellow members of Congress co-sponsored the impeachment article. The original source: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/535317-rep-marjorie-taylor-greene-files-articles-of-impeachment-against-biden/ ...and the primary source that shows the word "laptop": https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolution/57/text The Congress.gov source shows that only one article was filed: "Article of impeachment exhibited by..." I haven't seen a source that says that no other members of congress co-sponsored the resolution; it would be helpful to have that sourcing also. Please comment on whether you support this edit, which I regard as non-controversial and elementally informative. DonFB (talk) 06:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC) Why do the specifics of this claim by MTG have WP:WEIGHT? Again, it seems like just adding unnecessary details. Greene is not well known as a reliable source, even for herself. Was Biden impeached over this? No? So again, why is it so important to add claims by "Jewish Space Laser Lady" to this article? DN (talk) 07:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC) Hmm, I'm not sure if this change is really an improvement. I don't think we should be quoting MTG without disclaiming or qualifying the statement with a secondary source analysis. Andre🚐 06:40, 10 June 2023 (UTC) So you prefer the status quo, which remains a non sequitur? The quote from Greene hardly appears inflammatory or even wrong, though I don't think it's worth researching. A fanatical resistance to even the slightest "unqualified" quotation from a (Republican/conservative/MAGA) politician in these articles is not particularly helpful, and only increases my perception of a misguided groupthink effort to spin these articles in a particular political direction. If you think the quote needs "qualification", limber up your typing fingers and find a source that contradicts it. Anybody else care to weigh in? The text as it exists now was a sloppy addition that serves no purpose and will leave even mildly engaged readers saying, "huh?" DonFB (talk) 07:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC) Dark Nipples, the purpose of the Greene quote is to connect the impeachment move to the topic of this article. Without making that connection, the text is pure random trivia, and should be removed from the article. This fanatical fear of quotes from (Republican/conservative/MAGA) politicians would be the stuff of parody if it weren't actually happening. To say nothing of the fact that it represents a failure to apply an encyclopedic NPOV approach and betrays obvious political bias. DonFB (talk) 07:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC) Only one member? That's not enough for inclusion, IMHO. Now, had the House voted on the proposed article? then we'd include. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC) This fanatical fear of quotes from (Republican/conservative/MAGA) politicians would be the stuff of parody if it weren't actually happening. That's quite the Straw man. ~~If this is how you plan to gain consensus, might I suggest going to Conservapedia? I'm sure they will welcome you with open arms.~~ DN (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC) Based on the epithet you chose to use above ("Jewish Space Laser Lady"), I'd say Liberalpedia would welcome you with open arms. You won't find me using that kind of partisan mockery of political figures on the left or right anywhere in Misplaced Pages--or any characterization whatsoever of political people and issues. When editors do that, it reveals their bias--bias that improperly influences content creation on this website, and that's what I'm calling out. The original quote--that I ended up not using--was, strictly speaking, not from MTG, but in fact was directly from the article of impeachment. It had nothing to do with WEIGHT, RELIABLE SOURCES and all the other Policy buzzwords we all like to toss around, but rather was a simple rhetorical mechanism to show how the impeachment resolution had any connection to this article (because the resolution mentioned the laptop). That reason for using the quote from an official Congressional document couldn't have been be simpler, but editors who gatekeep these political articles predictably freak out when a non-gatekeeper adds a quotation, heavens, perhaps even without "qualification", from a (Republican/conservative/MAGA) politician (or in this case, an official document), and complain that it has to be qualified, rebutted, analyzed or otherwise de-natured. I haven't made a study, but I can not recall a single instance when any editor insisted that a quotation from a (Democratic/liberal/progressive) politician be "qualified", rebutted, etc, etc.; can you? It's not an accident that a movement like Conservapedia got started, and that various pundits on the right criticize Misplaced Pages for having a liberal bias. I'm not so much bothered by a liberal bias, as I am by an editing practice that turns a blind eye to a basic principle like NPOV, or misuses it in the service of bias (as revealed by comments on Talk pages like yours above), when it comes to handling quotes and other material from public figures on the right-hand side of the political spectrum. It's a disservice to Misplaced Pages and the ideas we claim to stand for. DonFB (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC) Looks like consensus is against you, DonFB, so I suggest you leave it. Andre🚐 19:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

additional sources for no wrongdoing

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

Andre🚐 21:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The original source:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are there still people who deny that?

Are the deniers saying:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the versions so far:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

or better:

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

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

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

References

^ Goldman, Adam (October 22, 2020). "What We Know and Don't About Hunter Biden and a Laptop". The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 23, 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2022.
^ Benner, Katie; Vogel, Kenneth P.; Schmidt, Michael S. (March 16, 2022). "Hunter Biden Paid Tax Bill, but Broad Federal Investigation Continues". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on March 23, 2022. Retrieved March 31, 2022.
^ Adam Goldman; Katie Benner; Kenneth P. Vogel (August 13, 2021). "Hunter Biden Discloses He Is Focus of Federal Tax Inquiry". The New York Times. Archived from the original on February 15, 2021. Retrieved December 12, 2022.

How biased can Wiki get?

It looks like the small bit of constructiveness to be found here has been wrung out by the participants, and all that's left is a dry, unconstructive husk. WP:NOTAFORUM has been explained and there's really not much left to do here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

In response to the actual comment by the IP editor:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misleading wording

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of this sentence that's currently in the lead:

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

^ Kessler, Glenn (2019-09-27). "A quick guide to Trump's false claims about Ukraine and the Bidens". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on November 14, 2020. Retrieved 2022-10-29.
^ Padden, Brian (October 28, 2020). "Trump Campaign Focuses on Hunter Biden Emails as "October Surprise"". Voice Of America. Archived from the original on April 26, 2022. Retrieved April 26, 2022.
^ Alba, Davey (October 29, 2019). "Debunking 4 Viral Rumors About the Bidens and Ukraine". The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 4, 2022. Retrieved 2022-10-29.

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

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

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

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

Hunter Biden pled guilty to misdemeanor tax and gun charges

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

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

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

Categories: