Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

"no evidence of illegal or unethical activity by Joe Biden or Hunter Biden was found"

Does anyone else see something glaringly wrong with this sentence fragment? As I recall, the laptop contains graphic content showing illegal and unethical actions by Hunter Biden (unrelated to Burisma). The sentence should not mention Hunter Biden. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

We will need a source other than your recollection. 331dot (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean his illicit drug use? Best to be specific and rephrase that there is no evidence of any quid pro quos or Burisma-related corruption, or whatever they're being accused of. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I am referring to the illicit drug use and prostitutes. That is unethical and illegal in most countries. Therefore, we should remove his name from that sentence.

Neither of those is unethical. Some prostitution is illegal and some drug use is illegal. Depends on circumstances. SPECIFICO talk 20:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

We should also rephrase it to include exactly what (about Joe Biden) is not found:

"After extensive scrutiny of the laptop contents by multiple parties, no evidence of illegal or unethical activity related to Ukraine or Burisma by Joe Biden was found."

Is that better? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd support this wording. Thanks for starting this discussion as it is something I've wondered about to. But this also seems to say that the laptop has been subjected to extensive scrutiny, and nothing bogus has turned up. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Is that not the case? My understanding was that while many of the emails weren't demonstrably his, they also weren't demonstrably not his. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

No I certainly agree but I think that’s making a point Valjean or others disputing the RFC may not agree with. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Valjean, what's the reason for including "related to Ukraine or Burisma" in your proposal? There was no evidence of any misconduct by Joe. SPECIFICO talk 23:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

That's not better; see below. Endwise (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I think you could safely say that the laptop provided no evidence of any unethical or illegal activity within the US government (and not only related to Ukraine). However, there do appear to be indications of illegal behavior by Hunter Biden himself, relating to tax payments. And apparently the purchase of a gun. It's probably important to make that distinction, since the main reason people care about this story is that they're concerned about US government corruption, but crimes by Hunter Biden do not imply that there was US government corruption. 20WattSphere (talk) 05:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm guessing this page (along with Joe Biden's & Hunter Biden's & other related pages) will likely go through some changes, after January 3, 2023. The House Republicans appear to be sharpening their knives. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I've just raised a change request for this too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_21_December_2022 as it's clearly deliberately included false information - we all know why. I have no doubt they will ignore our requests for political reasons.

Documents showing possible illegal activities were found on that laptop, the FBI have since forwarded these to the Attourney General to prosecute. Whether or not a prosecution is forthcoming is not relevant to this change request:

We are simply saying you cannot claim "No evidence of "

There are sources confirming evidence of possible illegality, so much so the FBI have passed these documents to the Attourney General to prosecute.

Whether or not they prosecute is irrelevant to our requests: we can no longer claim "No evidence of illegality" since the opposite is now true.

Sources:

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/06/politics/hunter-biden-investigation-federal-prosecutors-weighing-charges/index.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/06/hunter-biden-case-feds-believe-evidence-supports-tax-and-gun-charges.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/07/hunter-biden-reports-say-fbi-has-enough-evidence-for-prosecution

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-63166809 86.10.181.189 (talk) 16:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Aside: It's very amusing seeing the pretend outrage at Hunter Biden using drugs and prostitutes, from people who think that Donald Trump should be reinstated because Twitter didn't follow its written policy on Presidents using the platform to coordinate a coup attempt. Yes, the same Donald Trump who cheated on his wife with a porn star. That one. The one who is besties with Ronny Jackson, of magic candy fame. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd much prefer we just say no evidence of corruption by Joe Biden. Whether anyone is acting unethically here is a matter of opinion, and actually one that sources don't agree with us about. Plenty of sources put forth the opinion that Hunter apparently trading/profiting off his father's name in Ukraine is unethical (e.g. WaPo, Vox, The Guardian, WSJ), and in fact the WaPo editorial board even argued that Joe Biden was unethical for "tacitly condoning" Hunter doing that, which we actually quote in this article. The point is that the emails didn't substantiate corruption, not inherently opinionated questions of ethics. Endwise (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Whatever we do, my only concern with this thread was the inclusion of both names. Since the controversy involves both men, we do need to name both of them, but not in the same sentence, as their degree of guilt or innocence is ultimately for different things. We can only deal with that properly in at least two sentences, and those sentences should reflect more detailed coverate in the body of the article. Does that all make sense? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The "controversy" only involves both men because the right are trying to use it as guilt-by-association to draw attention away fomr that whole coup thing. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I cannot find in the source where it says no evidence of wrongdoing was found. Also, mainstream media widely reported on Oct. 7, 2022, that the FBI believed there was sufficient evidence to charge Hunter Biden with tax evasion and lying on a gun application. Do we know if any evidence was contained in the laptop? And isn't it premature to say that no evidence was found when we don't even know if the FBI has verified and seen all the files?

Also, I agree also that Hunter Biden's alleged peccadillos might be considered unethical and/or illegal.

TFD (talk) 02:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

We share the same view about Hunter. He should not be in that sentence. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Valjean, with the Republicans preparing to take over the US House of Representatives. I suspect there's going to be a lot of investigations of the president & his son. Washington DC, is rarely politically calm. GoodDay (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

You keep saying that. It's true but should not be mentioned as a factor here. We will continue to document what happens. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Don't forget WP:BLPCRIME. We can certainly say HB is under investigation, but we have to be careful about implying he's guilty of anything he's been accused of unless that's got substantive evidence in RS. So far, it's a lot of smoke and no fire. Andre🚐 02:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I ain't predicting what will or won't occur in the coming months. Merely pointing out things might change, be it on this page or other related pages. GoodDay (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• How about there is no evidence Joe Biden profited/benefitted from his son's business dealings/activities or partook in any illegal activities which is basically what NY Mag Intelligencer says. Andre🚐 02:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  That sounds like too crafty wording to hide something bad he did. I think something simpler is better. Any detail can come after the simple establishing sentence, as was being discussed earlier in the thread. Hunter was in hot water before the laptop, so I would be careful not to suggest his future depends on the laptop in any way. SPECIFICO talk 03:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  I always agree simpler is better, but it has to be as simple as possible and no more so. I'm certainly open and I agree that we need to be careful not to imply the laptop contains anything incriminating. But I also think the article needs to properly provide context the allegations made by NYPost and others that haven't been confirmed and are likely hot air, viz the Ukraine and Burisma situation and the alleged business dealings. Andre🚐 14:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  It says, "There is little else on the laptop to suggest that Joe Biden profited from, or was even fully aware of, his son’s business activities. In 2017, the former vice-president was a private citizen, so partaking in the deal wouldn’t have been illegal." Is that what you were referring to? TFD (talk) 05:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  Right Andre🚐 05:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  When in doubt, quote and attribute. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  A direct quote is probably best because if we paraphrase it could either sound like either we were whitewashing or casting aspersions. TFD (talk) 04:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

What does or doesn't happen with Hunter Biden, will (IMHO) have little to no effect on President Biden 'or' his chances for re-election. Yes, I'm sure Republicans will try their best to connect the two men. But it's very difficult to take the Republicans seriously, when you think of Sidney Powell for example. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Joe Biden and Hunter Biden shared a bank account. This is confirmed. Joe Biden said he never met with Hunter's business associates. The laptop (pictures, emails, and voicemail) proves this was a lie. They either committed FARA violations or income tax fraud (failure to report gifts larger than $12K). It's one or the other. LemonPumpkin (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Unless you have reliable sources to support these claims, we don't care. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Article title and laptop contents

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.

---

Now that the conspiracy theory that the laptop and its contents did not belong to Hunter Biden and were Russian disinformation has been debunked on multiple levels, this articles requires several updates: - the title should change from "controversy" to "scandal" - a section should be added that discusses evidence supporting Joe Biden's potential involvement ("10% for the big guy", "give half my income to Pop") - a section should be added the fully describes the non-FARA violation content of the laptop specific to Hunter Biden, such as illegal drug, prostitution, and gun crimes. LemonPumpkin (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

What reliable sources provide this information? Andre🚐 16:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

You need to do basic research on this topic before demanding that people on this site make the case for you. There are numerous news articles, op-eds, and direct sources that spell all of this out in incontrovertible terms To claim otherwise is disingenuous at this point. Twitter Files #7 provides direct evidence that the FBI used the fake Russia collusion hoax to justify policing speech on Twitter in the name of foreign interference. They worked with Twitter to hide derogatory Biden evidence to influence an election. The FBI new the hunter laptop story was real and was going to get out, so they planted disinformation inside tech companies of time to condition them to think the story was fake and/or hacked (which we now know is false). It was a preemptive, fake debunk designed to get tech and media to censor a legit story. Shame on all of you trying to continue this cover up. But the truth has been revealed and there is nothing you can do in the long run to make this go away. You're caught.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/12/13/the_fbi_files_are_even_more_dangerous_148597.html#!

https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1604871630613753856 LemonPumpkin (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

There is much that can be improved, but that area is still conjecture and opinion. The laptop being real and the censorship being improper do not validate all other claims and conspiracies surrounding the laptop. Slywriter (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

We don't know the laptop is real. All we know is that some of the contents of the hard drive appears to be his. All the sources are working from copies of the hard drive cloned by an unreliable source and usually having passed through the hands of numerous bad-faith actors on the way. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

How many different ways shall we ignore the RfC and copious amounts of sources that do indeed declare it his laptop while hiding behind earlier (and suspect) reporting that hedged on ownership? Is there current sourcing that says it is NOT his laptop? And again, the RfC was concluded to remove 'alleged', all of this is an attempt to relitigate a settled matter without providing any new sourcing. Slywriter (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Earlier this year, the NYT, WAPO, and CBS news verified the laptop. Other third party cyber experts have also independently verified the laptop belonged to Hunter. And now we documentary evidence that Hunter dropped off the laptop (his signature is on the receipt), the FBI acknowledged it belonged to him when they took possession of it in Dec 2019, and Hunter's own layer admitted it belonged to him when he requested it back (in writing). Separate from all of this, we have third party witnesses who have come forward to verify the information about the business allegations. On the contrary, there is ZERO evidence that that any of the laptop contents is false or Russian disinformation. There are no credible parties claiming so.

Any editors on this site who are trying to suppress real information, or trying to spin real information, are in violation of Wikipedia terms of service and need to have their editing privileges' removed.

Please take a moment and think about who you want to be in this life? Do you really want to be agents of disinformation and push lies upon the society you live in? If so, you don't belong on this site. LemonPumpkin (talk) 21:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Again what reliable sources support your statements? Andre🚐 21:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1604871630613753856

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/12/13/the_fbi_files_are_even_more_dangerous_148597.html#!

More importantly, what reliable source do you have that proves this information is not true? Stop being a cover-up artist. It's against this site's terms of service. LemonPumpkin (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

If you continue to violate WP:CIVIL you will likely experience sanctions. As I'm sure you know, neither of those links are reliable sources. Please see WP:RSP WP:RS Andre🚐 21:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

In what way is this a "scandal"? Was there any corruption uncovered? It was already known that Hunter was a drug addict with a ton of problems, that's old news. 20WattSphere (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

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

"Belonged to"

I do not think we can state, in Wikipedia's voice, as a matter of fact, that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. In fact we make it clear within the article that this is still open to doubt. It is equally possible that, rather than stealing his laptop, which would likely be noticed, the GRU instead cloned his hard drive. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

So ignore the RfC and ignore the sources and cover a theory with scant support or evidence of truth? That is not an equally possible conclusion. Slywriter (talk) 13:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia routinely reports information regarded as true in reliable sources in Wikivoice. For example, Apollo 11 begins by saying it "was the American spaceflight that first landed humans on the Moon." Maybe it was faked, but we just repeat what reliable sources say. TFD (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

JzG, you do realise you just breached this page's 1RR DS & should be reported to WP:AE. GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Got any sources backing up what you're saying? Levivich (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

In fact we make it clear within the article that this is still open to doubt. If you would prefer, for the cohesiveness of the article, we could edit it to remove all mentions of doubt. Though I imagine some editors would have issues with any removal of any material that is backed up by even 1 RS. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Republican lawmakers and their staff for the past year have been analyzing messages and financial transactions found on a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden. from PBS.

Mr Ernie (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

We should indeed ignore an RfC if it's incorrect. There is no chain of custody. We can't tell if the GRU stole the laptop, or merely cloned the drive and put it in another laptop. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not think we can state, in Wikipedia's voice, as a matter of fact, that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden This was also the conclusion that was reached by Masem at BLP. Feoffer (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Feoffer. You're repeating yourself. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, Guy's new to the discussion and I don't know if Guy was aware of that or not. :) . It had a big impact on my thinking. Feoffer (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Guy also breached the 1RR DS of this page. As for BLPN? Using the 'because Masem said so' argument, isn't going to work here. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

You can't keep personally attacking every person who shows up here and telling us we're the problem. You don't like DN, you don't like me, you don't like Masem, now you don't like Guy???? You need to respect the closer's ruling that the RFC doesn't represent consensus. Feoffer (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I've no malice towards anyone, so I'm not attacking anyone. But, if an editor breaches 1RR again, to undo the status quo ante, while the content dispute is ongoing? I will have to make a report to WP:AE. If I didn't like JzG? I would've reported his breach, earlier today. If I didn't like you? I would've reported your two breaches, last week. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Feoffer, it's truly astounding that you're still holding onto "Masem said so" as your defense for calling this edit a BLP violation, even after you've heard from another admin and a majority of editors over at the ANI thread you started, that my edit was not in fact a BLP violation. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

>In fact we make it clear within the article that this is still open to doubt...

Yes, that is very clear from reading the body of the article. I'm new to this article (but not to Wikipedia) and the disconnect between the opening sentence and the rest of the article sticks out like a sore thumb.

A bare minimum for a Wikipedia article is that it be internally consistent and not self-contradictory. The lede sentence seems to fail on that criteria. My $.02. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Good point. I’ve removed the older Politifact piece which hadn’t kept up with the other sources presented above. After all, now almost nobody disputes the authenticity (per The Guardian). Mr Ernie (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

My reading is that the Politifact piece was used in successive paragraphs to push both sides of the controversy by selectively quoting it. Agree that this is self-contradictory. But simply removing one possibly tendentious excerpt while leaving the other may help resolve the problem of self contradiction, but seems to violate NPOV.

My advice would be to write around the "ownership" question in the lede, since it's not really the crux of the issue, and tread the provinance of the physical laptop in a subsection, reporting on the controversy. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I proposed an alternate lead which you can read above. But one editor told me to withdraw it or table it, and a bold addition of the first sentence was challenged, so we fall back on the last stable consensus which is from the RFC. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Mr. Ernie's new lead would do everything Mr. Swordfish recommends and resolve all concerns that newer voices have raised. First time I read it, I wrote: " I think MrErnie has presented the solution to us on a silver platter." Still stand by that. Feoffer (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I've looked for that language, but can't seem to find it. Could you or Mr Ernie re-post it here? Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely not true. Most sources agree that the contents of the hard drive are probably authentic, but nothing else. Again, chain of custody. It's much easier to clone a drive than to steal a laptop without it being noticed. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Three/four forensic analysts say the contents shows signs of tampering; one says it is pristine. Custody is another layer of uncertainty. soibangla (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, and why I previously tagged this article for POV violation which was swiftly removed without discussion despite saying "the laptop belonged to HB" in Wikivoice, which is still POV and unacceptable IMO. DN (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Part of the problem is lead is bad. It's too much background detail about how we got somewhere and doesn't do a good job of describing the controversy. 2 facts should be prominent that Hunter Biden owned a laptop that came into possession of a Delaware shop and that the data, including/especially what the NYPost used, has verifiability issues notwithstanding that some of the data has been found to be real. I'd say a third issue is the decisions of Social Media and MSM to censor as without that, this would be even less of a story. What's not needed is arguing about ownership of the laptop to try and better frame the data issues. Slywriter (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree on all points. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree that the lead goes into too much background detail about the "ownership" issue. I would support removing that from the lead; it seems to be adequately covered later in the article.

Agree that 2 facts should be prominent: that some of Hunter Biden's computer files came into possession of a Delaware shop and that the data, including/especially what the NYPost used, has verifiability issues notwithstanding that some of the data has been found to be real.

Also agree that "What's not needed is arguing about ownership of the laptop..." in the lead. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Obviously I take issue with files over laptop. It strays into fringe because what that is saying is a "Russian agent of similar build and likeness to Hunter Biden entered a computer shop with the identical make and model of HB's laptop that included both real and manufactured data." There's nothing wrong with it being his laptop and that the files were tampered with after he dropped it off at the shop. One does not invalidate the other. Just need to put that up front, rather than focus on solely ownership in the opening. Slywriter (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Sly, the owner is blind. It could have been one of millions of people who walked into the shop. What sources do you have stating that Biden himself walked into the shop? SPECIFICO talk 22:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

My suggestion, as below, is that we focus on the one thing that is not contended across all media: there are documents which were Hunter's property, on copies of the drive supplied to various media. Much of the content could not be authenticated, and there is no chain of custody, but it is accurate to say these are documents belonging to Hunter Biden taken from a MacBook deposited at a Delaware computer repair shop Guy (help! - typo?) 22:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

POV tag was rightfully removed as no source has shown the laptop is not Hunter Biden's and more importantly an RfC has settled the matter, which must be respected. Slywriter (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

So not taking into account a majority of the sources saying alleged, purported, believed etc..AND avoiding any encouragement of discussion (hence the tag) on the subject to reach some consensus. Does that sound accurate? DN (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I can understand your confusion but others are responsible for it, not me, as this matter was previously settled with an RfC, which others have taken pains to ignore and create another RfC about that is likely headed to the same conclusion since no new information has been provided to dispute the findings of that RfC. Slywriter (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

RfC has settled the matter, which must be respected Jeez, Sly, ya wanna own the article a little harder there? Mr. Swordfish is like the sixth new editor this week to point out a problem -- seven if you count the closer. Feoffer (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it confusion as much as noticeable lack of current consensus. Some see this as a possible POVpush in Wikivoice, but apparently the previous RfC was written in stone on Mount Sinai, just kidding of course. I will continue to AGF, I just wish others would do the same. DN (talk) 01:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

>...no source has shown the laptop is not Hunter Biden's...

Two words: Russell's Teapot. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

That would work if we ignored similar tactics used by the GRU against Macron in 2017. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Ahh yes, asking people to respect the processes that keep the place going while endless text is written without providing any sources to dispute the close of the RfC is definitely owning the article and not setting the record straight of how we got here or pointing out that tags are an inappropriate response to disagreeing with an RfC. Also wasn't some little RfC, it was well attended and AN saw no reason to overturn, so it's not a little issue that editors keep seeking to overturn it without going through the processes. Slywriter (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

If you're tired of people coming to complain, you need to inline-source sentence 1. Until then, new editors will keep showing up to ask for a source. Stop telling them its none of their business. It would be simple to cite CBS, the Guardian, etc, so readers can inspect the source for themselves. Feoffer (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to add either CBS, the Guardian, or any of these:

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

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

Republican lawmakers and their staff for the past year have been analyzing messages and financial transactions found on a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden. from PBS.

Or even all 5 if it would resolve this. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The latest CBS article would be the best to cite, as it features a detailed explanation of the latest evidence leading experts to conclude the data came from a laptop belonging to Biden. I can't speak for others, but gun to my head, yeah, I think adding one of the 2022 sources you mention would be an improvement to having none of them. In terms of triaging, I think I'd rather have a lede with a weak in-line source than no source at all. (Similarly, I think I'd rather have mildly-non-NPOV lede than a overtly self-contradictory one, vis-à-vis Politifact 2021 ). Feoffer (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

You mean the one titled..."Copy of what's believed to be Hunter Biden's laptop"? DN (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Nipples, what does "what's believed to be on Hunter Biden's laptop showed no tampering" mean to you? What do the sources linked above stating unequivocally that the laptop belonged to Biden mean to you? What does "Now, however, almost no one disputes its authenticity" mean to you? Why have you re-added this out of date Politifact piece that contradicts the rest of the lead? My good faith is all but exhausted about this point. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The RS you are presenting here does not seem to contradict or "update" the Politifact citation, and FWIW I'm exhausted by your exhaustion...(From the RS you just posted)..."For Trump, it backfired, when efforts to uncover information about the Bidens and Ukraine helped to trigger his first impeachment. Then came the surfacing of Hunter Biden’s missing laptop, with its library of decadent pictures and business email chains, mysteriously left at a Wilmington repair shop, which found its way to Republican political operatives including Rudy Giuliani and Steve Bannon, plus the rightwing press and the FBI. 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."DN (talk) 02:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

[1] I have removed the citation from the lede and placed it in a more appropriate section. Will that be more acceptable? (edit) Corrected as it already appears in the body and i had moved the wrong politifact citation. That's all for me tonight. Cheers. DN (talk) 03:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

It's true that, by itself, that wouldn't bring sentence 1 fully in line with WP:V, but I think it would still be an improvement to just leaving it completely unsourced. Feoffer (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it is an improvement. A POV tag would be a proper way to encourage discussion but I believe it will just be reverted again. Compromise isn't always necessarily progress and at the risk of sounding stubborn I feel this will continue to be an issue that some editors seem to just want to ignore by pointing to an old RfC that wasn't clear or well executed. Am I wrong? DN (talk) 02:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it's an improvement because it allows readers to directly "check our work". If our summary is suboptimal, the fastest way to correct any misimpressions is to send them directly to the latest and best source to get them up to speed. Am I wrong? Oh, I wouldn't feel pessimistic. We'll get this sorted out as more and eyeballs find their way to the page. Nobody's showing up on talk to say "Hey, I love the way your article contradicts itself". Feoffer (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Another RS, also from The Guardian, which states House Republicans and their staff have been studying messages and financial transactions found on a now notorious laptop that belonged to Hunter. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Seeing as there's a RFC in progress. We'll have to wait & see which option is chosen. GoodDay (talk) 03:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah, another RS that has nothing to do with the authenticity of the laptop, and only goes on to say that "There are no indications that this involves the president, who insists that he has never spoken to Hunter about his foreign business arrangements.". Not that I give a shit about HB, but this is only more context as to how the GOP seems willing to use the spoiled children of their political adversaries to whip up their base and seemingly create red herrings. Kudos. DN (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

That is if an option is chosen. Honestly it would be better just to try and come to consensus instead of crossing fingers that another RfC will somehow fix it better than last time, but that cat is already let out of the bag. DN (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

We'll have to just be patient & wait. As I mentioned before, Hunter Biden & related pages 'might' go under quite a few changes, during the 118th US Congress. GoodDay (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

What and why are you implying so cryptically and vaguely to? Being patient and waiting is one thing, but Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL, and editors that try to treat it as such usually don't edit objectively or rationally IMO. The GOP controlling just one branch of government won't doesn't magically make every Biden-hater's dreams come true AFAIK. DN (talk) 04:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Who knows what will or won't happen. GoodDay (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, correction noted. DN (talk) 06:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I never know what you mean by that, by the way. I don't follow American politics that closely -- how might a change in the congress lead to a change in this article? Feoffer (talk) 03:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Republicans will be taking over the House, in January 2023. They're sharpening their investigative knives, for the president & his son. GoodDay (talk) 03:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I'm not quite that ignorant of American politics, hehee :). And yeah, I don't disagree -- not to go CrystalBall, but it does seem likely that the FBI knows the device did belong to Biden and that assessment will become public in 2023. Feoffer (talk) 07:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Mr swordfish, Russell's Teapot is irrelevant because content is not based on what is true, but what is WP:Verifiable. It's alright to say that man landed on the moon, even if you personally cannot prove it, because it is a generally accepted fact with no informed people questioning it. Russell might call that the argument from authority, but that is exactly how tertiary sources are written. They do not include original information, but merely summarize what reliable secondary sources say. TFD (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Can anyone point to any sources that say the laptop may have belonged to someone else? I am particularly interested in how they went about creating it. TFD (talk) 07:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I mean, I'm open to the argument that it might be deprecated, but Politifact is pretty clear that it could be a post-databreach copy. Feoffer (talk) 07:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't have to have belonged to someone else. My issue is that we characterise "the laptop" as being Hunters. None of the claimed proofs of authenticity actually addresses the device itself. The correct statement would be that the controversy centres on a hard drive containing Hunter Biden's data. That's not contended, as far as I can tell. Until a qualified person has done a forensic examination of the device itself, it's not possible to state with finality whether it was a stolen laptop that was planted, or a cloned drive from a laptop. It's also clear that some of the "copies" in circulation had other files deliberately designed to feed a narrative. As WaPo says: "some of the data on the portable drive appears to be authentic". But the origin story is a very obvious crock. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

"None of the claimed proofs of authenticity actually addresses the device itself. The correct statement would be that the controversy centres on a hard drive containing Hunter Biden's data. That's not contended, as far as I can tell." - Agreed, and there is likely a consensus there. DN (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Also agree! "hard drive containing Hunter Biden's data" is a likely consensus. Feoffer (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

"a laptop computer containing Hunter Biden's data" is probably more accurate and more understandable to the lay reader. Nobody is asserting that someone dropped off a hard drive at the repair shop (and nothing else). Mr. Swordfish (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

So you think it's possible that someone bought the same make and model as one of Hunter Biden's laptops and copied his hard drive onto it and then as far as we know did not add any incriminating evidence? And Hunter Biden doesn't know what happened to his original laptop? I think Occam's razor is more relevant than Russell's teapot. TFD (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I would agree. @Guy, enough with the conspiracy theories and calling things obvious crock, its not a good look. You saying it makes me think it must be true. Have we learning nothing over the past 3-4 years, yet alone a life time? --Malerooster (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

conspiracy theories we have reliable sources explicitly including the possibility of a copied-device. Feoffer (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Feoffer, can you provide any sources that say that? TFD (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Deuce, our _lede_ says that. (And it's well-sourced) Feoffer (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Feoffer, please avoid derogatory terms when addressing other editors. All I can see is that originally the validity of the story was unknown. Are there any courageous Democrats still calling it a forgery? TFD (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a Democrat, but I don't accede to the loudest voices in the room hollering in unison that the laptop is proven totally real and it wasn't a Russian or pro-Russia Ukrainian op. There remain holes in this tale through which a Mack truck could be driven. soibangla (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Soibangla: I wonder if you could Talk:Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy#Potential_compromise_language take a look at potential compromise language. Here's the proposed change. Ten editors have signed on, would you be open to being the eleventh? Feoffer (talk) 02:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

You're quite busy, shamelessly campaigning for support for your proffered edit(s). How many editors have you pinged so far? GoodDay (talk) 02:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry! I had no idea it would be so perceived , I was going for friendly jocularity, not derrogation at all! btw, i've never heard 'Duece' used negatively but i'm no expert on US slang. I think you have one of the coolest usernames on the project Feoffer (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Is it accurate to say this all started with the tabloid (New York Post) in the lead?

With regard to this recent edit [2], please share your opinions here. Thanks. DN (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the lead should summarize the core facts, and the origin of the matter was the NY Post scoop. The opening sentence needs to say something like, The Hunter Biden laptop controversy originated in a NY Post article published in October, 2020. That establishing sentence should precede the existing lead text. SPECIFICO talk 14:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

We just went through 'two' RFCs concerning the lead. Let's not go through a third one. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's leave the lead 'alone' for a few weeks, at least. Please. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the prior discussions and no RfC is proposed. It's an uncontroversial improvement, but since it's been reverted there will need to be a brief talk page ratification before it's reinstated. You'd do well not to escalate straightforward copyedits and NPOV narratives as if they were controversies requiring RfC or other drama. SPECIFICO talk 23:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't lecture me about drama, please. GoodDay (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Seems like an improvement to me -- I haven't heard anyone make an argument against it. Feoffer (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Here's an argument. Let's not push "...belonging to..." further down the lead. We've just been through 'two' RFCs. Let's not start up another 'lead' content dispute. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

So you would be OK putting this text in the second sentence?

In October 2020, a controversy emerged involving data from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden that was abandoned at a Delaware computer shop.It began with a NY Post article based on data the newspaper obtained from Rudy Giuliani.

That addresses your concern about keeping "belonged to" in the first sentence. Without one of these two additions, in either the first or second sentence, the subsequent reference to the Post makes no sense. SPECIFICO talk 00:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd rather no more alterations to the lead, for the time being. But, if the NY Post bit is put in following the "...belonging to Hunter Biden..." sentence? That would be a tad better. GoodDay (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

OK Please if you could please make that edit, it will set up the mention of the Post later in the paragraph and make for a good self-contained opening paragraph. SPECIFICO talk 02:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think it’s correct, and it depends on how you define what the controversy actually is. As Valjean and JzG have said Rudy was shopping around his copy of the drive well before October 2020. The FBI also obtained the actual laptop even before that. If the controversy is the accusations that there were allegations that the Bidens were behaving inappropriately based on information from the laptop, well that didn’t start in Oct 2020. If the controversy is the attempt to smear the laptop as disinformation and the suppression of the story on social media based on that, then yes that would be accurate. Let’s all pretend we had never heard of this before and give the entire lead a fresh read. Does it correctly portray what the controversy is? I think we need to be more clear about defining the controversy, or perhaps find a better description. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Please read the article and the sources cited in the body. The whole wide world pre-existed October 2020, but the set of facts and narratives that gave rise to this article's content as a separate notable subject began with the Post story, and there is nothing in your post above to the contrary. SPECIFICO talk 01:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

We wouldn't expect the article on the Watergate scandal to begin, "A June, 2020 article in the liberal Washington Post sparked controversy involving an alleged break-in at the DNC HQ." The Dreyfus affair doesn't begin with Zola's article.

And before any editors say, "These are not comparable, because they were major scandals," let me assure them I am not saying this mini-scandal is major but that articles about major scandals can provide a template for how we cover minor ones.

At this point, who broke the story is a minor detail, worth mentioning but not in the first sentence. The wording might make readers question the story because of its provenance. But reliable sources have authenticated the existence of the laptop.

I am surprised that any editors would be defending the subject of this article. While I am not a moralist, I don't see it as exemplary to spend vast amounts of money on illegal drugs and strippers, while ignoring child support and income tax. And if drugs and strippers meant more to them than supporting their children or Big Government, at least they'd negotiate a frequent flyer plan or quantity discount. Just out of curiosity, do any of the other editors spend most of their income on strippers and illegal drugs? TFD (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't have to do with major/minor. It has to do with, like, this is not a "scandal". Do you have a source calling the laptop story a "scandal"? Your recent tendency to present wild inapt analogies in lieu of reasoned arguments is rather orthogonal to article improvement. The current text mentions the Post out of the blue later in the paragraph. This would be fixed by the small improvement I have highlighted in green above. SPECIFICO talk 03:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I more or less agree that there's no need to mention the NY Post in the lead and that it's not a particularly important fact. But I don't understand your moralizing. There's nothing illegal or unethical about strippers in many jurisdictions, nor do we have any reliable sources alleging that Hunter was involved in anything illegal involving strippers or sex workers. A pic of someone smoking a pipe isn't proof of illegal drug possession. So, remember that WP:BLPCRIME presumes Hunter's innocence until we have some evidence in reliable that he was guilty of a crime. Not to mention, unfairly besmirching his reputation per BLP. The tax thing, it is said that there were federal people considering whether Hunter was involved in some kind of a tax crime, and we can talk about what reliable sources have said about it, without implying guilty. "Ignoring income tax" is far beyond what any reliable source says and is a clear-cut BLP violation. Andre🚐 03:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Andre, it's already in the lead paragraph. But it's not explained. The proposed sentence needs to precede or replace the current Post mention. SPECIFICO talk 03:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

TFD, It doesn't have to do with major/minor. It has to do with, like, this is not a "scandal". Do you have a source calling the laptop story a "scandal"? Your recent tendency to present wild inapt analogies in lieu of reasoned arguments is rather orthogonal to article improvement. The current text mentions the Post out of the blue later in the paragraph. This would be fixed by the small improvement I have highlighted in green above. SPECIFICO talk 03:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

A "huge" scandal. But more about various government agencies colluding to hoodwink voters than anything about sex and drugs, per that columnist. On a side note, I have no idea what orthogonality is, only that all strippers are not equal and we shouldn't speculate further on the true nature of these ones. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

It's an op-ed that was published in the Washington Post editorial page so it's WP:RSOPINION. But there's also another article in Jacobin that Kmccook recently added that considers the Twitter Files a big deal. However, these minority opinions need to be contextualized. Andre🚐 20:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not proposing a change of any sort here, just showing SPECIFICO a source that calls this story a scandal. Whether a scandal is viewed that way or otherwise is always going to be an opinion. As to the proposed change, I have my thoughts. But they'd just slow things down. No objection, anyway, And yes, TFD, I used to spend most of my income on illegal drugs, but that was before we met. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Your google machine can locate a website that calls just about anything just about anything else. When you start with a fringe POV and end up hanging your hat on an opinion piece at AEI (let alone a screed by Marc Thiessen, who apparently found no mainstream outlet for it, it suggests you might reconsider your assessment of whatever you're trying to demonstrate. SPECIFICO talk 23:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't feed my machine any fringe POV, just "hunter biden scandal", which seemed to be what you were so interested in seeing. If you don't want it now, fine, but Andrevan's right, it was published in The Washington Post. I'm sure you've cited that opinion section before. Not that it matters, of course. Also of little consequence, I agree that Thiessen seems evil, but think you're using "orthogonal" wrong. Have a nice day! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm never defending the subject of this article -- I just note that we MENTION the NY Post reporting in Sentence 2, but we don't actually introduce it until the second paragraph. Readers will figure it out, but there's room for improvement of some sort there. Feoffer (talk) 03:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Specifico's jumping on the word scandal is a distraction from the discussion. The English language has multiple terms to describe the same thing and it's only an issue when deciding how to use them in the article. Andre's comment that we cannot say Hunter Biden used illegal drugs is also disingenuous, since even his Wikipedia article says he "was discharged from the U.S. Navy Reserve shortly after his commissioning due to a failed drug test....[He] received...a waiver due to a past drug-related incident....it was unlikely that the panel would believe his explanation given his history with drugs." Time has an article, "Hunter Biden On Making His Own Crack, Living with His Dealer and His Family’s Effort to Keep Him Alive" and Joe Biden even discussed it during a presidential debate. And I don't think the fact that strip clubs are legal means there's nothing wrong with spending huge amounts of time and money on them. And I didn't say he violated tax laws, just that he was not paying his taxes on time which is not in itself illegal.

All of this shows a reluctance on the part of some editors for this article to accurately reflect what has been written about the controversy. But this is not a fake news story invented by a tabloid and a forged laptop created by the Russians. TFD (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Hunter Biden smoked crack in the past and went to rehab. I believe George W. Bush also had some stories of his past drug use, which he admitted[3] long before becoming President. Admitted past drug use is not evidence of a chargeable crime. To the extent that there are sources that describe this, we can talk about it, but I don't see a source that he's been charged with crimes stemming from a laptop. As far as your contention that there's something wrong with spending time on strip clubs, it's irrelevant so there's no point arguing that point. As far as the misinformation, the misinformation is in claiming that the Hunter Biden laptop contains corrupt dealings with Burisma and Ukraine and Biden the elder. But it's also true that nothing has come from the laptop that ended up with any public information that Hunter Biden was guilty of a chargeable crime, and probably will not, House GOP nonwithstanding. Andre🚐 00:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

TFD, It was you who introduced "scandal". Others just responded. SPECIFICO talk 01:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Given I don't find an adult's addictions all that newsworthy, I really can care less about what pictures were found. Further the pictures revealed no new information.

On the start of the controversy, I think we can improve the lead by clarifying timelines, however the timeline starts with Hunter Biden forgetting his laptop. No forgotten laptop, No NYPost story. Slywriter (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Not really. It was the public story that started the "controversy". By your logic, we could say it began when Steve Jobs met Wozniak. The critical element of controversy (if any) was public discussion. SPECIFICO talk 04:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

So you can care less about the pictures found? Had the Post not picked up the "story" it would not exist either. Seems like a classic "chicken before the egg" argument I will gladly pass up. I was basically looking to establish consensus on PROVENANCE in this discussion. I'm still hoping for some confirmation by the FBI as to the authenticity of the actual hardware. Until then, the lead sentence is still POV IMO, but Scottish has made their decision, which I will respect, despite not seeing the "rough consensus and the support of the large portion of more recent sources" to that effect. DN (talk) 04:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: What do you recommend we add or subtract from the lead? GoodDay (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

(Ec)An adult with a known drug problem having a laptop with pictures of drug use is tabloid gossip, not encyclopedic content. As for the rest of your statement, that's nice but not worthy of further discussion after 20 threads and 2 RfCs. I believe the lead is the question here, so let's not get off-track.

As the Laptop being abandoned lead to numerous events, it's quite relevant. FBI, Rep Operatives, NYPost all stem from that moment. The October Surprise portion is specifically the NYPost. Anyway, 1st sentence vs 2nd sentence explaining NYPost is not that far a bridge to cross. Slywriter (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Our second sentence now properly introduces the Post story, rather than just referencing it. With that fix made, I think it's fine to keep sentence 1 as is. Feoffer (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Feoffer, Third sentence needs copyedit. It's missing a word or something. Slywriter (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I noticed! I'm not sure what sentence 3 ("Hard drive data...") is trying accomplish -- as far as I can tell, it could be chopped from the paragraph 1 and we'd never miss it. Feoffer (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Slywriter, it doesn't matter what you find newsworthy, what matters is what news media find newsworthy. "An article...should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." It also doesn't matter if SPECIFICO and Andre condone spending a small fortune on crack and strippers instead of paying child support, taxes and other debts, but rather the weight of opinion on these actions in reliable sources. Anyway, if these actions are not in themselves unethical or illegal, then there is no BLP reason for excluding them. TFD (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

There is, because BLP says not to write an unduly negative tone or attack pages. It damages the reputation to focus on these issues. And there really isn't significant weight in reliable sources nor have you explained how it's related to the laptop, nor have you offered a source for the idea that Hunter was spending a "small fortune... instead of paying child support" Andre🚐 18:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

It hasn't been determined, if this page falls under BLP. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Any content dealing with a living or recently deceased person falls under BLP, regardless of what article, talk page, or any other page it appears on. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: an editor recently left a 'edit-warring' warning template on my talkpage, concerning this article, even though I didn't edit-war. If you're an administrator? I recommend you keep a close eye on this page. We can't have anybody trying to 'scare' folks away from this article. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm... I actually agree with your sentiment here, and while I do assume good faith in your edits such as this [4], there were some odd inconsistencies at times... [5], [6]. Perhaps we can agree that creating discussion and consensus is a priority, and that "scaring folks away" should not be tolerated? DN (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Best to keep things quiet on this page for awhile. GoodDay (talk) 05:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Distributed Denial of Secrets is not a reliable source.

The paragraph on Distributed Denial of Secrets is not a reliable source has other comparatively minor issues, but number one is that it's an unreliable, user generated source. It's a wikileaks style source, which is listed by wikipedia as unreliable. As a primary source it lacks verifiability and as a secondary source it lacks editorial oversight. Further. Cyberscoop quoting Ddos's unreliable analysis doesn't help. It's fundamentally no differant than if wikipedia quoted a source quoting wikipedia original user generated research. Although it does call in to question Cyberscoops own reliability, depeding on low quality sources. Amthisguy (talk) 07:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. It was briefly discussed in this section (now archived). I didn't find any of the arguments for the source compelling. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I already updated the paragraph, per WP:BLPRS. It hasn't been challenged yet, but it may very well be. Reviewing the other thread, it does appear there is rough consensus that the source is self published, which per WP:SELFPUBLISHED, is a policy violation:

"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." (Emphasis in original)

There is also clearly no consensus that it's a high quality source, which would need to be the case for the claim it made.

And in reference to specifico's comment in the other thread, the policy based reasons for the exclusion of the source have been clearly articulated if they weren't already. Amthisguy (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Amthisguy: What comment please? SPECIFICO talk

This one. "I see no basis whatsoever to exclude that RS and I do not see anyone articulating any reasoning othere than that they personally had not heard of it -- a standard that would exclude most RS and indeed most of everything extant in the known universe." link Amthisguy (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

submitted for your consideration

Please feel free to dive in. soibangla (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Dive in to what, a Miscellany for Deletion filing on it? You have a routine story of "we found documents in an old office, let's follow procedure and notify Archives" here, there's nothing of substance. Mar-a-lago is a story due to a) the subject's past disregard for presidential norms, guidelines, policies, and federal laws, and b) the fact that agents had to enter the premises to seize documents. Trying to create a page out of this is the epitome of WP:FALSEBALANCE being done at the article-level, rather than in-article. Zaathras (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused. Is this some kind of merge proposal? Sorry, I'd rather not assume anything here with all due respect. DN (talk) 04:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Recommend we just relax. If anything major occurs in the coming days/weeks, then it'll be dealt with. GoodDay (talk) 06:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, this is live now: United States House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family soibangla (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

James Comer feels like the second-likeliest typo after James Comet for James Comey, but the more believable. That'd be OR and UNDUE in the article. But here? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I reckon so. Sorry, but I don't have a Rod Serling quote for this, in response to the discussion heading. GoodDay (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Requesting verification of recent edit

@Amthisguy: Regarding this edit you recently made. I do not find the wording you attributed to the cited NY Times reference. Could they perhaps be from a different reference that needs to be used? Please take a look. SPECIFICO talk 16:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

At the bottom of the article there are 2 editor notes/corrections. They load after the main article text, and aren't showing up on the wayback machine archive, but they are there. On the top it also mentions that it was updated on Dec. 8th, that's the correction it's reffering to. Amthisguy (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh. Weird it didn't show up on a page search for me. At any rate, it reads a bit strange in the article, because Biden has equivocated and carefully avoided outright claiming the device was not his. So the wording from the Times sounds as if it is rebutting something that was not said. Thanks for the explanation. Interestingly, that Times article does not Verify "abandoned" but instead says "dropped off", which would be consistent with a delivery from a Trump ally for the purpose of setting the stage for the FBI and Fox Media notifications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 16:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I only meant to rebut his claim that it could have been stolen. Amthisguy (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see. But since he (honestly or not) says he doesn't know whether it was stolen, the addition comes off as showing that he claimed it was indeed stolen and that it was proved false. SPECIFICO talk 18:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Are attributions not allowed in the lead?

With regard to this revert by Mr. Ernie [7]. The edit summary reads "Hunter Biden signed for it and there are no other credible explanations". Where does the cited source state this? The citation is clear "Data from a laptop that the lawyer for a Delaware computer repair shop owner says was left by Hunter Biden in 2019". It also says "In a statement, an attorney for Hunter Biden said "there have been multiple attempts to hack, infect, distort, and peddle misinformation regarding Mr. Biden's devices and data." Should this be included as well to avoid POV? Seemingly nowhere does this source seem to even mention the signature, as Mr. Ernie suggests...DN (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Would it not be better, just to let this page settle for a bit? Unless or until major events occur, in the coming days/weeks. GoodDay (talk) 06:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

No, wikis aren't pineapple upside down cakes -- they never need to "settle". We will never stop updating this article or trying to improve it. The proposed changes aren't an improvement, but nobody's ever going to stop updating wikis. That's the nature of a wiki. Feoffer (talk) 09:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hunter Biden's attorney is partisan and wouldn't be a useful addition to the lead paragraph. So far, we haven't heard any serious rebuttal to the idea that a laptop with data belonging to Hunter Biden was abandoned at a Delaware computer store. There's still a lot of room for improvement in the lead, but attributing the abandonment to the owner's lawyer wouldn't be an improvement. The furthest we could go would be attributing it to the computer store owner, but even that seems unnecessary. Feoffer (talk) 09:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

That attribution needs to be reinstated. Like the cited CBS source, the WEIGHT of mainstream narratives attributes the dropoff bit to the statements of Mac Isaac and his attorney. The edit summary for the revert of the attribution is pure WP:OR, which is unacceptable for sensitive BLP content. Edits that stem from a WP editor's preconceptions, or from an editor's casual acceptance of non-RS narratives cannot be justified for article content, let alone BLP content. Moreover, in his various video appearances on Fox and elsewhere, Mac Isaac carefully frames his story in terms of his blindness and other factors that preclude a definitive BLP statement about Hunter Biden. See (hear) for example this audio of Mac Isaac himself SPECIFICO talk 12:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The current version simply states the reality that the laptop was abandoned at the repair shop. This avoids the need to give a weak attribution about who dropped it off. The reader is free to speculate - it could have been Hunter, a ghost, or even a Russian spy. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

RS do not state that they know that anyone "dropped it off" because the laptop was first revealed when the Post story broke, via collaboration with other Trump-affiliated operatives. "Dropped off at the repair shop fails verification in RS. It does not address the issue and the reinsertion of that unverified content, after the attribution was conformed to the statement in the cited source, is a disallowed BLP violation. SPECIFICO talk 16:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a silly thing to discuss. Laptops are not able to ambulate by themselves. A motive species, most likely a human, maybe Hunter Biden, maybe a Russian disinformer, maybe a FedEx delivery driver, maybe a professional laptop planter, or maybe a laptop retriever dog, took the laptop to the repair shop. Since editors don't seem to believe the Hunter Biden signature is well sourced enough, and therefore we can't say in wikivoice that Hunter dropped it off, we just say it was abandoned to keep it simple. The rest of the details are appropriately reserved for the body. The FBI took possession of the laptop in 2019, therefore they knew about the laptop before the Post story broke. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The issue is this. Puerile attempts at humor insult every editor who takes the time to read them.They fail our standard for BLP content. Unless there's substantive sourced support for saying the thing was abandoned -- which RS do not say in any form the origin needs to be attributed to the statements of the partisans from whom they originated. SPECIFICO talk 19:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Do we really need to know who dropped it off? It was dropped off, enough said. For the time being, I don't see it as something for folks to obsess about. PS - I think we can agree, it wasn't teleported there. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to tell anyone who asks it was the laptop retriever dog. In fact, I may tell people who would never even think to ask. We'll see which doggone accepted narrative prevails by June! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Please read my comment immediately above. We do not know that it was "dropped off". And your WP:OR is not relevant to the discussion and is certainly no justification for unverified BLP content. We do not know that it was "dropped off". For one counterexample, it could have been sourced in Ukraine or the US by Republican/Trump affiliates and placed with the sight-impaired man in the shop. Please read the cited source and refrain from deflections such as teleport in lieu of Reliable Source verification. SPECIFICO talk 16:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

it could have been sourced in Ukraine or the US by Republican/Trump affiliates and placed with the sight-impaired man in the shop. "placed with" is equivalent to "dropped off", is it not? Feoffer (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

No, not at all. It could have been placed with Mac Isaac, meaning planted with him so that he could falsely claim everything he said to Fox Media and in his conspiracy theory-filled video interviews. I'm disappointed you would not understand the issue here. We have no RS cited that has been prepared to state that the device was "dropped off" = "brought to the shop as a repair customer." Placed is not the same as dropped off. If failed to clarify the distinction above, I believe I have done so now. SPECIFICO talk 22:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

In my dictionary, though, a drop-off is just the act or an instance of making a usually brief deposit or delivery. Doesn't matter who or why. Anyway, I fixed an incriminating typo in your second sentence, hope that's cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

On April 12, the laptops were dropped off at Mac Isaac’s repair shop. from The Washington Post. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Best we leave the content-in-question as is, for the time being. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like you're discouraging debate again...It seems like some of us are saying we should not use attributions in the lead. I am trying to AGF, but I get the feeling we are using Wikivoice in this manner to lean into a POV as to placate our far right readers and editors, not because it is what RS state. If that is inaccurate please correct me and explain the logic that is being used here. DN (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, some editors may believe an attempt is being made or trying to be made, to push a certain PoV on this page & thus end its NPoV status. I too, am trying to AGF. So you see, it's best we don't 'go there'. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Godday, behavioral complaints may be filed at AE. Not by ignoring or making your WP:POINT by disregarding a simple VERIFICATION issue. SPECIFICO talk 19:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

You've misspelled my name. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

FBI involvement with social media censorship of the story

Good article on Fox News this morning detailing the FBI's role in censoring spread of the story on Twitter: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/elon-musk-chose-me-report-twitter-files-disturbing-things-learned-fbi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.10.80 (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece. DN (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Unreliable and fringe, unusable in any event. Andre🚐 03:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Wrong side of the aisle. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

This article is an example of why Wikipedia is a failure

The very first sentence of this article has a statement which is false, yet it is apparently the "consensus" that it should be there. I corrected it and the fix was reverted very quickly. The laptop in question may have been owned by Hunter Biden. It may have been taken by him to the repair shop. It may have been abandoned by him. Yet, no proof has ever emerged that definitively shows any of those three statements to be true, and no proof is cited in this article. There is proof that a hard drive with data supposedly copied from the laptop's hard drive contained data that was Hunter Biden's. Similarly, there is proof that same data has other data that is clearly non Hunter Biden's on it. And, an analysis has shown that there were potentially incriminating emails sent to Hunter Biden in that data. The emails are real, but no evidence has been found that Hunter Biden received or read those emails (all verification is about the sender, not the receiver). That's the truth. Why doesn't Wikipedia care about the truth?

The lede of this article must use a word such as "claimed" or "believed" or "asserted". A definitive statement is, effectively, a lie. RoyLeban (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

We've been through two RFCs on this matter. We really don't want to go through a third one. Best to drop the stick, RoyLeban. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

As I stated below, and as Feoffer noted, I was completely unaware that there were any RfCs at all. I assumed it was a malicious editor who had inserted the false statement. You are assuming bad faith and making this into an unnecessary personal attack. RoyLeban (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

the RfC isn't even archived. what GoodDay said wasn't an attack, it was advice. one that I concur with Anon0098 (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

We just follow what the sources say. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I have a hard time reading that statement coming from you, and for good reasons...DN (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Several editors have spent months, seems like years, battering each other bloody over this. We had an RFC last summer that concluded the laptop once belonged to Hunter. Just when you think the article has reached some semblance of stability, someone barges in, flips the table over and rewrites the lead. Seriously, this may be the most brutally debated article in Wikipedia history. soibangla (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

RoyLeban, while you're making an argument in good faith, we've had several RFCs and the consensus was to say Hunter did once own the laptop. Consensus can change but you haven't provided any new evidence or sources. So as of right now while I welcome a user around since 2009 popping by to contribute, you had best back away from the dead horse carcass on this narrow point, though there are undoubtedly other improvements to make. Wikipedia doesn't specifically care about truth but rather verifiability. Andre🚐 23:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

This article is an example of why Wikipedia is a failure . This is a very unique case and a lot of things had to come together to create this failure. A non-admin closed the first RFC and later acknowledged the close did not represent consensus. At the close review, discussion was derailed when someone tried to overturn on the basis of bigotry against the closer's demographics rather than a valid reason -- so the admins promptly rejected overturning it with extreme prejudice. Then you add in that the Hunter Biden camp doesn't actually deny that the laptop might be his, and that CBS has forensically validated a "clean copy" -- it becomes increasingly tempting to be lazy about meeting WP:V and instead just sweep the remaining doubts under the rug. Feoffer (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Feoffer: You've misrepresented my request for a close review in what amounts to a serious [[WP:NPA|personal attack}}. Please have a look at the close review and correct your statement above. SPECIFICO talk 23:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO:, I offer you the biggest on-wiki apology I have ever given! I do not believe I have EVER made any mistake as bad as the one I just made. I am embarrassed to have recorded that wrong in my mind, and I'm embarrassed for how that mistake has colored everything I've ever said to you and every word I ever read from you. Thank you for correcting me. I'm deeply sorry. Feoffer (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

An actual apology on Wikipedia? This is unprecedented! Has there been a disruption in the spacetime continuum? soibangla (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

It's proof that WP is not broken. By the way, you stole my line, soibangla, but I give you permission to use it, with attribution.;-) Carlstak (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Well let's not go crazy -- yes, I mistook one username for another, but RoyLeban's concerns aren't invalidated by my misreading. But damn I do feel bad about the error -- sorry Specifico! My only defense is that I had been reading small-print 1940s-era newsprint all day every day during the week, so maybe eyestrain was a factor in me overlooking the true author of the anti-Christian comment. Feoffer (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Some responses:

• GoodDay - Unfortunately, RfCs are flawed. A tiny, tiny number of generally uninformed but interested people vote (or don't vote, if you prefer that term) on a "consensus." What Wikipedia needs is RfT (Request for Truth).
• Mr Ernie - This article is not following the sources, at least not in the lede. Can anyone point to a single, unbiased source that says any of the following is definitively true? (a) the laptop exists and unquestionably belonged to Hunter Biden, (b) Hunter Biden personally dropped off the laptop at the repair shop, (c) Hunter Biden personally "abandoned" the laptop at the repair shop, (d) all of the data on the laptop unquestionably belonged to Hunter Biden, (d) all of the data provided by Rudolph Giuliani unquestionably came from Hunter Biden, (e) emails included in the data were unquestionably received by and read by Hunter Biden. The answer to all of these is NO. Therefore, the lede says something which is unsourced (and also false) and that material should be removed.
• soibangla and Andre wrote, respectively, "We had an RFC last summer that concluded the laptop once belonged to Hunter" and "we've had several RFCs and the consensus was to say Hunter did once own the laptop" — this is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. What you claim happened would be considered original research. The fact is that the sources do not support the statement in the lede (see above, and this article itself), and that is what an RfC is supposed to figure out. At best, it is unknown if the laptop was Hunter Biden's, the data is real, etc. At worst, it's part of a Russian disinformation campaign. What we do know for sure — based on the sources — is that there is not definitive proof that the statement in the very first sentence is true. The lede violates Wikipedia policy.
• Feoffer wrote "Then you add in that the Hunter Biden camp doesn't actually deny that the laptop might be his, and that CBS has forensically validated a "clean copy"" —

1. People who do not have an agenda of disinformation try not to state things as true that are not definitely true. We all know Rudolph Giuliani and the Russians don't have those scruples. This is unfortunate here.
2. Much, maybe most, of the data in the data dump (which may or may not have been on the purported laptop) is clearly Hunter Biden's data, but there are many of ways it could have gotten in a data dump. The existence of some valid data does not prove that all data is valid. That is a logical fallacy. (It also doesn't prove any data is invalid.)
3. CBS did not validate a "proven clean copy". CBS explicitly said that they "believed" it to be a clean copy. There are unquestionable chain of custody issues — for example, in the intervening three years, bad actors could have carefully scrubbed a doctored data dump to make sure that there were no longer any telltale indicators of editing after March 2019. Forensic analysis of emails have focused on validating that the emails were actually sent as indicated, not that they were actually received by or read by Hunter Biden. That's not the fault of the forensic analysts — there is no unforgeable way to prove that an email was received or read.

I don't think this is general laziness, as Feoffer suggests. I think it indicative of a critical flaw in Wikipedia itself. The fact that an unsourced and untrue statement is in the first sentence of this article about a "hot button" topic is as big a violation of what Wikipedia is supposed to be as there is. And, apparently two RfCs have let it stand.

When I happened to come across this page and saw the first line, contradicted by the article itself, I figured some anti-Biden editor had inserted an incorrect, obviously biased statement, one not supported by sources. So, naturally, I fixed it. At the time, it didn't even occur to me that two(!) RfCs had let that statement stand. To make sure I'm clear, I am NOT saying that the laptop did not belong to Hunter Biden and that the data on the supposed "clean copy" is not completely his data. I don't know that. What I am saying is that, as of right now, nobody knows definitively one way or another, and there is also no reputable, unbiased source that states it as fact, and that therefore the article should not state it as fact.

I am aware that we are not going to fix Wikipedia here, but can we manage to fix this article? RoyLeban (talk) 10:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

A majority of editors have expressed support for a compromise that refocuses the lead on the laptop data, which has been verified to belong to Hunter Biden, rather than the physical device, which as yet has not been authenticated. Nobody cares about the device's provenance anymore -- the data is what matters. The present wording and sourcing suffices, but the right advocate could easily generate a consensus for a lead centered on the laptop data verified by CBS.
No POV would LOSE, all POVs would win without distracting the reader with spurious doubts over the physical device -- that's like asking: Yes, it's a genuine Hunter Biden email, but was it really printed on paper handled by Hunter Biden??? Who the heck cares?!? There's a simple solution here, and it's to stop arguing about the "paper" and focus on the "data". Feoffer (talk) 11:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The compromise doesn't work because:

• The first sentence includes the phrase "data from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden", when this is disputed.
• The first sentence includes the phrase "that was abandoned at a Delaware computer shop", when this is disputed.
• The data has not been verified as belonging to Hunter Biden; it has been verified that it appears to belong to Hunter Biden. Some of the data is verifiable and probably has been verified (e.g., emails that he sent that others have received), but not all of it. There is no reputable source that says that all of the data (even on the "clean copy") absolutely belongs to Hunter Biden. And that's because no analysis can prove ownership of documents in a situation like this. It just isn't technically possible. Even CBS knows this (see here: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hunter-biden-laptop-data-analysis/), emphasis mine: Computer Forensics Services' chief technology officer, Mark Lanterman, said he believes it's clear the data was created by Hunter Biden." And remember this is the copy with a three-year chain of custody problem, not mentioned in the article.

[Side note: Why can't it be proven? Documents sometimes have metadata which allows us to disprove things, like that a document can't have been created before a certain date, but documents without cryptographic signatures, which is almost all of them, do not provide a mechanism to prove even so much as a creation date (dates are surprisingly easy to forge); emails are an exception because of headers which can prove that a message was sent, and what path it took, but we still can't prove delivery or that a message was read.]

The article should not state something as fact which cannot be proven (and for which, not surprisingly, no source exists that states it unequivocally as fact).

The idea of focusing on the data is fine, but the phrasing doesn't do that, and the lede still should not state as fact things that are known not to be facts. RoyLeban (talk) 11:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The status quo is not the proposed compromised. The compromise proposal is to defer all mention of the physical device to lower in the article and focus the lead sentence on the data. Feoffer (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused. I'm responding to what people wrote here. The RfCs are referred to in the past tense. If they have been closed, why has the article not been updated. Also, it seems to me that my edit was very much in the spirit of the compromise, with the caveat that it does not state definitively that the data was Hunter Biden's, because that is not known. RoyLeban (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

If you go look at the last RFC, the "compromise" proposal ('laptop data') was a late-added option five. The rfc was closed on "status quo", NOT the compromise proposal -- but closer explicitly opined that the compromise proposal might garner consensus. I agree the situation is a little outrageous. The compromise would be one way to move forward. Another way forward would be to get any RS from the past six months ever denying or opining that the device belonged to Biden -- I've looked and I can't find anyone seriously debating against that point. Feoffer (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

What you claim happened would be considered original research. The fact is that the sources do not support the statement in the lede I recommend you actually review the RFC Andre🚐 18:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I stand by my statement. The sources do not support the statement in the lede. RoyLeban (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Roy, to answer your questions, starting with a:

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

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

Republican lawmakers and their staff for the past year have been analyzing messages and financial transactions found on a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden. from PBS.

From The Guardian, which states House Republicans and their staff have been studying messages and financial transactions found on a now notorious laptop that belonged to Hunter.

for b - the article doesn't say that.

for c - the article doesn't say that.

for d - the article doesn't say that.

for e - the article doesn't say that.

You also say At worst, it's part of a Russian disinformation campaign. Can you provide a source that has evidence of that? And no, I'm not talking about that Natasha Bertrand Politico piece, which goes out of its way to state While the letter’s signatories presented no new evidence.... There's also a Vox piece which states And no evidence has emerged to back up suspicions from former intelligence officials, backed by Biden himself, that the laptop’s leak was a Russian plot. and Some commentators did go too far in asserting that this was part of a Russian plot, when the evidence hasn’t emerged to back that up. There was a lot of misinformation early on in this saga that has become deeply rooted, which is part of why this article is so hard to update. Roy, where are your sources? Mr Ernie (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

With respect to your four references, none of those articles are acceptable sources on ownership of the laptop. They are passing references which are merely repeating what has been said elsewhere (by unacceptable sources). Things don't become true because they are repeated, no matter how often. Can you point to an acceptable source that actually states with authority, and with evidence, and not as a passing reference, that any of a through e are true?

With respect to b through e, this article clearly implies (b), (c), and (e). As an example, the last paragraph of the first section reads " Two forensic analysts who independently examined the data for The Washington Post authenticated 1,828 and 22,000 emails" without the important qualification that only incoming emails could be authenticated and such authentication did not prove that they had been received by Hunter Biden or read by him. Yes, the WaPo and CBS all gloss over this (reporters don't understand it), but it's explained in the details. You are write that the article does not state (d) but it is easy to misread, plus bad actors are claiming it to be true — the article should be clear.

I did not state that it is part of a Russian disinformation campaign, but there are plenty of sources that say that it is, and we absolutely know that this is the sort of the thing Russian agents do, plus there have been numerous reports that Rudolph Giuliani and Trump himself have been compromised. We also know that there are at least two different versions of the data dump, which is very suspicious. There are clearly bad actors somewhere, so the fact that those bad actors are Russian agents, or affiliated with Russia, is not much of a stretch. This issue is already addressed in the article (the word "disinformation" appears 18 times and the word "Russian" appears 27 times). I am not proposing changes to that at this time as my focus is on the inaccurate and unsourced lede. This is the Talk page, not the article.

RoyLeban (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree there are still many unknowns about this whole thing, but that has not stopped a narrative from solidifying in certain circles: "the laptop has been proven to be Hunter's, the NYT finally admitted everything on it is real, therefore the NY Post was right all along and it's been proven it wasn't a Russian disinfo op." Some editors appear to buy into that narrative, I do not. That said, there was an RFC about Hunter's ownership, though I hasten to add I was not present for that discussion. soibangla (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

A "narrative solidifying" (great term, that) does not mean anything. The fact that there are people who believe, without evidence, certain things, does not make them true. Echo chambers repeating the same unproven, unverified statements does not suddenly make them true. The FACT is that it is a claim, not a fact, and the lede, and the article, should reflect that. There's really no debate here — with no source that isn't just an echo, the statement cannot be made. I am astounded that anybody would argue otherwise! RoyLeban (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

To add another point, there are millions of people who believe Donald Trump's lies that the 2020 election was "stolen". Does the article on the election start by repeating that lie? No, it does not. In fact, it states that it is a lie. In this case, we don't know the truth, and we should not pretend that we do, no matter how many people say so. I would also object if the article started with a statement like "...a laptop falsely claimed to belong to Hunter Biden...". Although I suspect that may be true, it is also not a proven fact, and there are no sources which state definitively that it is not his laptop (though there are reputable sources that state that some of the data in some of the data dumps appear to be forged). RoyLeban (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

There are no sources who present a single shred of evidence that the laptop or anything associated with it are Russian disinformation. Most of the sources who even suggest it go out of their way to say there’s no evidence so far. It’s always fun to debate but if you aren’t going to present sourcing to support content improvement suggestions then we are kind of wasting our time. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

This may be one of the few points we agree on, but it doesn't change the fact that there is some serious cherrypicking going on from the cited sources, and the Russia aspect is being used as a strawman/red herring. DN (talk) 05:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The article already talks about the possibility of a Russian disinformation campaign. None of those edits came from me. The only edit I have ever made to this article has been reverted. My personal opinion is irrelevant here.

My suggestion for content improvement was in my edit and is in the comments above. State, accurately, matching reputable sources, that the laptop is claimed to belong to Hunter Biden, that the data is claimed to be his, etc. Going beyond that is stating something for which there is not a reliable, unbiased source which is not simply an echo. For example, a reliable source would detail evidence proving the claim. Such a source does not exist. RoyLeban (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

If you don't like the RFC decision? Then bring your comlaint/challenge to the appropriate board. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

This is not about any RfC decision (although it is quite obvious that process is flawed). It is about the inaccurate, unsourced lede that does not belong on Wikipedia. If you think there is an appropriate board to bring this to, feel free to suggest it. Absent that, it seems like this is the best place to find editors willing to assist in fixing this. RoyLeban (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:DRN? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ soibangla (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

We already had two RFC on this matter. Your not liking the results, isn't going to overturn them. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

You haven't read what I've written or you are ignoring it. I didn't even know about the RfC's. I assumed it was the work of a malicious editor. Why else would the lede state something that was untrue, unsourced, and contradicted by the article itself? That said, the result of the RfC is that the current lede and what is supposedly "consensus" is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. And it's also a false statement. RoyLeban (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Two RfCs that discussed the issue ad nauseum are conclusive evidence that no policy is violated as no consensus can overrule policy. It is also consensus, so no quotes needed. As the last was closed by an admin, there isn't even the "taint" of non-adminstrator closing. So instead of repeatedly stating the lede violates policy, show sources that provide evidence that GRU or the Easter Bunny dropped off the laptop. Funny thing about any claims that it's not his laptop is they also lack any coherent narrative of how the laptop wound up there (and let's not forget the two other laptops that were picked up). Slywriter (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Two RfCs that discussed the issue ad nauseum But you do notice that there's an apparently unending stream of new editors showing up at this article asking us to improve it. When I first got here, the lede was far worse -- we just cited ownership outright without any inline sourcing! I can live with this status quo, i've "dropped the stick". But this discussion will keep occurring until we improve the article to the point that casual readers no longer show up to complain about it. Feoffer (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

There's an unending stream of new editors & IPs showing up at Donald Trump's page, with complaints that it doesn't meet NPoV. This page isn't unique. GoodDay (talk) 03:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Anons complaining about balance is one thing, but but we've got veteran editors with two decades on Wikipedia showing up and complaining the current text doesn't meet oneWP:V. Our current status quo is a Win-Lose, in that it meets our concerns but fails to satisfy the good-faith concerns others have raised. You and I should be looking for a "win-win" text that makes everyone happy. Feoffer (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

If you dislike the latest RFC decision, then challenge it at the proper board, etc. GoodDay (talk) 06:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

That would be a WP:STICKy situation, we've come a long way and I can live with the current version. But if we're chefs -- our customers keep sending their food back... we can do better. Feoffer (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps a six-month moratorium on this topic should be put in place. GoodDay (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

It sure would be convenient to force an obviously false statement to remain on the page for six months, huh? RoyLeban (talk) 10:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, bring your complaints/challenges to the RFC decision, to the appropriate board. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

This is not about any RfC decision (although it is quite obvious that process is flawed). It is about the inaccurate, unsourced lede that does not belong on Wikipedia. If you think there is an appropriate board to bring this to, feel free to suggest it. Absent that, it seems like this is the best place to find editors willing to assist in fixing this. RoyLeban (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Slywriter wrote "So instead of repeatedly stating the lede violates policy, show sources that provide evidence that GRU or the Easter Bunny dropped off the laptop" but that isn't how either Wikipedia or the world works. To put something in an article, it needs to be sourced — we don't need to find a source that provides some alternate statement to remove it. Since there is no reliable, unbiased non-echo source for what is in the lede, it shouldn't be there. To paraphrase Feoffer, as long as the lede has an obviously false statement, editors like me will come along and object. This will never stop until the lede is fixed. RoyLeban (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The "I'm going to keep complaining here, until I get my own way" approach, isn't productive. In fact, it could be seen as disruptive. Again, bring your challenges to the RFC decision, to the appropriate board. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

GoodDay, you appear to be willfully misquoting me! Others have said I am not the first editor to notice the inaccurate, unsourced information in the lede. I will not be the last. It will not stop until the lede is fixed.

Also, I am not complaining. I am trying to help people understand what is wrong. I am frustrated that people are arguing for something that is not proven and for which there is no source. I admit that it is hard for me to believe that it is not politically motivated.

To repeat, as if there's an echo in here, this is not about any RfC decision (although it is quite obvious that process is flawed). It is about the inaccurate, unsourced lede that does not belong on Wikipedia. If you think there is an appropriate board to bring this to, feel free to suggest it. Absent that, it seems like this is the best place to find editors willing to assist in fixing this.

RoyLeban (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The impression I'm getting is that you're not listening & perhaps the rest of us should simply ignore you. The changes you want make to the intro, won't be accepted. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Is there a reason to turn this into a personal attack? RoyLeban (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I get annoyed when an editor refuses to accept the result of an RFC. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I get annoyed when it appears that editors are allowing their political biases to override NPOV. Obviously, I don't know if that's the case with you, and I have avoided accusing anyone. My annoyance, and yours, is not an excuse for a personal attack.

I also get annoyed when people mischaracterize what I have said, as you have just done, but I won't make a personal attack. I'll just point out that you are mistaken and encourage you to read a bit more carefully.

Finally, the lede is going to get changed. There is no source for what is there, and that is a very important rule on Wikipedia. It's just a matter of how long it takes. RoyLeban (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is pushing any political bias & the lead concerning who the laptop belonged to, won't be changed. The RFC result will be respected. Any repeated attempts to go against that result, may only be seen as disruptive behaviour. GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@RoyLeban: if you don't like the decision of both RFCs & you're going to continue to complain about those decisions? Then officially challenge those decisions at WP:AN. Repeating your complaints here, isn't accomplishing anything. GoodDay (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I sincerely don't recall when RfCs began to mean more to what went into an article than things such as RSN approval. I don't know when the bickering between editors become more important than the context in which reliably sourced material was produced, but it needs to stop immediately. If I took a majority of these cites to RSN to pass the smell test almost all of them would fail, but since I don't want to put administrators through the hell of trying to convince editors here that they don't actually understand what makes a source reliable for what it says, I feel stuck with trying to not appear like a leftist Biden-zealot/cuckoo bird. It's not their job to control content. It's our job to get it sorted, and we have failed miserably here. I will say, as I have previously, that it is very likely more editors like RoyLeban will show up and say the same thing that the rest of us have been, but failed to take to RSN. This article is not paying attention to it's own cited sources. DN (talk) 05:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

There's several RFCs that haven't gone the way I wish they had. An RM & RFC at Queen Camilla's page didn't go my way. An ongoing RFC at Trump's page isn't going my way. Best thing to do? accept the results & move on. Same with this page & its RFC results? the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. At some point, the time comes to let go & move on. Either that or make an official challenge at WP:AN. GoodDay (talk) 05:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

AN is more for personal than practical matters. This is not personal. DN (talk) 05:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed on both counts: WP:AN is not the place for this, and editors arguing for the false statements in the lede are ignoring what the cited sources say (and don't say).

I feel a bit like I should start arguing that the laptop absolutely did not belong to Hunter Biden, that it was absolutely created and planted by Russian agents (and I can easily find sources that say that, sources that are just as unreliable as the sources that say the laptop absolutely belonged to Hunter Biden). Backing this up is the proven fact that there are at least two versions of the data dump, and at least one version had data in it that was not Hunter Biden's, but was claimed to be (and nobody has established who created that false data). And maybe then we can "compromise" at the right place in the middle, that the truth is not known. RoyLeban (talk) 11:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Republican lawmakers and their staff for the past year have been analyzing messages and financial transactions found on a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden. from PBS.

From The Guardian, which states House Republicans and their staff have been studying messages and financial transactions found on a now notorious laptop that belonged to Hunter.

If you believe that The Guardian, Financial Times, and PBS are unreliable sources then you can go make the case at WP:RSN to get them deprecated. Otherwise our article is going to follow what they report. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, you are mischaracterizing what I wrote. I hope it is that you just skimmed it and it is not deliberate. So please read this carefully. None of those four citations are a source for what you are claiming. None of them provide evidence, explanation, or anything which explicitly states that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. All of them make a passing reference to "a laptop owned by Hunter Biden." They are echoes of other statements, not reliable sources for this particular question. You need both a reliable source (and The Guardian, Financial Times, and PBS are fine) and a citation from them which addresses the claim itself, not an article with a passing reference. This is Citation 101. I do not believe such a source exists. If I'm wrong, prove it. If nobody can find a source for what is in the lede, then the lede must change. RoyLeban (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

RoyLeban, while I largely agree with your position, the unfortunate fact remains that this matter has been (mostly) settled by several RfCs and we have to move on. As in real-life American politics, there are those who accept election results when they do not go as expected, and there are those that screech and wail when they lose, and blame the process. That sentiment is largely mirrored among Wikipedia editors, where those who try to keep these sorts of articles balanced and reasonable are the ones who accept the results and move on, while the others who want to make the article as negative and tabloid-ish as possible scratch and claw for every negative and tabloid-ish word they can, even when in a distinct minority. In this case, it didn't go the way you wanted. Best to let it go. ValarianB (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

yes soibangla (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The RfC process is flawed (I won't repeat what I wrote above). What we have here are three potential points of view:

1. The article should state that the laptop absolutely BELONGED TO Hunter Biden, despite the lack of a source
2. The article should state that the laptop absolutely DID NOT BELONG TO Hunter Biden, despite the lack of a source
3. The article should state that it is CLAIMED that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden, or some similar language.

Isn't it interesting that nobody is arguing for (2)? When I see this, it is hard for me to believe that there is no political motivation. Clearly, the only NPOV position is (3). RoyLeban (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Setting aside the past RFC closure for just a sec and considering this issue just by itself -- "claimed" would be too weak -- the "best" source uses the language "believed to be". Could you, Roy, support as improvement a change that focuses the first sentence on the data rather than physical device? Feoffer (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that change would be an improvement. It is not my preference, but it removes the inaccuracy and no longer states something that is not sourced. Clearly, a lot of the data in the data dump is from Hunter Biden, though it has not been proven that all of it is from him, and that issue is addressed in what is currently the third sentence. The second sentence would still be problematic (the phrase "The laptop was abandoned" is not proven, is not sourced, and there are huge questions and chain of custody issues). I would recommend removing the second sentence entirely. RoyLeban (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

At least three editors have advised you to bring your complaints/objections etc, to the proper boards. So far 'here', you're not gaining a consensus for what you want. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, if you want my advice, the way forward would be to continue building consensus for language that focuses on the data. Questions about the device itself are a red herring, like asking if the leaked "Pentagon Papers" were actually printed on DOD paper-products or not. Feoffer (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Feoffer, thank you for your thoughts. The reason it is important to talk about the device is that there are editors insisting that the device must be mentioned, and it must be said that it belonged to Hunter Biden, despite not providing a single source that provides proof, evidence, an explanation, etc. And they have made ridiculous statements like I need to provide a source for some other theory in order to remove the unsourced statement. It is getting harder to assume good faith. RoyLeban (talk) 07:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand every word you say -- When I first got here, the article didn't even have a source. My first comment mirrors yours. There's a lot of battleground on this page. But despite it all, there's a win-win to be found -- probably by just focusing on the data. Feoffer (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing has been provided in this thread, two RfCs have sources as do the numerous ancillary theeads. Drop the stick and skip the subtle accusations of bad as your continual claims of no sourcing are false. Slywriter (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I can live with our status quo -- but that said, let's all keep our eyes out for a source that forensically authenticates the device itself, as it would be an important improvement. Feoffer (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Slywriter, nobody has stepped forward, in the article or here, with a source that provides evidence, forensic or otherwise, that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden, that Hunter Biden dropped it off, that Hunter Biden abandoned it, that all the information in the data dump came from that laptop, or that all the information in the data dump belonged to Hunter Biden. It is a claim, repeated over and over again, and repetition does not make something true, nor is such repetition a source that meets Wikipedia's standards. Surely, if the statement is true, as the lede currently asserts, a source would exist. Go ahead, prove me wrong. All you have to do is find such a source, one that is reputable and reliable, meets Wikipedia's standards, and explicitly provides information and evidence about the statements above. Despite repeated requests, before and after I got here, nobody has provided such a source. And, no statements by political operative and serial liar Rudolph Giuliani don't count. He's not listed as a reputable source.

In contrast, there are multiple sources that state that most of the data in the data dump belonged to Hunter Biden, with appropriate information, detail, and evidence. Similarly, there are multiple sources that state that some of the data in one of the versions of the data dump was forged. These things we can consider well sourced facts. What isn't clear is where that data dump came from. There is no reputable source that presents evidence that it came from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden, only sources that repeat that claim.

This isn't a high bar, but it is the bar required by Wikipedia. Absent a source, how can anybody justify the statement in the lede?

RoyLeban (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you that there is not a source that explicitly and expressly states that Hunter Biden's laptop was indeed confirmed to have belonged to him. However, there are a number of sources that accept it as his laptop and describe it as such. It's not just implied that it's his laptop: they say it's his, they just do so lazily and without firm confirmation. I among others agreed at the RFC that we should describe it as his "purported" laptop or "alleged" laptop, but, 2 RFCs and an overturn review have determined that there is a consensus for referring to it as his laptop. Whether or not we agree with this argument, that is the current consensus. If you wish to pursue a new RFC or a new discussion to change the consensus we would need some new information, absent that, it is best to let this lie and acknowledge that it can't be helped at present. Andre🚐 03:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Andre, by that standard, Trump won the 2020 election and it was stolen :) If, in fact, the repeated statement was true, you'd think somebody would be able to find a single source(!) that are not simply repeating the statement. A "consensus" (and, yes, I'm deliberately putting that in quotes) cannot override Wikipedia policies.

If another RfC is the way to go, this section of the Talk page demonstrates that, despite repeated requests, none of the people who insist the lede should say it definitely is/was his laptop have failed to come up with a single source to cite. And I'm only asking for one source — really, an article like this that is such a hot button issue should have multiple sources for key statements.

One source. That's all that's needed. Why is it so hard?

RoyLeban (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@RoyLeban I've linked these before, but it is possible you have overlooked them. Here are 4 sources that say the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. There are many more than refer to "Hunter Biden's laptop" or something similar. I've added the bolding to help you find the wording.

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

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

Republican lawmakers and their staff for the past year have been analyzing messages and financial transactions found on a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden. from PBS.

From The Guardian, which states House Republicans and their staff have been studying messages and financial transactions found on a now notorious laptop that belonged to Hunter.

Mr Ernie (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I mean, no, I don't agree, RoyLeban, really at all. There are countless sources about the 2020 election being not the way Trump claims. There are many sources, linked by various folks on this page, that indicate that Hunter Biden owned the laptop - though as I said, they do not establish a clean chain of custody or provenance or a forensic verification of ownership and there are doubts. But again, there were several RFCs and a consensus found (one that I did not agree with). Another RFC is NOT the way to go unless you have some new information. Otherwise this is WP:IDHT Andre🚐 18:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Mr Ernie and Andre insufficient citations do not suddenly become sufficient if you repost them! What you are saying is lots of people are assuming that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden, and lots of people are repeating the fact that other people have made that assumption, and that's enough. Well, it's not! It's just an echo chamber. It is not plausible that there is not a single reputable and reliable source for this claim, yet we're all supposed to believe it as absolutely true.

Since, repeated requests for such a source have turned up nothing, I suspect that such a source does not exist.

Present such a source, and we will add it to the lede of the article, and I will admit I was wrong. But, if no such source can be found, the lede has to change.

To be clear, the source has to:

• Be reputable — meet Wikipedia standards
• Be reliable — a news article, not an opinion piece (or an article that just references opinions)
• Present evidence — e.g., list facts, quote people with actual firsthand knowledge, not people who are just speculating

The lede says it's a fact, not "believed to be" or "claimed" or "lots of people are saying." An appropriate source needs to make it clear that it's a fact, not an opinion, not an assumption, not that people "believe it to be," etc.

An article that presents evidence on both sides of a controversy is, by definition, a source for both sides of the controversy, not one side (i.e., no cherry picking).

All of this is extremely straightforward — it's the way Wikipedia works.

RoyLeban (talk) 09:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I get everything you're saying -- this is a very special set of circumstances. If we could find ANY RS or partisan seriously saying "it's not his laptop!", things would be different. We really can find a way to make a better article but "claimed" is a total non-starter. "believed" isn't much better. At the same time -- this lede IS suboptimal, as it might suggest forensic authentication of the physical device itself. Within those parameters, there's room for much-needed improvement (I think) Feoffer (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

That is actually not the way Wikipedia works, RoyLeban. But it has been explained to you why, and we're into WP:IDHT. Andre🚐 19:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Andre. I've heard what you've said, but you're wrong. You're saying that it's ok to put unsourced information in an article. And then when people ask for a source, you can argue one isn't necessary because everybody is assuming the statement is true? Can you point to that policy?

There's a line in Shakespeare "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." It applies here. The people arguing so strongly that no source is needed are doing so because no source exists. RoyLeban (talk) 06:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say no source was needed. I said that the RFC by consensus determined the sources provided were sufficient. I happen not to agree with that consensus but that is how things work on Wikipedia. I advise you to self-revert or you may find yourself being submitted for sanction at AE or ANI. Andre🚐 07:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

You have effectively said no source is needed. Since you are so confident that the statement in the lead is a fact, not a belief, then surely you must have a source. Why won't you provide it? RoyLeban (talk) 02:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

This is at the point where I'm soon not going to be able to continue participating in good faith, RoyLeban, so let's try it one last time. In the sources provided by others, statements along the lines of "a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden" or "once belonged to" Biden or statements such as "Biden dropped off at the repair shop" etc., are made. An RFC was begun in which I, among other, opined that this was not sufficient remove the "purported"/"alleged" language. I did NOT agree that this should be removed but a consensus of editors DID find that it was sufficient. Wikipedia makes decisions based on WP:CONSENSUS and there were not 1, but 2 RFCs and an overturn review discussing this. WP:CCC, but you have failed to provide new evidence or new arguments and your tone is bordering on inappropriate. As I've stated already I do not believe it was firmly established that Hunter Biden's laptop belonged to him but if it didn't, he's sure taking his time about providing evidence that it was not his. Meanwhile, RS have decided to describe it that way. I do not agree with this but we have to write what RS say and abide with the consensus. And so do you. Andre🚐 02:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Nobody has ever provided a single source for the statement "a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden". Never. Somebody repeating a statement that somebody else made is not a source, no matter how many times it's repeated (if that was true, then Trump won the 2020 election!). The statement had to originate somewhere. Where did it originate? This question is fundamental. Wikipedia's consensus process does not say that sources are not required, nor does it say that people misrepresenting what a source says is allowed.

How do you propose that Hunter Biden provide proof that the laptop wasn't his? Provide a receipt for some other laptop? It is hard, if not impossible, to prove a negative. That is why it is so important that there be a source for the positive statement (that it was his laptop).

You might also want to read Truth by consensus, which explains how consensus doesn't get at the truth.

RoyLeban (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia's standard is reliability and verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia: Verifiability, not truth. material from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden[8] a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden [9] Andre🚐 04:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish:, IMHO, this entire discussion should be hatted, as it's becoming a time sink. RoyLeban can bring his complaints about the RFC result, to the appropriate board. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not the one to hat a discussion that relates to my RFC closure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Outdenting

May I recommend editors WP:OUTDENT, once their posts reach 10 indents? That way, discussions won't be squeezed up against the right side of the talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 04:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Matter of preference, eh? Well, I'd rather see you spell out numbers under 13. I don't understand your discomfort with the right side of the page, but whatever, let's make it ten. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Russian disinformation misinformation

In an interview with The Australian, Douglas Wise, a former intelligence officer and one of the infamous "Russian disinformation" letter signers, stated All of us [the signatories] figured that a significant portion of that content had to be real to make any Russian disinformation credible. He also said it was "no surprise" that the emails were genuine. He also stated that he had no regrets signing on to the letter. The article opens The former top US intelligence officials who suggested - wrongly it turned out - that Russia could have been behind embarrassing and potentially incriminating files found on Hunter Biden's laptop before the 2020 presidential election, all believed "significant portions" of the content "had to be real". (emphasis mine). I am not that familiar with The Australian, but it has a green rating at at the RS list with the description "The Australian is considered generally reliable." The author is Adam Creighton. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, I'd rather see a non-paywalled version of the citation, as I do not put much faith in this selective quoting. ValarianB (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Right click the link I provided, copy it, and paste it into the navy blue background box at archive.today and you will be able to read it. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

You're twisting Douglas Wise's words and trying to tie them to the article author's characterization ("wrongly it turned out") of the subject matter. ValarianB (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Nah, he prefaced it with "the article opens". The article is the article author here, for all intents and purposes. But that doesn't explain in the slightest what he (Mr. Ernie) wants us to do with this information. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

This is the first RS that I've seen that directly states the Russian disinformation narrative was wrong. It's also another source that says it was Hunter Biden's laptop, which is somehow still being disputed. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, you are misrepresenting what a source is saying, and also conflating "Hunter Biden's laptop" with "the contents of Hunter Biden's laptop". ValarianB (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with your first accusation and refuse to comment on any hypothetical conflation. Mr. Ernie is fairly representing the source, just paraphrasing, also fairly. There is still precisely zero semblance of a proposed amendment to the article, which is mildly troubling, and rather a hint of indication of intent to "prove them wrong", which has always been the worst part of this infinite sadness. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Not true, and accusing me or anyone else of the intent to "prove them wrong" is an uncalled for attack. My proposed amendment is the change I made that got reverted. I've said that several times already. Feoffer has also made a proposal. RoyLeban (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't call my line about a mere hint of indication an "accusation", much less an attack. But if it is, it's pretty clearly "leveled against" Mr. Ernie, not RoyLeban. You haven't been here long enough for me to speak with familiarity about your motives (if you even have them). Whatever's going on with you and Feoffer is not my business. Just ValarianB and the aforementioned OP. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, fair enough. I'll strike out the first sentence. RoyLeban (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The claim that there is/was a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden isn't being disputed — it is an unsourced claim. The fact that the phrases "Hunter Biden's laptop" (like in the title of this article) and "laptop belonging to Hunter Biden" are being repeated is not a source! Repeating a statement, no matter how often, is not evidence that that statement is true. An actual source that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden would provide information and evidence about that supposed fact. Despite repeated requests, before and after I got here, nobody has provided such a source. And, no statements by political operative and serial liar Rudolph Giuliani don't count. He's not listed as a reputable source.

In contrast, there are multiple sources that state that most of the data in the data dump belonged to Hunter Biden. Similarly, there are multiple sources that state that some of the data in one of the versions of the data dump was forged. These things we can consider well sourced facts. What isn't clear is where that data dump came from. There is no reputable source that presents evidence that it came from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden, only sources that repeat that claim.

RoyLeban (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm writing to add the incredibly obvious statement that anybody who was trying to create disinformation in the form of a data dump would start with as much real data as possible, and there are many ways the real data could be obtained by bad actors. So, the fact that a significant portion of the data is unquestionably real is not a surprise in the least. We also know that there are at least two versions of the data dump, and one version of the data dump had information which was out of place, likely forged data. Whether this means that the whole thing is a product of a Russian disinformation campaign (or not) is not something that any of us could know. But, at this point, I have not seen any source that says it is definitively real (and, certainly, it is not possible for all versions to be real, so something odd was happening). The Australian article is mostly a report of an interview with one person, Douglas Wise, not a news article or investigative piece, and it is all over the map (e.g., Wise is also quoted as saying "Russians or even ill-intended conservative elements could have planted stuff in there"). RoyLeban (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

What's wrong with a notable reporter working for a reputable newspaper basing his story on an interview he conducted with a relevant expert with pertinent firsthand knowledge? Anyway, in case you missed it, "Hunter Biden's laptop" is also in the reliable source itself. I agree, a headline doesn't count for [redacted]. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

A few things about the article:

• Douglas Wise has background information, not any first-hand information about the purported laptop or the data dump. So, the article is, essentially, a report on Wise's opinions, not facts.
• The reference to "Hunter Biden's laptop" here is referential (an echo), and there is nothing the article that provides any evidence of the purported laptop's ownership.
• The statement that other media has accepted the laptop as belonging to Biden is not evidentiary. Conclusions reached by people at media properties are not evidence. It's not the same as evidence they publish. As I've said elsewhere, if there's a source with evidence, someone should provide a link to it. Why is that so difficult?
• I appreciate the fact that Wise brings up the chain of custody problems.

RoyLeban (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• If we were duking it out in a court of law, my friend, I'd also want to see some evidence. A timestamped security video showing his face clearly as he drops it off would be great, a fingerprint match on the keyboard or even just a sworn deposition of ownership from a verified Twitter account. But we're obviously not getting that depth of gotcha and usually don't for most things Wikipedia covers. Here, verifiability beats "truth" and we rely on the reliable source writers' opinions on what is or isn't a fact of the matter. Here, the mainstream consensus is that yeah, this was Hunter's Biden's laptop. Unlike a lot of times, simply accepting this part of "the official narrative" wouldn't really hurt you. You could even still choose to disbelieve it, either quietly or openly. But you've gone on long enough trying to convince people who've read enough that they should see things your way, just because alternative explanations are plausibly out there. Lay back for now, like I did about 9/11, and if you happen to find something damning or exonerating on your vacation, then hit us up! I, at least, will be glad to peruse it. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  One source. That doesn't seem like a very high bar. In contrast, it is extremely difficult, sometimes impossible, to prove a negative. This is why misinformation and disinformation can proliferate like it does. Whether it's intentional or unintentional misinformation, once it's out there without proof, it may be impossible to prove that it isn't true. Here, I'm not even trying to argue that there wasn't a laptop, or that there wasn't a laptop owned by Hunter Biden — I'm merely stating that, without a source, the lede shouldn't state something as fact. I continue to be astounded that anybody who has edited Wikipedia for any length of time would argue otherwise. RoyLeban (talk) 10:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

In the "failure" section above, Mr. Ernie showed you (at least) four more, at least twice. You simply deemed them "insufficient" and said reposting wouldn't change your mind, so I won't. I also won't repeat that evidentiary standards are much laxer on this site than you want to believe. I will repost Lay Back and you can take that advice or leave it. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

None of the articles linked to by Mr. Ernie assume that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. None of them even attempt to provide any evidence, good, bad, or otherwise, supporting that statement.

Yes, it is frequently the case that evidentiary standards are laxer on Wikipedia than they should be. But, when somebody (like me) pushes back and points out that an article does not support a statement, the proper action is to find a linked-to article which actually supports the statement. That's all I'm asking for. Instead of providing such a source, the argument is that an actual source is not necessary because lots of people have already assumed it's true and lots of people are repeating that. Where is the policy that says that's ok?

I have added a citation needed to the lede. If, as is claimed, the statement is a fact, it should be easy to provide a citation. I look forward to seeing it.

RoyLeban (talk) 07:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, all of the sources provided by Mr. Ernie assume this was Hunter Biden's laptop, whether by using that exact phrase, saying it belonged to him or whatever other means an average reader should consider assertive. You're certainly not the average reader, and part of me salutes you for that! But on the other hand, I can't match your endurance any longer any this; you win. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, over my 2 decades plus editing Wikipedia, I have noticed that editors who have a lot of free time on their hands tend to get their way, even if they're wrong. I can point to articles that are still broken, many years later, because I didn't have time to fight with an editor who, for example, said that "Wikipedia doesn't have timelines" (it probably has hundreds of thousands). One of those editors ended up permanently banned from Wikipedia, but not before they screwed up many articles. Because the lack of a source is so egregious here, I decided I'd check in once a day on this article. Guess that's some endurance :) RoyLeban (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Topic bans needed

RoyLeban, Feoffer, and now Zaathras have reinserted the citation needed template into the first sentence. Do these editors need to be reported to AE for the disruptive behavior that’s been ongoing for far too long now or can any admins who happen to be watching just directly apply a topic ban? I think the good faith was exhausted months ago. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:AE is thataway. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish do I need to self revert so that another editor can make the inevitable edit or are we good to enforce the firmly set consensus this way? Mr Ernie (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

You would be best off self reverting and reporting at AE, providing the history of RFC, RFC closure review, BLPN discussion, another RFC, and all the discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Sigh Zaathras has reported me at the edit warring noticeboard. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Mr. Ernie himself will be heading to Arb Enforcement momentarily if he does not self-revert. The 8 bulleted points at WP:3RRNO do not cover his claimed reason for violating 1RR.. Zaathras (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

This feels oddly familiar - Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy/Archive 5#A disputed tag has nothing to do with consensus text. @Slywriter. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you did get away with it before. I assumed at the time that reasoned discussion would lead to better self-reflection on your part. By the time it didn't, an AE filing would have likely been closed as "stale". So, good that we have your established pattern of disruption now. Zaathras (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed Mr Ernie. This is growing tiresome. If you hadn't reverted? I would've. To maintain the status quo. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Leave my name out if it -- My stick is dropped, I didn't reinsert anything, I proposed a creative solution that might finally resolve this longstanding dispute. We gotta break outta this battlegroundy mindset and just try to make the article better. Feoffer (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Or all split up and make a dozen or so articles better, let a new class hover menacingly over this nothingburger for a few months, see if they go crazy. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish accused me of being disruptive for making my second edit ever to this page in the history of time. Mr Ernie is doing the same thing here. This is false information, essentially an attack. Requesting a source, even repeatedly, on a talk page is not disrupting Wikipedia. In fact, I am following the guidelines for not being disruptive by trying to reach consensus on the talk page — consensus that a source is required to put something in the lede of an article, especially something which is contradicted by the article itself. Compromises have been suggested, but they have been ignored. Until yesterday, I did not make a second editor to the page after my initial edit which was intended to fix an obvious problem that I assumed was the work of a malicious editor.

Part of my edit yesterday was the addition of well-sourced information that I feel belongs in the article, and for which no explanation was given for it's removal. This is an inappropriate revert by ScottishFinnishRadish. The other part was a request for a citation for unsourced information. As Feoffer pointed out, I am (at least) the 14th editor who has stumbled into this, so it's going to keep happening until it gets fixed. If I give up to the editors who are insisting no source is needed, then somebody else will come along. I figured I might as well see it through.

This is the first time I have ever seen the response to a citation needed be the deletion of the tag rather than the provision of a citation.

On the subject of a topic ban, it is inappropriate, but I understand why it's desired — if you can't win an argument with logic or facts, then ban discussion so you can't lose. And the argument that "good faith was exhausted" before I had even seen this article is preposterous!

I am trying very hard to be polite and assume good faith, but I will also admit that it is hard when there is continued insistence that no actual source is needed, since there are so many people assuming the supposition is fact and repeating it.

I am going to restore the change that ScottishFinnishRadish reverted without cause and without explanation. If somebody wants to call that a revert, fine, it's my 1 revert for today. For now, I won't put the citation needed back.

RoyLeban (talk) 06:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

From WP:VERIFY (copied here 01/22/2022, underlined emphasis mine)

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.

Attribute all of the following types of material to reliable, published sources using inline citations:

• all quotations,
• all material whose verifiability has been challenged,
• all material that is likely to be challenged, and
• all contentious matter about living and recently deceased persons.

The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly, ideally giving page number(s)—though sometimes a section, chapter, or other division may be appropriate instead; see Wikipedia:Citing sources for details of how to do this.

Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it.

Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page. You should also be aware of how Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons also applies to groups. RoyLeban (talk) 06:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I've reported GoodDay for a 1RR violation (discussion) which also included a completely disingenuous rationale for reverting my attempt to clean up citations (he claimed that cleaning up citations is a "big change" which requires consensus). A revert like this and an attempt to ban discussion of the need for a source for a statement are making it harder and harder to AGF. RoyLeban (talk) 08:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I did not yet make the other change I said I would, the addition of the additional information from the WaPo article which ScottishFinnishRadish inappropriately removed without justification or explanation. I put it in the lede paragraph, and I now think it belongs later in the article, so I will get to it later, perhaps tomorrow. RoyLeban (talk) 08:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

FWIW - RoyLeban reported me to the wrong board, but anyways I've reverted my revert, since. I am concerned though, that since January 15, 2023? Roy has shown WP:IDHT, WP:SPA, refusal to drop the stick & WP:BLUDGEONING behaviour. GoodDay (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Requesting a hat for this. It does share some useful guidelines but it's mostly distracting. DN (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)