Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy/Archive 2

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2022
Remove “(without evidence)”. Evidence was presented from the very first appearance of the laptop. Stating otherwise Is just biased opinion, and has no place on Wikipedia. Oldestandfaceless (talk) 12:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Perennial complaint, answered above. ValarianB (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What is the "without evidence" assertion sourced to? I'm not able to find it in the body. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality
I raised the issue of the neutrality of the first sentence of the lead at NPOVN. TFD (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Should a NPoV template be placed on this page, in the meantime? GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You could, but be sure to link the template to the discussion at NPOVN, The point of the template is to alert readers to a discussion, should they want to join in, rather than to be a badge of shame. I question though the usefulness, since editors are more likely to look at the talk page, which mentions the discussion, than the article itself. Perhaps best to wait and see how the discussion goes. If there is consensus that the article has a POV issue, then we could use the template while we are discussing how to improve it. TFD (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll leave that decision with you. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Adding section on alleged phone leak
Would the article benefit from the alleged phone leak that happened on July 2022? Here are some sources that could be helpful:
 * https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/12/23205397/hunter-biden-phone-hack-4chan-google-twitter-misinformation-crack
 * https://www.aa.com.tr/en/science-technology/alleged-hunter-biden-icloud-leak-reveals-inappropriate-contents/2635295
 * https://www.nationalreview.com/news/secret-service-responds-to-graphic-hunter-biden-photos-videos/
 * https://www.vice.com/en/article/g5vgwm/alleged-hunter-biden-leak-shows-icloud-can-be-iphone-securitys-weak-link
 * https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/secret-service-says-aware-alleged-hunter-biden-icloud-hack-rcna37709
 * https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/07/11/hunter-bidens-iphone-hacked/ Pyraminxsolver (talk) 04:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Has nothing to do with the topic of the article, so, no. ValarianB (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Alleged
The current first sentence is The Hunter Biden laptop controversy involves a laptop computer that allegedly belonged to Hunter Biden

At this time, there is no credible news source that disputes that the laptop indeed belonged to Hunter Biden. e.g. from the New York Times:
 * People familiar with the investigation said prosecutors had examined emails between Mr. Biden, Mr. Archer and others about Burisma and other foreign business activity. Those emails were obtained by The New York Times from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop. The email and others in the cache were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation.

In the interests of accuracy, allegedly should be removed.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/16/us/politics/hunter-biden-tax-bill-investigation.html Rendall (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "appears to..." SPECIFICO talk 16:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

lede
the lede is garbage. it needs to at least make clear why the laptop is controversial i.e. the material on it relating to biden family overseas interests. the words ukraine or burisma aren't mentioned once - it's so contrived that it almost reads like hunter biden owning a laptop and needing it repaired is the controversy. there are new reliable sources post 2020 (i.e. april 2022 article by wapo), they should be reflected in the lede 101.98.134.21 (talk) 03:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Its called LEAD, not lede. A lede is something different, unless you are British I guess. --Malerooster (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * nz english and british english are very similar. 2404:4408:4741:800:8C9A:C64C:5D13:4EB5 (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Seealso section
I removed a link per WP:SEEALSO. If it is to be returned against MOS, just make a case here and gain consensus. Thank you, Malerooster (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Laptop
Maybe drop the controversy part if article and just state facts. Laptop is authentic, fbi had in 2019 etc., then maybe touch on what is controversial about it. This is frame to make is seem like there is still a debate about the authenticity of the laptop. 2600:1017:B009:D99A:A8B3:11B0:69DA:A9FD (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read the article. SPECIFICO talk 20:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You might want to check out NY Mag’s article if only because it gives a fairly good overview just to compare to the article here. [Https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/hunter-biden-laptop-investigation.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/hunter-biden-laptop-investigation.html] 71.190.233.44 (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have any substantive comment, or are you just assigning homework? SPECIFICO talk 17:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Just assigning homework. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Potential source
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/hunter-biden-laptop-investigation.html X-Editor (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Lack of citation to original NY Post story?
I'm a bit confused why there's not a single citation to the original NY Post article covering the existence of the laptop. As a reader, I was curious to see what they were originally alleging, to compare that original article to the numerous cited responses. I see the NY Post is considered "generally unreliable" on Wikipeda, and therefore "outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used." But this page would not exist without that first story - that seems like reason enough to at least cite it. It probably just belongs on the opening sentence of the "NY Post reporting" section, and doesn't need to be given any more importance than a reference. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Even if it were reliable, it would probably not be used because articles should be based on secondary sources, i.e., sources reporting on what the New York Post published. So there is no exceptional reason to use it. TFD (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not correct. Primary sources can be used in articles, per WP:USEPRIMARY. It's even qualified in the policy document that an article reader seeing a primary source as a reference "does not have to be able to determine that the material in the article or in the primary source is true." The NY Post is a valid source for the statement positing "In 2020, the NY Post said X". X does not have to be true to cite the Post in this case. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The section you linked to says they "may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements. That would be things like the name of the publisher, the address, the number of issues per week, etc. TFD (talk) 02:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It is probably best to put a link to the original story in an External Links section. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's probably the best solution. TFD (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you're misunderstanding what counts as a "straightforward, descriptive statement," and you're cherry-picking that one phrase out while ignoring the letter of that policy besides. The policy pretty clearly allows for using primary sources to cite statements that reflect the primary source itself. The very first example in the policy is an example of this:
 * An article about the conquest of the hypothetical country above: The proclamation itself is an acceptable primary source for a simple description of the proclamation, including its size, whether it was written in blackletter calligraphy, whether it is signed or has an official seal, and what words, dates, or names were on it. Anyone should be able to look at an image of the proclamation and see that it was all written on one page, whether it used that style of calligraphy, and so forth. However, the proclamation's authenticity, meaning, relevance, importance, typicality, influences, and so forth should all be left to the book that analyzed it, not to Wikipedia's editors.
 * Also in the policy:
 * "The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what the article says it does."
 * Both are fully acceptable uses of primary sources. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between an official proclamation and an unreliable news story. We can use for example presidential proclamation number 10019 (National Foster Care Month, 2020) that Trump proclaimed May to be National Foster Care Month, 2020. That doesn't mean we can include unreliable sources for an article about the month.
 * Nothing in the NY Post article that was not covered in reliable sources belongs in this article. Some of the article was found to be true, some is under investigation and some was ignored altogether. We should not use the fact the article was mentioned as a hook to add information that reliable sources chose to ignore.
 * TFD (talk) 02:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Citing the NY Post would not add any information to this article; it's simply a primary source for the fact the the report existed. There are examples of this being acceptable practice all over Wikipedia:
 * New York times: 123
 * Al Jazeera: 12
 * BBC: 12
 * And even for other marked "unreliable sources":
 * Fox News: 1234
 * Blaze: 1
 * International Business Times: 1
 * Do you think all those citations should be removed, because they are of primary sources? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact that another article does something is not an argument this article should. There was for example, an article that turned out to be a hoax. See "The Fake Nazi Death Camp: Wikipedia’s Longest Hoax, Exposed" (Omar Benjakob, Haaretz Oct 4, 2019.) That doesn't mean that hoax articles are condoned. TFD (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * A link to the original NY Post article seems fine. Even if we view the NYP as unreliable, the fact that they broke the story seems to be a pretty clear "exceptional circumstances". I dont buy that the NYP is a primary source. If that were the case, any news organization that breaks a story would be disqualified as a source for that story, which is clearly not what WP:PRIMARY is intending. Bonewah (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to partake in the discussion here if you're opposed to the inclusion of the NY Post as a source. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I stated my view in the section below. This is not a "source" it's a document that is the subject of this article. It can be linked in the same way that any other work of art is linked in our articles, e.g. here in this article. I have not said I oppose linking this Post article. I do oppose adding content or sourcing that's under active discussion with no current consensus. If you feel strongly about adding it as you have done, you need to address the substance of the other editors' concerns. SPECIFICO talk 16:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In fact, you did not opine on the sourcing of the NY Post below. You instead were advocating for a page moving and renaming. And it's interesting that you brand the article "not a source," since the consensus around here is that the NY Post is a source, albeit an unreliable one. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * And I am a pole-vaulter, albeit not a successful one. SPECIFICO talk 20:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , whether it's primary or secondary, it's still unreliable. One reason not to use it is that it would allow editors to add information that reliable sources had ignored, hence bringing unreliably sourced information into the article. Bear in might that articles are supposed to summarize what is reported in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat myself - citing the Post article would not bring any additional information into the article . The text of the article would remain unchanged. This particular citation would provide support for the already-present in-text attribution, which is yet another example of when primary or unreliable sources may be used on Wikipedia. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There might be information in the Post article that was not reported in mainstream media which adding it as a source would allow us to cover. TFD (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody is trying to use the NY Post as a legitimate source for any such other material in their article. Moreover, citing the Post article would not change Wikipedia policy surrounding WP:NYPOST, and any other information that might be added from that source would have to pass all the criteria of the phrase under discussion; namely, if it's not as straightforward as "the NY Post said X", it isn't allowed to be referenced by that article. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * A citation to the NY Post article can be used as a reference for the fact that the Post published the article, for what the article contains, etc. Per WP:SELFSOURCE, even questionable sources can be sources on themselves, provided the criteria in that guideline are met, which they are here. Isn't that right? --Bsherr (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not completely clear to me reading that particular guideline that this is a passing case based on that criteria... but I can see the argument for it. The statement "the NY Post said X" is primarily a statement ABOUT the NY Post, even though X may include "claims about third parties." PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Here, as I understand it, we are talking about the factual statement that the Post published the article, and then citing the article as a reference for that. Which of the five criteria is even a close call in this circumstance? --Bsherr (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities)" PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "It" means the proposition for which the source is cited, namely, that the Post published the article. That proposition does not involve anyone else but the Post. In other words, if, hypothetically the Post is a questionable source, the Post may be cited for what the Post did, but not what Hunter Biden did. --Bsherr (talk) 00:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do we need the Post as a source that they published the article when the sources we cite already say that? TFD (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I gave a reason in my first post above. In case you've forgotten, though, I'll replicate it for you here: "As a reader, I was curious to see what they were originally alleging, to compare that original article to the numerous cited responses" PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This was discussed a few months ago - link here to the archived discussion. I maintain my same position, which is that the story exists and there is no harm in listing it in the external links. Nobody is sourcing content from the NYP article, and readers will just google it and find it on their own anyways. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * From WP:EL - "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Per this content guideline the external links section should contain a link to the story. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , I would argue that the reverse question is way more relevant, why are you so determined to exclude a reference to the paper that kicked off the whole Laptop thing in the first place? Either WP:SELFSOURCE as described by  or WP:EL by  provide ample reasoning for inclusion, but the quote by  says it best "The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what the article says it does.".  Id agree with that even if it wasnt policy. Bonewah (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * My reason for excluding the New York Post is that there is a consensus it is unreliable. Self-published sources, unless written by experts, cannot be used: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."
 * My view is that we should follow policy or get it changed. But here I think policy is right. I do not want provide greater weight to the NYP article than it has received in reliable sources.
 * Unreliable means that some of the information in the article could be false. Suppose some of it is. By using it as a source, the article would be giving credence to false information about a living person. Furthermore, since it would be a source, some of that false information could be added to the article.
 * The elephant in the room it seems is that you believe the NYP is reliable. Otherwise the exception makes no sense. But the solution is to get consensus changed.
 * TFD (talk) 14:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not proposing using the New York Post as a third party source and i dont believe the others here are proposing that either. However, Self-published sources also states that Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities..." which is pretty clearly what is occurring here. There is no question that the NYP published the article at issue and there is no question that the article is relevant to this topic as it was the starting point for all of this. Therefore, there is no reason not to cite the NYP as a source as to what they said.
 * Even if that was not the case, we can and absolutely should include the NYP article in a external link, as it is plainly relevant to this topic even if it isnt a reliable source.
 * As for what you claim to be the elephant in the room, how about you refrain from speculating as to what you think i believe and ill do the same for you. Bonewah (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Since a handful of your points have already been addressed by other editors in this discussion, it seems like you're not open to having your mind changed about this.
 * Unreliable sources may be used in certain circumstances; they aren't in the "never use" category. The NY Post does not meet the criteria of a Self-published source in the section you linked; and WP:SELFSOURCE as quoted by Bsherr also covers "unreliable sources". A cited source does not necessarily "give creedence" to any claim to which it is not a direct citation for - in this case it's literally just a source for what the NY Post itself said in its article, not for substantiating claims made in said article.
 * To address what's not already been discussed above, I don't believe one link would give the NY Post WP:UNDUE weight, considering it would be 1 of 87 other sources in this article. Though your assertion that "you don't want to provide greater weight" to the Post is likely accurate. Also, I'd like to note that you're not assuming goood faith by asserting that believes in the total reliability of the NY Post as a source; they've made 2 total comments in this discussion, neither of which explicitly or implicitly try to qualify the Post as a reliable source. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Just put it in the external links. No need to debate whether it’s a reliable source. It belongs there simply because it’s the subject of the article. Even the Flat Earth Society has an external link in the Modern flat Earth beliefs article, and nobody’s debating the reliability of that as a source. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposed resolution
I suggest this page be renamed and moved to. The only controversy is among WP editors who are obsessed with Mr. Biden's travails. SPECIFICO talk 19:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * That doesn't seem right. A controversy by definition is a "disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated." This issue is clearly both prolonged and public, and it's been quite heated at times. Pretty much every major news outlet reported on it and its fallout in some form or another. It's pretty solidly in "controversy" territory, no matter how legitimate the underlying story seems. Even this one got its own page. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Many marital disputes are prolonged public and heated, but are not long, public, or heated controversies. I would be interested to see current sources that say its an ongoing controversy rather than an obsession of some Republican politicians and their enablers. By the same token, I'd be fine changing the name of that tan suit article as well. SPECIFICO talk 21:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, semantics debates. Rarely useful, never fun. This is pretty obviously a political controversy, despite your personal opinion on its magnitude or relevancy. There's enough reliable sourcing at least from the time of the story breaking to ensure that. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please provide references to support "contoversy" is the dominant mainstream view. SPECIFICO talk 00:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Citing the section on Contentious labels below that you linked, I don't have to do that.
 * "Make sure, as well, that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy" - Plenty of reliable sources attest to the existence of discussion surrounding the laptop. They don't have to explicitly label it a "controversy"
 * "And that the term is not used to grant a fringe viewpoint undue weight" - The story has been talked about by almost all the big right-wing news outlets and by prominent right-wing politicians. And the right wing in the US is not a "fringe viewpoint" by any measure.
 * PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That suggestion doesn't even warrant a reply. TFD (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you share the rationale for your unwarranted reply?<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So as not to waste other editors' time, I shall reply on your talk page. TFD (talk) 02:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see our guideline that relates to characterizing this or that as a "controversy". See also WP:COATRACK.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 13:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you please which part of the guideline and which part of WP:COATRACK are relevant to this discussion. TFD (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It says controversy is a subjective and vague term that should be avoided. –– FormalDude  (talk)  00:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In fact it doesn't say that. Please quote the exact text. TFD (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "Rather than using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies." –– FormalDude  (talk)  01:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you explain what parts of those pages are relative to this discussion. TFD (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Now that it's been indicated to you, above, I'd be interested to hear the basis for your view to the contrary.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you please point to the discussion where this was indicated to me. TFD (talk) 01:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you trolling? I just told you that MOS:LABEL says controversy is a subjective and vague term that should be avoided. –– FormalDude  (talk)  21:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please avoid personal attacks. MOS:LABEL does not say controversy is a subjective and vague term that should be avoided. TFD (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not a personal attack since I didn't call you a troll, I simply asked if that was your intent. Your comment implying that I made a personal attack, however, is actually an aspersion.
 * And I suggest you re-read LABEL which specifically says "controversial" is a word to watch that is "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution". –– FormalDude  (talk)  01:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose re-naming this page (and noting an RM hasn't been opened for it). GoodDay (talk) 05:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please provide RS links that support weight of mainstream view this is a "controversy". That would be constructive.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

More attempts to change wordings
We just had an RFC which closed with consensus to remove alleged from the description of the laptop. Editors are trying to now word it as "believed to have," which is very similar wording to what was rejected in the RFC. Quoting from the close "Some editors asserted that the ownership is still unclear but largely failed to support this with reliable sources, while editors opposing the adjective produced a plethora of recent RS that did not doubt the connection." The reason why we have RFC's is to avoid this type of disruptive editing. Please gain a new consensus or respect what was decided. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * It's not for you alone to decide how RfC closures are interpreted and enacted. –– FormalDude  (talk)  14:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's why I started the discussion. The wording SPECIFICO inserted was also rejected in the RFC as not supported by reliable sources. The closer found there was a "plethora" of recent RS that "did not doubt the connection." Mr Ernie (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Nor is it for you or SPECIFICO to interpret the results of an RFC outside of their literal meaning. The results of the RFC per consensus were quite plainly "remove the word 'alleged'". Not sure from where you drew your mandate to add the new wording. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The word alleged has been removed and the removal is not currently at issue.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * See for my own thoughts on this. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification and additional thoughts. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The edit is a clear violation of the RfC. Furthermore, "believed to have" is WP:WEASEL: Who actually believed this? It's an attempt to cast doubt on a fact, which is why editors rejected the term "allegedly." TFD (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * TFD is correct. The additions to the lead were inappropriate  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

What?
"This article is not about Zuckerberg or whatever PR spin he adopts to save his reputation" How is this an excuse not to feature his regret? All statements by company executives are technically PR spin, so by your logic, anything any executive at a company says should be removed from WP. Jack Dorsey's regret is also featured in the article, yet you haven't removed that with the same bad excuse. X-Editor (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Seemed fine to me, espeically since we quote Dorsey and the sentence right before from the AP said it was not confirmed what FB did. Well that confirms it I think. So it adds value for that. I would even maybe support removing the AP sentence Associated Press noted that the story had, as of October 17, 2020, "not been confirmed by other publications" as not needed. PackMecEng (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That source is Washington Examiner, not reliable for politics. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 18:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Andrevan Sure thing, here is The Hill, BBC, and WSJ. Would that work for you? PackMecEng (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the Hill and the BBC look OK, the WSJ is an op-ed tho. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 18:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Works for me, mind if I reinstate replacing the Examiner with the Hill & BBC? PackMecEng (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I won't revert it. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 18:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks! PackMecEng (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 100,000,000 people have opinions about Hunter Biden and the laptop story. It is UNDUE for this article. It may be significant content for a facebook, Zuckerberg, or other article. As referenced in my edit summary, Zuckerberg is under attack bigtime and his stock price has collapsed in the face of renewed calls for government regulation and other measures that would further depress his standing and wealth. His statements in this matter are UNDUE for the current page and may be appropriately contextualized elsewhere. The hair-trigger reinstatment of BLP content challenged by revert is not how we collaborate on this site. Very disappointing, and the status quo should be reinstated pending consensus on ONUS and BLP issues.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no BLP issue here. Also I find your claims of undue a little strange given we give Dorsey even more space and the rest of the section in general. PackMecEng (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * While I agree with you that it is a shame that such an outstanding example of a businessman who devotes his life to serving others has been embarrassed by leaving his laptop in a pawnshop, there is no BLP reason for any of the facts you want to minimize of omit. TFD (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with the irrelevance of two techie CEOs opinions about their own business decisions? Hunter is not the one who led them to exclude story.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I didnt see the Dorsey bit. That is UNDUE as well. Good catch.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There's nothing undue about Dorsey or Zuckerberg's comments. These are top executives of the social media companies that censored the laptop story talking about their regret of censoring it. How is that context UNDUE in any way? I would also like to point out that everyone else who has commented disagrees with your arguments. "100,000,000 people have opinions about Hunter Biden and the laptop story." This argument makes no sense because Dorsey and Zuckerberg aren't just random people with an opinion, they are top executives at some of the largest companies in the world. X-Editor (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Censor" is something that governmental authorities impose on their citizens. Neither of these gents is a governmental authority imposing a legal sanction. They are free to run their private businesses according to whatever principles and methods they choose. You are misrepresenting the event and such misrepresentation cannot be the basis of a valid content decision. Tip-top executives though they may be, that's not the issue. The issue is whether such content is relevant to the topic of this page. The ONUS is on you to demonstrate that their editorial decision is a significant factor in the narrative of the purported controversy concerning the NY Post laptop story.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 03:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's article on censorship actually says "Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions and other controlling bodies.", so you're wrong. Secondly, even if you're right, cherrypicking one word I used to try to discredit all of my arguments is extremely disingenuous. Lastly, I clearly demonstrated the ONUS in my comment above. Nobody but you thinks that the comments shouldn't be featured, so please WP:DROPTHESTICK. X-Editor (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with "Wikipedia's article on censorship." As I've stated, the opnions of two tech-financial-popculture celebrities is UNDUE, and when the UNDUE content conveys BLP spin, that content is further weakened. A brief discussison here among a small number of editors is not dispositive and there is no solid basis for this content at this time. I will be editing or removing it pending a responsive argument from those who adcocate its inclusion.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

So, I do think there's an argument to be made to include Zuckerberg and Dorsey's comments about the social media thing. The Hill story says Facebook suppressed the story. The BBC uses censorship in the headline but in the body it says "restricting." However let's make sure not to misquote Zuckerberg. He says in the BBC story. Asking Zuckerberg if he regretted suppressing the factual story, the Facebook founder replied: "It sucks... I think in the same way that having to go though a criminal trial but being proven innocent in the end sucks... in the end you're free." But Zuckerberg acknowledged that there remained disagreement about the story, which he said was a "hyper-political issue". "Depending on what side of the political spectrum [you're on], you either think we didn't censor it enough or we censored it way too much." That's a much more equivocal statement than simply he regrets censoring it. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 15:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Re: "As I've stated, the opinions of two tech-financial-pop-culture celebrities is UNDUE, and when the UNDUE content conveys BLP spin, that content is further weakened." What aspect of DUE do you think it violates? DUE means that articles should "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." That's in the first sentence. Now unfortunately reliable sources such as the New York Times are all biased against the Democrats, but it is not our role as editors to correct this. TFD (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Their opinions and inner experience are not about the subject of this article. UNDUE wrt the topic of this page. As I have said at least twice, their feelings may be due weight for other articles. You many find it helpful to review our WP:NPOV page in its entirety for further guidance on this point. Note, among others, the section on WP:BALANCING. Please also see our well-established essay on WP:COATRACK material that should not be slathered into and article so as to diverge from the topic of the page. Coatracking and Framing have been deployed to an unprecedented extent by Trump-era Republicans, and the Facebook/Twitter narratives that go beyond the appropriate content regarding their actions are typical of the red herring and strawman arguments that do not constitute encyclopedic content on the topic of this article.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course the opinions etc. are about the subject of this article which happens to be Hunter Biden's laptop controversy. A controversy is defined as "a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views." (Merriam-Webster) IOW the subject of the article is "opinions and inner experience." TFD (talk) 00:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sadly, it appears that the editors promoting the former content did not even bother to read the cited sources. I have fixed the article text so that it now conforms to the cited sources and reflects the portion of the related narratives that are appropriate encyclopedic content for this page. An examination of RS references and their substance is what's relevant here, not the dictionary.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So you don't think dictionary definitions are relevant for choosing words in articles? That's an interesting view. The problem is that readers may not understand the "alternative definitions" that you propose. TFD (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Scarequotes are the last refuge of the scoundrel. Needless to say, I proposed none of whatever you imagine.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 03:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Seeing as Facebook is a large social media outlet and was a medium on which the controversy was spread, I do not think a 12.8% owner's opinion is any at all undue.
 * None of your blue links aid you because assigning zero weight to the 12.8% owner is incorrect. It does not matter if you think it is PR spin or not. If your website fueled a controversy and you had something to say as reported by any major news outlet, it is appropriate to put it in. Xenmorpha (talk) 08:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's an alternative saying. The correct saying is "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." TFD (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Xenmorpha, I addressed that above. The issue is whether it is significant for this page. It may be significant for several other topic pages I can think of. Or it may just be a little bit of trivia in the metaverse. Please review the thread and edit summaries. The real issue, which I believe is now resolved, is that the article text did not conform to the information in our RS citations.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 11:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You still haven't explained why you think that this article should not contain anything about the Hunter Biden laptop controversy. Notice the word "controversy" in the article title. TFD (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That is a strawman. Also it's unintelligible. Could you rephrase more clearly?<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 12:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If it is unintelligible to you, how can you conclude it is a strawman? TFD (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The reaction by the social media companies is a central and essential part of the "controversy." The comments by the CEO's of those companies, with respect to their actions taken, is also a central part of the controversy. Calling them tech financial popculture celebrities is not reflective of the actual situation. The content is well sourced and very relevant. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course it is. Unfortunately, editors with such a clear bias, don't want to hear this, don't like it, so they will argue against this ad nauseam. Its too bad really. --Malerooster (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Obviously, some editors have failed to provide any policy or guideline based reasons for keeping out material information and it is pointless to continue arguing with them. I don't btw consider "But its a violation of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:KITCHENSINK!" without explaining how it violates them to be a policy or guideline based argument. TFD (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

RfC about ownership of the laptop
Should the article use the term "alleged" in reference to the ownership of the laptop computer? TFD (talk) 12:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Survey

 * No Although early news reports could not confirm ownership, there is now no question the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. The only question is the authenticity of the emails found on it. TFD (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes A blind rabid Trump supporter, claims a someone dropped off 3 laptops and signed Hunter Biden's name. That is to this day the only connection of the physical devices to Mr. Biden. The contents, a mixture of authentic emails, forgeries, and other post-repair shop, additions, is a separate issue entirely. Zaathras (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes Regardless of what may ultimately be (or has already been) determined, the initial reporting was an undocumented allegation based on discredited Trump operative Giuliani's production. "Alleged" is charitable, given the facts and circumstances. I'll also note that this RfC is premature, and that this kind of premature jump to the formal RfC process is counterproductive. We rarely see this kind of RfC initiated by savvy experienced editors such as OP. It's a misstep and it should be withdrawn.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes In spite of journalistic laziness in calling it "Hunter Biden's laptop", we do not know that it belonged to Hunter. Example of this poor practice: The Hill in reporting on Zuckerberg's appearance on Joe Rogan's podcast two days ago leads off with Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg this week told popular podcaster Joe Rogan that Facebook did limit stories on the news feed related to the New York Post story about President Biden’s son Hunter Biden and his laptop after warnings from the FBI, but defended the law enforcement agency as a “legitimate institution.” (emphasis added) as a first paragraph. However, paragraph four reads The Post reported shortly before the 2020 election that the FBI obtained a laptop that allegedly belonged to Hunter Biden as part of a federal investigation into him. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Tell me, by your criterion, how can we ever "know" that the laptop belonged to Hunter? If reliable sources reporting it is not enough, what would it take? You're also confusing the past tense reference to 2020 (i.e. before forensic testing), which alleged that the laptop was owned by Hunter Biden, with 2022 present tense, where we now KNOW that the laptop was owned by Hunter Biden, which is why it is reported as such. 2404:4408:4741:800:8C9A:C64C:5D13:4EB5 (talk) 00:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's an allegation and it is still somewhat dicey. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 16:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, per comments above. Carlstak (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. Only some of the files has been verified, not the origins. The page isnt called Hunter Biden laptop, its Hunter Biden laptop controversy. We should describe it that way. Softlemonades (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No Wikipedia should follow reliable sources, for example The Guardian where we find "Now, however, almost no one disputes its authenticity" in response to the original baseless (The Politico piece noted that this was an evidence free assertion) claim that it was Russian disinformation. There are no current reliable sources who are challenging that it is Biden's laptop. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It appears to have escaped you that the provenance of the machine is irrelevant, when the so-called controversy concerns whether all of the contents and every file on the laptop was authentic. Unfortunately you will find no evidence of that.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you now saying the laptop belonged to Biden, but merely challenge whether all the contents are genuine? That's a reasonable position and what the article should say. Obviously it is possible, if unlikely, that files were changed, added or removed before the laptop was acquired by the FBI. That's why reliable sources are busy authenticating them. TFD (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Um, no. What gave you that idea?<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The focus of this RFC is whether or not the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden or not. Reliable sources are now overwhelmingly clear that it did, so our article should reflect that. And to date, per Vox, no evidence of disinformation has surfaced. And per CNN the assumption by law enforcement investigating the contents is that the laptop is Biden’s. I hope no one has reason to doubt the vaunted and august reputation of our agencies such as the FBI. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If the FBI arrests someone, we still say theyre alleged to have done something. If DOJ charges someone, we still say theyre alleged to have done something. The only difference here is FBI hasnt arrested anyone and DOJ hasnt charged anyone.
 * We especially dont go off the assumptions of anonymous sources from unknown agencies, because CNN doesnt even say it was FBI, not that thatd make a difference for the reasons above. Softlemonades (talk) 14:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No, as per verified references it's not alleged.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No as per verified sources it is no longer alleged.Early news reports could not confirm ownership but not now.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This comment and the above are incorrect. The laptop has not to date been authenticated. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes it has according to reliable sources already on the page.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No, they have not. As I pointed out in my comment, articles are lazily calling it "Hunter Biden's laptop" even though it has not been authenticated, and they sometimes contradict themselves in the same article, like the example I presented above. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No. How is this still a question when the authenticity is acknowledged by the Washington Post (Two experts confirm the veracity of thousands of emails) and The Times (A cache of emails detailing the business dealings of Biden’s wayward son Hunter... is finally being accepted as genuine)? Alaexis¿question? 21:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , because the WaPo and Times sources that you linked do not say that the laptop was authenticated. They say that some, but not all, of the emails found on it have been. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, this is what The Guardian has to say about it
 * On the political flip-side, House intelligence committee chair Adam Schiff said the laptop was a “smear” from Russian intelligence, and 50 former intelligence officials said it was probably Russian disinformation. Now, however, almost no one disputes its authenticity.
 * Alaexis¿question? 06:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * No Of the sources below, the Hill and Politico contain phrases which might initially be read as questioning the authenticity. However, even those two sources, when one reads the full article, agree that the laptop is authentic. This leaves CNN as the only outlier. But that's not enough to over-rule the chorus of sources that agree that the laptop was Hunter's. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes Veracity of a physical laptop that may have passed hands from a shopkeeper to Rudy Giuliani to the Trump administration remains in question. ValarianB (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes: Just looking at the sources, while WaPo seems to be convinced, the majority of reliable sources so far are not, so we should continue using "alleged". (There does seem to be more consensus that some of the contents of the laptop are real than the laptop itself.) Loki (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think thats the key point. As a compromise the article could maybe be clearer that some of the contents have been verified, but the chain of custody hasnt been and probably never can be without some major developments Softlemonades (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't need to compromise by finding a halfway point between policy and nonsense. There are editors who think that some "some of the contents have been verified" is proof of vast conspiracy theories about the bidens. And if we have WP editors who believe that, imagine how many readers might be misled by such a compromise.  As is often the case, we simply must await developments and unimpeachable sourcing for this kind of BLP content.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * While this shouldn't be taken for support for including this particular material: we have an obligation here on Wikipedia to say what's verifiable. If it's likely to be misleading, that's an issue of wording, not about whether or not to include it. Loki (talk) 02:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No Do not use words that cast doubt on facts. I am convinced by the evidence that shows this laptop belongs to Hunter.--Madame Necker (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Your personal beliefs about the laptop are irrelevant. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Muboshgu Your personal beliefs about me are irrelevant. Madame Necker (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , no, literally your personal beliefs about the laptop are WP:OR. We follow the sources, none of which say the laptop has been authenticated. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope. Your evaluation of sources are a catastrophic failure. Madame Necker (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH WP:RGW WP:NOTLEAD Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 23:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Andrevan What are you talking about? I am not saying sources are unreliable. I am saying his interpretation of sources are incorrect. Madame Necker (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Since no source, including the deep dives by WaPo and NBC News, have said that the laptop is authentic, I think it's your interpretation that is incorrect. Sources that say "Hunter Biden's laptop" are doing so for conciseness, as they have not validated the laptop either. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is inappropriate. AGF. Madame Necker is probably referring to the list of sourcing down below as the evidence for their comment. The question is if the laptop belonged to Biden. RS is very clear now that it did. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Show me one source that says that it belonged to Hunter Biden, and not the sources that lazily call it "Hunter Biden's laptop". Show me the forensic evidence. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Muboshgu "Hunter Biden's laptop" means it belongs to Hunter Biden. Nobody has to satisfy you. Madame Necker (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Necker, actually you do. Because the text you prefer is the current BLP-compliant consensus. The WP:BURDEN is on you to convince us all that your preferred text is verified. You don't have to satisfy WP standards, but if you choose not to the text will remain as is.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @SPECIFICO I do not need to convince people who blatantly disregard reliable sources. They can squabble all they want. Madame Necker (talk) 00:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the sourcing presented in the section below is clear enough for me. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, that is not the standard by which this site decides content.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t know that these comments of yours, which fill up the page, are helpful. Let’s stick to the content. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You decided to share your declaration of your personal beliefs and standards of evidence. That's why I asked you to stay on point and try to address policy and sourcing.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please stop bludgeoning the discussion. Madame Necker (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Madame Necker, that's an odd comment coming from one who has commented more times. Many others have also commented more times than SPECIFICO. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I referred to and have added to the list of reliable sources that we draw content from. I haven’t noticed any sourcing in your comments - hopefully you can point me to it if I’ve overlooked. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Your personal opinion does not override what the sources actually describe. I have not provided any additional sources because I am opposing this change. As several editors have explained in the course of this long thread, the BURDEN and the ONUS is on you and your cohort. If you wish to see it changed, you have an affirmative burden to provide sourcing and policy that would support that view. Thus far, none has been provided. Just personal opinions and handwaving.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There's an entire section containing the sources - please find it below. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No - as it's not for us to decide that it was "alleged" or not. PS - FWIW, I'll abide by whatever the RFC result is. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is completely backwards. Softlemonades (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Use "widely believed" instead - it's true that we'll never know for sure whether it was Hunter's laptop, unless he himself acknowledges that it was (and apparently he's not sure either, since he may have been in a drug-induced haze at the time). On the other hand, "alleged" makes it sound like there's disagreement among reliable sources about whether the laptop was his, which at this point there doesn't really seem to be. So I think a reasonable approach is to use wording like "a laptop computer that is widely believed to have belonged to Hunder Biden...". Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes It remains an allegation. Protonk (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * YesClearly there is still much ambiguity regarding this specific issue (as evidenced by this very divided RFC). Therefore, I suggest the WP community wait until the investigation concludes and the dust settles before editing the word "alleged". LEt it be for now.Writethisway (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * No - The current wording of the introductory sentence gives undue weight to the uncertainty regarding the ownership of the computer according to the list of sources presented below. Therefore, the sentence currently violates WP:RS and WP:NPOV.
 * The “no qualifier” group of sources contains some of Wikipedia’s highest quality sources such as the Guardian, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Financial Times, The Times, The Independent, The Telegraph, and NBC News. What is even more convincing is that the Guardian is part of the group, since it is the most left-leaning high quality source that we use on Wikipedia. The Guardian quote also most clearly states the current media belief in the authenticity of the laptop:
 * "On the political flip-side, House intelligence committee chair Adam Schiff said the laptop was a “smear” from Russian intelligence, and 50 former intelligence officials said it was probably Russian disinformation. Now, however, almost no one disputes its authenticity."(Guardian, 2/27/22)
 * The lead (and article) should be rewritten to reflect the current state of the Hunter Biden laptop controversy. Below are my suggested changes to the lead (which shows how the lead and the article as a whole can be written in a neutral fashion without using the nonneutral qualifier as required by npov policy):


 * The Hunter Biden laptop controversy involves a laptop computer and the question of its ownership by Hunter Biden, son of the then presidential candidate Joe Biden, and if the emails on the hard drive reveal unethical behavior. The laptop was seized by the FBI after being informed of its existence by John Paul Mac Isaac, a computer repair shop owner in Wilmington, Delaware, who claimed that it had been brought to his shop in April 2019 by a person saying he was Hunter Biden, who however never came back for it.


 * Three weeks before the 2020 United States presidential election, the New York Post published a story presenting Mac Isaacs claims regarding the origin of the laptop. The Post also reported that some of the emails on the computer were allegedly compromising for Joe Biden. The incumbent president and presidential candidate Donald Trump tried unsuccessfully to turn the story into a so-called October surprise to hurt Joe Biden's campaign.


 * Social media and media outlets originally attempted to suppress the New York Post story. Conservative media outlets, however, promoted the story, leading most other major media outlets to also discuss the story. At the time of the Post story, the authenticity of the digital files relating to Hunter Biden and emails from him on the computer’s hard drive were unknown. Since then, a large number of the emails on the hard drive have been confirmed as genuine.


 * PolitiFact wrote in June 2021: "Over time, there has been less doubt that the laptop did in fact belong to Hunter Biden", concluding that the laptop "was real in the sense that it exists, but it didn't prove much", as "[n]othing from the laptop has revealed illegal or unethical behavior by Joe Biden as vice president with regard to his son's tenure as a director for Burisma..." PolitiFact states that it is possible that "copies of a laptop" were obtained, instead of the actual laptop.
 * --Guest2625 (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * (text in parentheses above was added for clarification: Guest2625 (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC))


 * WP:RS does not apply to article text. Your statement that the content violates RS cannot be correct. As to NPOV, this article is a BLP as to multiple living persons. That is the applicable standard. As is clear from this RfC, there is substantial, reasoned, policy and sourcing-based doubt as to the removal of "alleged". Therefore it cannot be removed at the present time.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 12:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you tell me part of BLP you think removing alleged would violate? TFD (talk) 23:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Excellent lead rewrite proposal. Contains the factual information and is presented in an NPOV manner. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There are more than a few problems with this draft. although there are some parts that are fine. The Politifact part seems OK.
 * "Emails on the drive reveal unethical behavior" What is this language from?
 * "attempted to suppress" the story - do you have a source for such language? The media failed to confirm the story, they didn't "attempt to suppress" the story, AFAIK.
 * "a large number of the emails on the hard drive have been confirmed as genuine." citation needed? I thought it was "some of the material." "A large number" - what's large?
 * Regarding the overall issue, I believe this summarizes it well (though note it is an opinion piece so I don't think it can be added to the article): The FBI received the laptop back in 2020 from a computer repair shop owner who claimed the PC had been left in his shop but never retrieved by Hunter Biden. Analysts determined that much of the data was a “disaster” from a forensics standpoint, as the hard-drive had clearly been accessed by persons other than Biden’s son. Nonetheless, after exhaustive studies completed earlier this year, both the New York Times and the Washington Post concluded that some of the retrieved material had been authentic; and while it showed that Hunter clearly tried to trade on his father’s name, it failed to indicate any corruption on Joe Biden’s part.
 * Basically, I think we can add "some of the retrieved material had been authentic" to the article, but stronger implications aren't supported. The sources calling it "Hunter Biden's laptop" aren't being precise in how they refer to it. Just because they called it his laptop, doesn't mean all of the material is presumed authentic. That's why we have to be cautious with WP:BLPCRIME because some people are probing Hunter Biden for tax fraud - though, IMHO, they won't be able to show that based on what I've read. And I don't think the "Burisma" thing has any there there either, so it should be given very limited weight. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 00:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Saying that he owned the laptop does not necessarily mean that every email is authentic, and we should mention that. Furthermore, owning a laptop is not a criminal offense, so it is not a violation of BLPCRIME, which says, "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." TFD (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's true. However, the language from Guest 2625 with, "emails on the hard drive reveal unethical behavior," while unethical behavior is not a crime, it's still improper under BLP to suggest the possibility of unethical behavior in a case like this. See this example, from WP:BLPPUBLIC: Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred. All the laptop stuff is basically allegation, the question in this RFC is simply whether his ownership of the laptop was an allegation. I say, it is. Unless you have a more explicit source. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 01:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * TFD, aside from your ongoing, evident annoyance at having had your edit reverted, it's not clear why you even think your edit would be helpful for our readers. The second paragraph of the lead gives due weight to the possiblility that the physical machine was formerly the property of Hunter Biden -- a rather inconsequential possiblity, and one for which, as many have said, fails the standard for BLP sourcing.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That part of BLP do you think removing "alleged" violates? TFD (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No - I got jumped into this article a bit ago and needed to find reliable sourcing for the laptop being owned by Hunter Biden, and the necessary sourcing from the Washington Post is already cited in the article. We can say the laptop was owned by Hunter Biden at this point. Basedeunie042 (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. The use of "alleged", or similar language, by some of the high-quality RS cited below indicates that we should be doing the same. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No There is the necessary sourcing to answer this question of whether or not it belonged to Mr Biden, the only thing that should be alleged is the content on the laptop. Basedosaurus (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No the laptop itself seems to be undeniably Hunter Biden's; only the content and potential modification — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iazyges (talk • contribs) 19:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No It is clear from current mainstream sources that the laptop did indeed belong to Hunter Biden. We should not leave room for claims that it is planted Russian disinformation, which itself is currently a baseless conspiracy theory. Thriley (talk) 03:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No, due to the broad consensus amongst reliable sources, but it's probably even better to rewrite the lead to make this less of an issue. We could start with The Hunter Biden laptop controversy centered on a New York Post story alleging that a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden contained... etc. etc.. There's no need to repeat the word allegation after this. Finishing the lead with the Politifact quote makes it clear that ownership is no longer in doubt. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion
This edit shows where I removed the term alleged, which was subsequently reverted. TFD (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * An irksome revert is no reason to call for an immediate RfC. Ordinary discussion is the next step. Please withdraw this RfC. Or write an essay "BR-RfC"<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Leaning no based on the sources that came up when I looked for a recent article on several major news providers. See the list below. Holding off on responding in the Survey while I wait to see what happens with the list of sources. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There have a lot of unproductive discussions on related articles, such as Hunter Biden, about whether articles should accept facts published in reliable sources. You involved in at least one discussion. TFD (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

The relevant manual of style section is WP:ALLEGED: "Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged, and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate." Casting doubt on facts is a dishonest polemical tactic that allows plausible deniability. For example, "I never said Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, I just said I don't know."

One editor said that we should use the term alleged because the authenticity of the laptop was not known when it was originally reported. But similarly the media phrased information about the 9/11 attacks in a tentative manner until the facts were established. But today only 9/11 truthers do that.

TFD (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, casting doubt on facts is bad. Nobody has authenticated the laptop, though, so it's not a "fact" that it belonged to him. Obama's Hawaiian birth has been validated by his birth certificate, to say nothing of the birth announcement in the local paper. Plenty of current sources regarding the laptop use the appropriate language of "alleged". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We accepted as fact that Obama was born in Hawaii long before it was validated by his birth certificate. He released his short form "Certification of Live Birth" on June 12, 2008 and his long form "Certificate of Live Birth" on April 22, 2011. People who questioned his place of birth before release of these documents were correctly referred to as conspiracy theorists. The Wikipedia article treated his birth in Hawaii as fact long before then. That's because the standard required is reliable sourcing, not forensic proof. Can you point to any reliable sources that say it is not his laptop? TFD (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Lol, no. I'm afraid that we don't have to prove a negative here. Zaathras (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The BLP issues arent the same. Denying the Hawaii birth brought up BLP issues that denying/alleging the laptop doesnt. Saying "Hunter Biden's alleged laptop" doesnt bring up BLP issues that saying Obama was born outside the US did.
 * Theyre not the same. Softlemonades (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP says, "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." Which part of that do you think does not apply to this article? And why would you want to add content that violates these principles anyway? TFD (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And that, in a nutshell, is why this RfC is a big waste of time and editor resources. The proposal clearly does not pass BLP and there's been no intelligible arguments in favor of it.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't understand your reply. Why do you think the proposal does not pass BLP and why do you think that having this article reflect facts in published sources is not an intelligible argument? Instead of just stating your conclusions, it would be helpful if you explained how you arrived at them. TFD (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood. Im not saying BLP doesnt apply. Im saying it does, and that the word "alleged" isnt the same here as it was for the birther nonsense. "Hunter Biden's alleged laptop" is not a BLP issue. "Obama was allegedly born in Hawaii" is a BLP issue. Thats what I meant. Softlemonades (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * BLP doesn't say it only applies when the wording could be harmful to the subject. It also applies if it could be beneficial or neutral. In their wisdom, the media - not Wikipedia editors - determined that Obama was born in Hawaii, even though they didn't factcheck it at the time. They have now determined there is a laptop and it belonged to Hunter Biden. They are currently trying to determine if any of the thousands of emails and other files were forged or altered. TFD (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Flat our misrepresentation of the issue here. I'm sure it's not intentional, but it is no less disqualifying. Since you are OP of this RfC, please be careful not to WP:BLUDGEON against what appears to be reconfirmed consensus.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Again you are making claims without any argument to support them. TFD (talk) 03:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Regardless of your pique, it's nobody's problem but your own to satisfy WP:BURDEN. It's clear from WP:V WP:BLP and WP:ONUS that this content cannot currently go in the article. If there is ever a prosecution or authoritative forensic analysis such as the FBI may have undertaken, there may one day be valid sourcing for your assertions. I feel your pain, but the burden is entirely on you and your annoyance does not subsitute for content verification. There's nothing other than a couple of weak sources, some careless offhand language in others that do not affirmatively verify the proposed change, and lots of editors' personal opinions or casual views, including those who concede they are not familiar with RS reporting or who subscribe to the views of the Murdoch media.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 13:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Like I said in my clarification, it applies in both, just in different ways and you cant do a flat comparison. I feel like either Im not explaining that well or its just not being heard right, so Im going to leave the discussion. Softlemonades (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * A question: I'm not entirely up to date on all the details of this story. If (at least a substantial amount of) the emails/files found on the laptop were verified to be Hunter's, how would the laptop not be his? Is there speculation here that someone for instance got access to Hunter's real laptop, copied the hard drive over to a second laptop, and dumped the second laptop at the repair shop? Endwise (talk) 05:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * His phone and iCloud were hacked, there discussions about adding that to the article. It could have been possible to load the laptop with files from that or other sources. That's speculation and all that so it doesnt go in the article, but possibilities like that are why the article talks about some of the files being verified and not the laptop itself.
 * And yeah, there were multiple laptops. One was left at his doctors or something I think. So who knows. Softlemonades (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Like you I haven't been paying much attention especially since I'm not an American frankly I had thought this was a dead issue until I saw a BBC article a few days ago. So this is pure OR but I feel it will be beneficial to understanding the situation. But it seems unlikely it had to be that complicated. For starters have the files been verified? I read about emails. In any case nowadays it may not be that different. I don't know if you paid much attention to the Hillary Clinton email server saga but while there are multiple reasons conducting government business through an email server not controlled by the government is controversial but one of them is security. Assuming the emails aren't encrypted client side, security of the server is uncertain. While in Clinton's case the server was her own which has additional implications both negative and positive, either way the assumption is likely to be that a intelligence agency with sufficient reasons may be able to compromise the server. And there have been concerns that this is part of the Russian disinformation campaign. Of course they may not need to do that if they can simply compromise the account, something which government servers aren't immune to either except there may be additional security requirements to make it more difficult, and more stringent monitoring to try and detect if that has happened. Note also while I have no idea what service Biden used, if it's like most modern email servers and uses IMAP or Exchange (or web, but the fact emails were found on this laptop suggests it couldn't have been web exclusive or people would know there was something dodgy), emails generally permanently stay on it unless deleted. And then you only need to compromise the server or account once to get all the emails currently stored on it which could be going back years. As for other files, again in the modern cloud centric world, it's common for people to keep copies of their files on some remote service again often unencrypted. Indeed it's fairly common these come from the same service provider e.g. Microsoft or Google using the same account so you might not necessarily need to compromise more than one thing. You'd need to be sure that the files were never stored anywhere like that. Preferably you'd also need to be sure the files weren't shared with someone else although that gets complicated. (If most of your files never sent to the cloud have been shared but the subset of people all those files have been shared with is large, then it seems unlikely the sharing is a problem again assuming the sharing isn't via some compromised method. However if there is one or a small number of people who these files with shared with, it starts to seem possible that perhaps these people were compromised especially if they uploaded them to a cloud service provider.) Ideally you'd want to look at the 'metadata', for lack of better word, on the computer to rule these possibilities out e.g. are the times the computer was turned on match with private information about when the laptop was used? Do file access times match with again private information (anything storage on the cloud is irrelevant)? A problem with this is that you'd likely require some cooperation from Biden for this to really work and considering he could have just confirmed the story I assume he hasn't been willing. Of course the possibility the laptop hard drive is the origin of these files but not the laptop also shouldn't be ruled out. E.g. If someone had left their laptop unlocked or locked by something which can bypassed (again thinking intelligence agencies here) i.e. no encryption or encryption where the key can be recovered (remembering sometimes encryption keys are stored on cloud service providers); well then with modern USB3 or Thunderbolt interfaces (plus SSD storage device although realistically even if we didn't have super fast flash based SSDs an intelligence agency could easily have a RAM based device), you could easily copy a large amount of data from the laptop in even a few minutes. Heck even gigabit ethernet or WiFi can get quite a bit. Plus, especially getting back to the encryption bit, even if the laptop was off it could possibly be compromised fairly trivially for an intelligence agency. But there are plenty of other ways this could have happened, many people do not properly wipe their devices before discarding them. I mean if we believe the story, the laptop was left with some random computer technician which doesn't sound like the actions of someone particularly careful about security. It's of course possible that story is true, but the laptop isn't the original one since there seems to be a long chain between that and it being with whoever has it now. Do we even know when the laptop was first accessed by the technician after being handed over? If Biden was being monitored, if it's even the next day by the time the laptop was accessed it seems easily possible it may not have been the same laptop. Note that in the last case (and possibly the discarded one) it may seem simpler to simply tamper with the contents but keep the laptop, but it really depends on what you did. E.g. if in a rush you might not have the time to find someone to be able to take apart and put back the laptop leaving no signs this happened, modern laptops especially water resistant ones can be difficult. Apple devices in particular. And taking apart the laptop to clone it often still your best bet if you don't care about the original device. (But complicated in the modern world of encryption.) Likewise for a discarded device, if it has signs it was discarded this might not be what you want. Nil Einne (talk) 10:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I hadn't read the article when I wrote the above since as said the story doesn't really interest me. I've skimmed through it now, and some of the details e.g. what Hunter Biden have said affect the possibilities but I won't say more except to note that I see there is talk of an external hard drive and how some of the data came from it. The external hard drive is an added complicating since it's something likely even easier to clone or secretly "borrow". Or even just steal and replace with a different device albeit with less reason. However you would generally need more time assuming it's really a magnetic hard drive rather than an SSD. I didn't mention above but I'm assuming the laptop itself stored data on an SSD as most modern mid or high end laptops do so you can also read the data fast (and not just transfer and write what you're copying). But I also see the FBI now has the laptop. I'd note that it's quite likely the FBI have a decent idea if the laptop was Hunter Biden's although they probably aren't going to say until and unless any investigations are complete and depending on the situation maybe not even then. I assume the FBI can probably obtain serial numbers of devices Hunter Biden owned which they can compare with the laptop. And while it's likely possible to replace the serial numbers on a laptop so that even the FBI may think it's the original device, again thinking intelligence agencies, there's the question of why? This only seems likely if you're sure the original device with those serial numbers isn't going to show up i.e. if you have it or know it's been destroyed but this can't be proven. As I mentioned before it might be possible you'd have the original device and replace it with a new one for various reasons. But one thing I didn't mention is you get into the murky area of whether it's riskier to replace the device and risk detection that way, or leave the original device where there may be signs you tampered with it. Considering as I've now read that the device was supposedly water damaged anyway, it doesn't seem so likely it'll make sense to replace the original device with a new one even if you had to open it to tamper with it. Noting also if you were replacing serial numbers etc this would likely require the similar delicate work so this only seems likely if had time to prepare such a device but did not have any for similar work with the original device. Nil Einne (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Recommend restoring the page's intro to its status, when this RFC was open. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Please move your proposed lead text down here for discussion alongside your proposed sources. It really does not belong in the polling section. Thanks. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

, can you please quote the section of BLP that you think is relevant to this discussion. TFD (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Closure nearing
Letting ya'll know. This RfC has less then a week to go. GoodDay (talk) 05:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I have been asked to comment in my capacity as the closer on the unfolding edit war over whether or not to describe the laptop as "believed" to be Hunter Biden's in the first sentence. Although it is true that "believed" weakens the described ownership less than "alleged" ("alleged" just indicates that someone has made the claim; "believed" indicates that many of the relevant people have), it nevertheless still does weaken it, attributing the claim to unspecified others rather than supporting it with our own authority. Looking at the arguments again, it seems to me that any weakening of the ownership claim would be contrary to the intentions of the majority of the RfC's participants: although one participant opposing the use of "alleged" suggested using "believed" instead, most opposers argued that there is no doubt that Biden owned the laptop and would, I imagine, oppose any construction that suggests there may still be some doubt. So if I must put my foot down—as I apparently must—I would say that the consensus is against qualifying the belonging in any way, unless a new RfC determines otherwise. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The results of this RFC and the validity of the Close were discussed further in this thread at ANB. Linking here for reference. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The challenge to the closure has been closed. RFC decision upheld. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

So what we came out with was, basically a bad close that can't be undone by the challenge, since there was no consensus for that. The bureaucracy must expand to meet the needs of the bureaucracy. Zaathras (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Not quite. It's more that it's a close that the challenge closer disagree with, but nonetheless sees that there is no consensus to overturn. There were enough eyes on it for long enough to determine if there was a consensus that the closure was bad, which there wasn't.<span id="ScottishFinnishRadish:1666823736456:TalkFTTCLNHunter_Biden_laptop_controversy" class="FTTCmt"> ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I stand by my assessment. Zaathras (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * SFR, I think that you're affirming what Zaathras has said. The upshot, acknowledged to some extent by is that in an evenly divided BLP issue, somebody -- anybody -- can arbitrarily close the RfC knowing that the AN review will also be evenly split, thereby enabling the initial defective close to stand. Not that this was anyone's intent in the current case, but it is clearly a process defect that needs to be addressed, because such an outcome and such tactics are clearly not what the community expects.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There is clearly no BLP issue here. This has gone on for almost 2 months now. Do we need to spend any more time debating what is clearly a settled issue? Mr Ernie (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If both an RFC discussion and AN discussion are truly split 50/50, then I believe it's right to allow the original close to stand. Let the chips fall where they may. I don't believe this to be a serious flaw with Wikipedia's bureaucracy. Seems more a flaw with humanity and the nature of discourse - we only have so much time in the day, and so many ways to think about something, before decisions get reached, perfect or not. If the close had gone the other way, and received the same no-consensus vote at AN, then the result would have looked perfect to you yet imperfect to the other side. C'est la vie. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This was not a "bad close." That much was upheld through discussion at AN; a multitude of editors and admins reviewed the close, and there was not enough consensus to say that the close was bad, and should be redone. The consensus rather drifted toward "the close could have been better, but it's good enough." Especially considering the length of time already expended on the discussion. You cannot say the close was definitively bad; you can only say you still believe it to be bad. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You are alleging it was bad? It was allegedly bad? Is that it? I thought we were done with this.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)