Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Newsweek as a source

A helpful IP has tagged Newsweek and the Spectator as unreliable sources. I have noticed that Newsweek is referenced 12,349 times across Wikipedia, and a cursory check shows that not all of them are pre-2013 - so I would like to discuss here if/how we can use Newsweek as a source. The WSJ oped referenced mentions that other sources such as the WaPo would like access to the laptop data for verification, but that the New York Post and Daily Mall aren’t prone to share it with them - which is perfectly understandable. Even if the NYP and DM share the files with an RS, I do not think they would be able independently verify their provenance, and the laptop is now in the possession of the FBI, which isn’t prone to share the data either. The claim we are citing Newsweek for is that the NYP and DM published data from the laptop, and I don’t think anyone will say the new video is a Deepfake made by Ruskies, so I don’t see why we can’t use it with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. CutePeach (talk) 12:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

The fact that other articles use unreliable sources or no sources at all does not mean that you can do the same here. Bear in mind that this is a biography of a living person and therefore high standards are required. Also, note that opinion pieces fail rs and therefore should not be used as sources for facts. You can't redefine statements of facts in sources as opinions.

If reliable sources do not exist, we don't write about it. While I appreciate that reliable sources frequently ignore stories that many people find important, that's the policy.

This article strikes me as a WP:POVFORK. It's too short to justify a spin-off from the main article. While at some point acceptable sources may become available to develop a longer article, per WP:CRYSTALBALL, we should not create articles in anticipation of future notability. This article should be deleted or merged into the main article.

TFD (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I support a merge/delete for the same reasons. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces I understand your concern in using Newsweek as a source for this topic, but I don't understand 1) why you think this article is a BLP, when the controversy involves denial by the Democratic Party and allegations of cover-up by elements of establishment media, and 2) why you think we are repurposing a report of fact as a source of opinion. Newsweek's report of NYP's release of laptop data in video form is no more a report of fact than a release/leak of a sex tape. Deepfake technology is not advanced enough to produce something like that, so if the concern is that the video is fake, then I think it's overly judicious. 3) it's not clear from the RSN discussion as to why Newsweek is unreliable for noncontroversial claims.

As to your comment on this article being a WP:POVFORK, please can you clarify which article you think this is a fork of? If one is to say it is a fork of Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory then that ascribes a controversy as a conspiracy theory, which is a POV not supported by our sources here. I am more concerned about this than the length of either article in question. CutePeach (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP and WP:NOR. SPECIFICO talk 14:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I have read WP:BLP and my question still stands as to how the policy applies to an article that is only partly about an LP. WP:NOR similarly applies to mischaracterizing a political controversy as a conspiracy theory - when authorities are still investigating the matter after having delayed it for a while. For this reason I have started a discussion on Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory to rename it to Biden–Ukraine controversy [1], and if we can agree on that, then I can see the sense in a merge discussion. CutePeach (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

This article is in poor shape, and I tend to agree with TFD that it's a POVFORK. It needs to be trimmed and possibly deleted. SPECIFICO talk 15:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

The article can just as well be expanded with the sources we have. The Four Deuces above has expressed concern with its size being too small. CutePeach (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

It's a fork by definition of the Hunter Biden article. You know that because you added a main article link to this article in Hunter Biden#Alleged personal laptop[2]. Can you explain why this article is necessary, considering that it is already covered in the parent article. TFD (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: because this controversy involves the 1) Democratic party which - on behalf of Papa Biden - denied an allegation that RS report as possibly supported by laptop data, 2) the group of 50 former intelligence professionals made an unsubstantiated claim - during the 2020 election - that this laptop is part a Russian information operation and 3) elements of the mainstream media are suppressing this story - just like they did with another topic we know about - and 4) that Federal officials delayed actions so as not to affect the 2020 elections. I created this article in good faith because I read the sources referenced here and also read the comments of editors on the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory page who do not believe its claims are verifiable and neutral. I would agree to a merge with that page if it is renamed and reworked. I'm alarmed about SPECIFICO's proposal to rename the page Trump's Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory [3], promoting the POV that this is purely a Trumpian controversy, as he has done in some of his edits in this page. I am also concerned with his grouping of WSJ with Fox News, as if Murdoch tenticals envelope the editorial boards of all media organizations, as portrayed in this edit [4]. I am now more convinced we need this article now than I was before I created it. CutePeach (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

If one of your reasons for creating the article is that elements of the mainstream media are suppressing this story, you are not following policy. Otherwise your explanations seem to defend this article by saying it is a POVFORK created to provide a different perspective on events covered in other articles.

I agree that the WSJ should not be dismissed because it is owned by Murdoch, since it is listed as reliable in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. But note that it says its opinion pieces are subject to WP:RSOPINION, which is sufficient reason to remove it.

TFD (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: the point about media suppression is #3 of 4 points and the notablity and veracity of this controversy does not rest on it. CutePeach (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

My interpretation of your comments is that you created this article because you did not like the way the topic was being covered in other articles, which makes it a POVFORK. The only acceptable reason for creating a new article would be that it was so long that in depth coverage merited a separate article. Joe Biden for example has had such a lengthy and well documented career that we need separate articles about his senate, YP and presidential careers. See Wikipedia:Splitting, which explains when splitting is required. TFD (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: sorry if I didn't explain myself well enough. Its possible that some claims related to this controversy are conspiracy theory, and that we will need two separate articles on this topic, just like we have separate articles on other topics. The sources used in this article, such as the CNN, Business Insider and Politico articles do not treat claims as conspiratorial. Good night. CutePeach (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

AFAIK, the conspiracy theory was that Joe Biden made Ukraine's government fire a prosecutor in order to protect his son and/or his company from prosecution. That claim was proved false and attempts to promote it were therefore conspiracy theories. What other conspiracy theory do you think needs its own article. TFD (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Right now, allegations of "media suppression" are half of the article, and not balanced out with opposing viewpoints. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: it is a Stub. The article can be improved. Good night. CutePeach (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

BLP violation requires blanking

Currently a big BLP violation, so blanking for now. Then let the AfD determine its fate. -- Valjean (talk) 00:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I don’t see any BLP violations, and the note at the top says don’t blank the page while AFD runs. I have restored the content. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Of course you "don't see" it. That is unsurprising in this situation. Quite a few other editors see it, and they have thanked me for blanking that content. That note does not override the rule for how we must deal with BLP violations. Removal for BLP concerns is an absolute (3rr doesn't apply, but I won't push this), so now you own responsibility for this debacle. You are the ONLY one to object. -- Valjean (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about which content you think contains the BLP issue? What do you mean I'm the only one to object? You're the only one who blanked the content and there's only one other editor who has expressed BLP concerns at the AFD about content which they already removed. By definition the first person to do something new is the only person who has done that. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

If you wish to rebut, just name whoever else objected. SPECIFICO talk 17:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll toss my hat into the ring as objecting to the blanket blanking. Inf-in MD (talk) 00:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I must say I don't see BLP violations in the text Mr Ernie restored. The lede needs sourcing, though. starship.paint (exalt) 01:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm also in agreement. I previously removed the sentence which contained lurid details sourced to tabloids, and I don't think the remaining text warrants blanking. Jr8825 • Talk 01:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay. I thought the sourcing wasn't good enough for such BLP claims (I like at least two top quality sources per claim, or 3+ average ones). I'll bow to this consensus. -- Valjean (talk) 02:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

It needs to be noted that WSJ is an affiliate of NY Post. Reinstate, and stop removing. Yes, it violates BLP to omit this connection relating to the column that smeared Biden. Do editors not knowthe connection? SPECIFICO talk 00:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

No, it doesn't and no there's no BLP violation here. Inf-in MD (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC) strike sock

WSJ as "affiliate" of NY Post

There is no BLP violation in stating that the WSJ carried an editorial praising the post. If anything, there's a BLP violation in adding an unsourced editorial comment that links the two entities, implying that Jenkins wrote the editorial not because he believes it, but because of some undisclosed conflict of interest. This material has been removed by more than just me, and SPECIFICO is now edit warring it back in without consensus to do so. If you want to reinsert it you need to find a source that makes this connection. Inf-in MD (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

It reminds me of Glenn Beck who used to draw on blackboard linking everything liberal back to George Soros. It's conspiracism and implicit synthesis. It's more likely the columnist defended right-wing media because he is a right-winger. Unfortunately that would be synthesis too.

Generally I would not include columns that had not received attention in third party reliable sources, since we need to establish weight in order to include opinions. A column in itself has no weight because it is not considered a reliable source, except for the opinions of its author. The best approach I think is to remove it. Media sometimes ignore stories.

TFD (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that's a different question than the alleged BLP violation, or the unsourced editorial comment trying to tie the WSJ to the NYPost. Inf-in MD (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

It needs to be noted that WSJ is an affiliate of NY Post. Reinstate, and stop removing. Yes, it violates BLP to omit this connection relating to the column that smeared Biden. Do editors not know the connection? SPECIFICO talk 00:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

No, it doesn't and no there's no BLP violation here. Inf-in MD (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I am amazed that any editor of a politics article would not know the Murdochs' holdings. SPECIFICO talk 00:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Those holdings are not in question, but they are also not relevant, unless you find a source that directly and explicitly connects the WSJ and the NYPost in the context of the Jenkins editorial. Otherwise, it is your commentary, and a potentially BLP-violating one. Inf-in MD (talk) 00:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

not relevant, unless you find a source that directly and explicitly connects the WSJ and the NYPost in the context of the Jenkins editorial - agreed, and reliable sources needed. starship.paint (exalt) 01:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree also. SPECIFICO please stop the disruptive edits. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Starship, there is nothing to suggest that this opinion piece is noteworthy and deserves DUE WEIGHT in this doomed article. That's the issue. Denying the well-documented common control and editorial stance of the two publications is not going to make this opinion piece any more credible. At any rate, per another editor's suggestion here, I've simply removed the entire bit. RIP. SPECIFICO talk 15:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Why are Jenkins' views promoting deprecated sources and criticizing reliable sources treated as if they have any due weight? False views have no due weight here, and can only get slight mention when treated as fringe views in major RS. Those sources would then frame Jenkins' views as fringe. That's the only way to shoehorn this opinion of his into articles here. Jenkins opinions are obviously fringe and have no due weight unless they are mentioned and properly framed by independent RS. WSJ is not an independent source in this case. -- Valjean (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Jenkins is an award winning journalist, and the WSJ is major, mainstream reliable source. That you think his views are "false" (whatever that means) is neither here nor there. Inf-in MD (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Jenkins is an editorial board member and columnist for a newspaper with a strong conservative POV in its opinion pages. soibangla (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

That is true, but quite irrelevant to what I wrote. All mainstream media have POVs, and we don't discount conservatives ones (WSJ) in favor of non-conservatives ones (e.g WaPo or NYT). Jenkins is an award winning journalist, and the WSJ is major, mainstream reliable source, so his opinion is notable. Inf-in MD (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

In fact, the WSJ stands virtually alone among major metro broadsheets in its disregard for facts in their opinion pages.[5] soibangla (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Simply not true. [6],[7].Inf-in MD (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

You are sidestepping the issue here. soibangla (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Not at all. The issue is if the opinion of an award winning journalist published in a mainstream reliable source is noteworthy. It obviously is. Inf-in MD (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC) strike sock

haha soibangla (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

This isn't the Westminster Kennel Club. Do you understand how many "award winning journalists" there are in the world? Do you propose to stuff every WP article with hundreds of their opinions? Your statements throughout this thread have no basis in policy -- and the policy page links have been provided to you. SPECIFICO talk 20:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Article recreated per consensus

Article recreated per consensus at Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory#Who will back moving the laptop/emails content to Hunter Biden laptop controversy? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Social media context

X-Editor, it's important to understand the events of 2016 to understand why Twitter/FB did what they did in 2020. They didn't just do it out of the blue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy&diff=1080391926&oldid=1080391874

soibangla (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I've added it back. X-Editor (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Not Wikipedia's Editors job to defend or go into historical understanding of the political players but in the act of editing and choosing sources one has to understand around this story all parties are all political players. The citations will be full of historical context as today journalist seem to be paid by the word.

It is the duty of the editors to write in a style where either set of presented "facts" by the many witnesses may become clear facts as materials come to light.

Currently given the history of presidents relatives under investigation no conclusion can be drawn. The short term history is political motivated. The political motivated investigations are extremely clear to the reader when both sides are given. As nothing is true out of DOJ/FBI until proven in court of law, they are prosecutors, who rarely fall under any sort of discovery or review.

Political articles of less than 5 years of age are naturally going to be point, counter point. For another 15 - 30 years they are going to evolve as the quality of the historians improve. At 50 years quality articles can be written using current sources, the political investment has worn off, I guess excluding Richard Nixon and the bombing of Dresden by the allies.

The quality of the reporting by the NY Times and NY Post on this story is still up for debate, but stating the NY Times POV was pro the echo chambers wishful deflection the laptop materials during 2020 election is not really debateable, but factually is difficult to source, in the reporting a significant news story was edited away by the news division of the NY Times.

Alligations with suitable external to media non press confirmations should be the focus of encyclopedic articles, but understand modern DOJ/FBI references, past and current administration officials are dumpster fires without confirmations and have proven counter to facts.

Reporting could indicate the NY Times, Twitter and Facebook moved toward the american political left, or they for legal liability reasons got aggressive in automatic and manual protocols for shadow and direct banning of more right political movement personalities than left political movement personalities. There exists creditable leaks from inside the organizations at the time that is the case in actual operations. Loopbackdude (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Loopbackdude There exists creditable leaks from inside the organizations at the time that is the case in actual operations. Where? soibangla (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Facebook, Twitter, Youtube all shadowban or make an exceptional number of errors in the direction of one political party. You new here? Loopbackdude (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Linking to The New York Post

User:Bueller 007 added an external link to The New York Post, rated a Generally unreliable source. Such sources are normally only used in their own articles.

The addition had this edit summary: "i realize that NY Post articles are not supposed to be referenced, but it's absurd to write this wikipedia article without ever linking to the NY Post article that we are talking about. It should either be included as a reference or as a link. and before people complain and remove it, see the exception for exceptional circumstances at WP:GUNREL: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

I saw that edit summary and, based on WP:ELNO, removed it while linking to ELNO. I saw no reason to justify WP:IAR. We use RS which repeatedly mention and link to the Post articles, so we don't need to link to it.

Bueller reverted my deletion with this edit summary: "see the comment where i added the link. there *obviously* needs to be a link to the thing that we are talking about"

I had read the original edit summary and found it wanting for the reasons I mention above. RS link to it, so we don't need to invoke IAR and violate ELNO. I will let others delete it again. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

This article is about the "laptop controversy". In other words, our article is *about* that NY Post article, *not* about the underlying claims. (Those belong on the conspiracy theory article.) That NY Post article is *obviously* a reliable reference about itself. It's hard to see how this is not an "exceptional circumstance". It makes absolutely zero sense to remove it except as mindless application of a "rule" that Wikipedia specifically says is *not* a rule. Wikipedia's article about the New York Post also references the New York Post and links to the New York Post. The Wiki article for The Protocols of the Elders of Zion links to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, despite the entire point of the article being to demonstrate that it's fraudulent. Bueller 007 (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Your example shows how WP:ABOUTSELF allows us to use even blacklisted sources, but ONLY in their own articles. That applies here as well, especially since so many RS we use already link to the NY Post article(s). Therefore there is no excuse for violation ELNO. ABOUTSELF does not apply to this article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that unreliable sources should only be used in articles about them for information about them. If you think the Post is reliable, then get their entry in Perennial Sources changed. But there is another issue also. It's usually best to use sources that explain what original investigative journalism says rather than reference the original article. That helps users to interpret correctly the original source and to determine the relative weight of various claims and their credibility. So for example, an original article might say, "We can reveal." But a secondary source would say, "According to the New York Post [or whoever]." That tells us that the information should be treated as an allegation with intext attribution, rather than as a fact with inline attribution. In some cases, libel could be an issue. Then we would be on better ground using reliable sources rather than unreliable ones. TFD (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

"I agree that unreliable sources should only be used in articles about them for information about them. If you think the Post is reliable, then get their entry in Perennial Sources changed." Loopbackdude (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The Post article is the center of the controversy. It seems obvious there should be an external link to it. Anyone interested is just going to google it anyways. There’s no harm in linking to it. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

If this wasn't Wikipedia, it would make sense, but we do have rules here, and there is no justification for deviating from it. The original Post articles are linked to from the RS we use. Until there is a change of policy, we should not use it anywhere in the article. Just like at the Breitbart News article, the link can be used at its own article, but that does not apply anywhere else where it may be the subject or "about" it.

User:Bueller 007, go to WP:RS/N and get the policy changed before trying this again. It's getting disruptive when you keep restoring it when there is obvious disagreement about it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Which policy are you referring to that says we can't use the NYPost link in the external links? If readers want to find the article themselves they are just going to google it anyways. It's not like we are hiding anything. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

It is a very questionable source, so WP:ELNO and WP:SPS apply. Questionable sources not allowed as article sources and external links can still be used, with care, in their own articles, but nowhere else. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I had previously reviewed WP:ELNO, especially point 2, but I didn't think it applied because the facts are otherwise carefully laid out in the article and supported by RS. Since we aren't sourcing any of the article content to the NYPost article, I think we are ok. In this situation it's a little bit like linking to a film's IMDB entry, which isn't a RS but is often a useful link for readers. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Like Breitbart, the New York Post is nearly always a source that "misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." (ELNO). It's a horrible source, not just in the tabloid/yellow journalism/gossip sense, but because it, like all Murdoch corporation outlets, is a source that deliberately frames uncomfortable truths in a false light (it often refuses to even mention such truths) and pushes misinformation, disinformation, and conspiracy theories as truth. It's a propaganda site.

Even if a particular article is accurate, we still don't want readers directed to the site at all. If the content in the NY Post article is good, then RS will contain it and we use them. The only way we ever get to use content mentioned in unreliable sources is when RS give it due weight by quoting/mentioning it. Then we use the RS. The RS has not given its imprimatur to the source in any sense. It is documenting the garbage in the source. We are using the reliable sources, and readers should read the NY Post content with the framing provided by the RS. IMDB is a different type of source, not known for propaganda or political manipulation. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

This editor is being circular and is leaning on WhatAboutism. The NY Post is unreliable because at some point it was considered unreliable by a vote of wiki editors in a time past. Sports headline of the 1920 are not in debate with the NY Post, political coverage of the 2020s can be considered reliable, weather predictions so so, but on this story they did not miss much and brought the investigation. This generic labeling source to be something generally untrustworthy is Wikipedia insanity.

Here is why there are few bad major paper bad sources.

I do not use current Paul Krugman as a source of investment or economic theory , but I do consider his economic paper publishing outlet MIT Press a quality source physics research. MIT press has better than a million papers under publication, about 400 have been pulled in the past decade, some dozen in physics and chemistry. Reliable Source.

MIT press is a realiable peer reviewed source for science media with millions of contributors over the years. MIT Press public relations announcements are incorrect in some way most of the time by cussory review but that is promotions department issue, not a editoral process problem.

Krugman editorials IMO and many others are pure biased poltical statements and any jounalist who uses his new articles as sources is not on solid journalism practices. One could think the paper publishing his articles, The NY Times, are choosing the wrong citation and still use the paper as a source of citations.

The Post article is becoming better journalism day by day, Hunter Bidens laptop ended up abandoned in a repair shop, things on the laptop had the repair shop owner involving law enforcement..... that is what in the business is called Journalism. All sources are up for review daiiy, some news sotces

The conditions and the editors change at all news organizations, if you cannot realize the conditions at the NY Times and NY Post change constantly editors are not paying attention. Where does it state wikipedia has to be as stoggy and sycophantic as the NY Times and NY Post.

The NY Post on this story this reference new story was an allegation leading to controversy. We can say exactly the same about the "coverage" by Buzzfeed of a "alligation" by a political group in another one of the same editors haunts.

Everywhere else in the world watching the NY POST and NY Times fight for the five boughs eyeballs, one with a mahattan bent one with a bronx bent is watching two dogs pull on a dog toy.

Neither is without political bias, and within the past 2 years the NY Post has hit it out of the ballpark, and NY Times is dragging its bat. Pulitzers for disproven coverage are not badges of courage.

It is very clear to this editor the problem the Wikipedia community has with the NY Post is Headline Style and which way it folds politically. - I love that editor comeback, go fight city hall. Loopbackdude (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Needs Coverage of China

WaPo wrote entire article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/30/hunter-biden-china-laptop/

The New York Post wrote a story on China stuff on the Laptop on Oct 15, 2020 the day after the Vadym/Ukraine story:

https://nypost.com/2020/10/15/emails-reveal-how-hunter-biden-tried-to-cash-in-big-with-chinese-firm/

I know Wiki doesn't consider NYP reliable but just pointing out it's been part of the "Controversy" from the very start. Biden was asked about it on debate stage. Other MSM articles cover Bobulinski allegations at the time. Can sauce if needed.

The WSJ (March 30th, 2022) covers how the China stuff is focus of feds:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/prosecutors-advance-tax-probe-of-hunter-biden-11648465200

They are examining whether he violated tax or other laws, including those governing lobbying for foreign governments, through his business relationships in Ukraine, China, Kazakhstan and elsewhere, some of the people said.

Prosecutors have asked detailed questions about that effort and are examining whether Mr. Biden or Blue Star should have registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act for those contacts, some of the people said. Blue Star didn’t respond to requests for comment. One challenge for prosecutors in pursuing FARA charges is that Hunter Biden routinely hired third parties, like lobbying and law firms, rather than get personally involved in making things happen in Washington, some people familiar with the investigation said."

"Prosecutors have also shown interest in Hunter Biden’s business interests in China, which included a since-defunct partnership with an oil tycoon and a stake in a Shanghai private-equity firm. Mr. Biden’s lawyer earlier said his client transferred his interest in the private-equity firm to a third party and is now a former owner.

CNN March 30, 2022:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/30/politics/hunter-biden-federal-investigation-heats-up/index.html

Also last year, investigators pursued information from former business contacts of Hunter Biden. His long-time associate and Burisma co-board member Devon Archer went before the Delaware grand jury last July, according to a person familiar with the matter. Archer was asked about the structure of payments Burisma made to an entity founded by Biden and other partners, which appeared to be related Biden’s taxes, the source says. He was also asked about lobbying efforts involving Blue Star Strategies, the source said.

Trump brought Bobulinski center stage and many mainstream outlets covered his allegations to backup the laptop with his devices, which he provided to the feds.

Giuliani first got the copy of the laptop on August 26th, 2020. Wapo March 30, 2022 https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/hunter-biden-laptop-data-examined/

In an email with the subject line “Why is it so difficult to be a whistleblower when you are on the right?” written on Aug. 26, 2020, Mac Isaac told Costello that he had copies of the hard drive from Hunter Biden’s laptop. “For my protection I made sevral copies and I have been trying quietly to bring it to peoples attention. I am reaching out to you for assistance and making sure the people that need to know about this do.”

This is also legally stated in John Paul Isaac's Lawsuit. https://casetext.com/case/mac-isaac-v-twitter-inc-1

China stuff is being brought up in Congress https://twitter.com/ChuckGrassley/status/1508562101110980615 and Sen Grassley is also a source for the WaPo article. I could keep going on, but it should be obvious this article is limited in scope to Ukraine incorrectly. Brief 1 or 2 mentions about something which a lot more to say abt.

One might ask why there is only an article about the "Controversy", and not about the Laptop itself which is being used by the Feds on the investigation, but getting complete info on it seems like a more primary thing. -- 136.49.80.62 (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Current widespread coverage in reliable sources means that the article should cover the laptop in greater detail. Wikipedia articles should summarize what someone would read in reliable sources about the topic. That was the reason to give little coverage to the laptop in the past, but that has changed. TFD (talk) 00:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it definitely needs China material added from reliable sources. I think it can be plugged into the lede quite easily by changing the sentence "The Post and other conservative media outlets reported extensively on the laptop and other contents of the hard drive." to "The Post and other conservative media outlets reported extensively on the laptop and other contents of the hard drive, including additional allegations regarding Hunter Biden's business dealings in China." And a new section on China can be added to the body. Bueller 007 (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Submitted for your consideration[8]. soibangla (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Wow, I was not expecting a smooth and positive response hitting up a Talk page. Definitely needs more fleshing out (as with much of the article), but good to have something in the article. Thanks ya'll! --136.49.80.62 (talk) 06:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Original research issue

The following paragraph’s sources make no reference to a laptop or this controversy:

A United States intelligence community analysis released in March 2021 found that proxies of Russian intelligence had promoted and laundered misleading or unsubstantiated narratives about the Bidens "to US media organizations, US officials, and prominent US individuals, including some close to former President Trump and his administration".

As such, it should be removed. Per WP:OR, sources must be “directly related” to the topic of the article. That’s official policy. 2600:1012:B000:3193:CC7A:E648:667:8B8E (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

It's referenced so I'm not sure why you call it original research, but I agree, this doesn't seem to have any direct relation to the reactions of intelligence officials to the laptop or the Post article. I have removed it. Ironmatic1 (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Dropping an article

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/12/now-warning-about-hunter-biden-laptop-disinfo-guy-who-leaked-it/ Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Bump is trying his hardest, but there's still simply no evidence there is any Russian disinformation on the laptop. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Please stop doing that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Ironically, but unfortunately, the fact that even experienced content editors on WP either fail to understand or deny the most basic logic and abundant RS accounts of disinformation tactics only heightens the importance of including disclaimers and contextualization of the conspiracy theorists' claims SPECIFICO talk 14:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

What's the point? I take Bump's reporting on topics like this with a grain of salt, given he once wrote an article about one of the more obvious falsehoods of the Steele Dossier being true. I wonder why he's had a sudden change of heart? Mr Ernie (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Bump: "Confirmation that Cohen visited Prague could be quite significant...but we hasten to note that these allegations have not been confirmed by The Washington Post." (italics mine) soibangla (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, in an article which touches on the parallels between the laptop and dossier, Byron York, who normally writes for the unreliable The Washington Examiner, writes this insightful comment: "Brennan responded: 'Just because they were unverified does not mean they were not true.' It was the wrong standard to apply to the dossier, to the journalists' everlasting discredit. Now, it is the wrong standard to apply to the Hunter Biden emails. It is not fair to anyone involved to say that the emails must be true because they have not been proven false. Rather, the job is to try to find what evidence supports them and what evidence does not."[9]

The issue is not whether there are or are not fake emails on that laptop (but certainly important to document if so), but the suspicion there could be. That suspicion is a fact we must note because it's just as real a possibility there are altered or fake emails as the possibility there was Russian disinformation in the dossier. That's why we must document that suspicion, just as we document the similar suspicion about the dossier, which is content in the dossier article I know you think is important.

For the dossier, we know that Steele and the FBI were aware of the danger, investigated it, and the IG report documents how they investigated and found no evidence there was any actual disinformation (not the same as false or misinformation) in the dossier. Now we're waiting for what investigations of the same question about the laptop will confirm or not confirm. Until then, we still document that suspicions exist, so your comment is really distracting, and because you keep mentioning it, it's an IDHT comment we don't need here because we then have to waste time debunking the misguided (per Byron York "wrong standard") impression you leave. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

This good addition reveals the strikingly similar situation that Steele was in when he was dealing with the dossier information he was receiving and the reactions to it. Pretty amazing parallels.

This cartoon is spot on. Now it's on the other foot, with the GOP saying the same things about the laptop as Steele said about the dossier. In both scenarios, both sides were both right and wrong. This factcheck (not a usable RS) touches on the subject. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

My search has now turned up a source we can't use, but which is always worth reading because Marcy Wheeler is usually ahead of the curve and later shown right: “The Laptop” Is the Functional Equivalent of The Steele Dossier, 1: Rudy Is the Real Scandal. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Keep your eyes open for this type of info, because RS may well start writing about it, and that may be relevant for both this article and the Steele dossier article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Lead Section

The lead section of this article doesn't explain what this article is about. It reads like the hook to an essay and doesn't actually explain to the reader what the laptop controversy is. 2ple (talk) 03:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

You're right, I added an opening paragraph soibangla (talk) 04:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Hunter Bidens Laptop 'Controversy'

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

---

The only controversy is that so many so called news outlets declared it 'Russian Misinformation' when it clearly wasn't, they all lied. It was authenticated by the NY Post already & a year prior in 2019 by the FBI, who subpoenaed Hunter Biden's laptop a year before the NY POST story. The article should be called 'Hunter Biden's laptop SCANDAL' not controversy. Yes it's very controversial that the President's son is doing business deals with & only with notoriously corrupt countries like China, Ukraine and Russia. The President's son is on video smoking crack with hookers and is heard on video telling a hooker he has 'lost many laptops and thinks some Russians might have taken so they could blackmail him'. In Hunters own words. The controversy is that Big Tech censored the REAL STORY before the election & thus altering the outcome of the election, which was election interference. It's indisputable. All of the emails were authenticated, not just 'some emails'. The text Hunter sent to his daughter were authenticated years ago. Those text were quite incriminating as well. Hunter Biden tells his daughter 'he has been paying the bills for the whole family for 30 years and unlike Pop,(Joe Biden) I (Hunter)won't make you (Hunters daughter)give me half of what you make'..again these text are all authenticated and real just like all the others were in 2020. The left wing to this day still refuses to report on ALL THE CONTENTS OF HUNTERS LAPTOP, Bc there's a lot that show the Biden family was undoubtedly corrupt. Tony Bobulinski, a business partner of the Biden's and 1 of the people in the email chain, which talks about how the equity from the Chinese deals are going to be divided amongst the business partners, '20 for H, 10 held by H for the Big guy'..the big guy Tony Bobulinski confirms is Joe Biden. So there really isn't any controversy with Hunter Biden's laptop except the fact that so called news outlets reported on a letter by 51 'former' intel officials, who had no access to the laptop like the Director of National Intelligence Director Ratcliffe, who verified its existence and clarified that 'No US intel agencies is looking into the laptop as part of Russian misinformation because NOBODY IN THE INTEL AGENCIES BELIEVE THAT BECAUSE ITS NOT RUSSIAN MISINFORMATION'..Ratcliffe's statements were totally ignored by some media outlets and they continued to spread misinformation about the laptop. 18 months after the NY POST authenticated the laptop the NYT & Washington Post have done a 180 degree on their 2020 reports about the laptop. Ultimately Hunter Biden's laptop SCANDAL isn't just about the salacious & incriminating contents on the laptop that involve the whole Biden family, it's also about how the media & big tech censored the 'real story' and pushed a narrative that was not true. Dr.42069 (talk) 05:00, 20 April 2022 (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.

"False Ukraine conspiracy"

By calling it false, you act as if it's been verified as false. I would say alleged. 2601:642:C500:2B80:7596:603:5EC:7B0C (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't find that exact phrase anywhere but here. Be more specific, and offer RS to back your argument. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The lead says, "The discovery of the laptop spurred speculation as to whether it supported what became the Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory that falsely alleged Joe Biden acted corruptly in Ukraine before he became president." That is a reference to the false claim that Biden had a Ukrainian prosecutor fired in order to prevent him from prosecuting his son. That claim has been thoroughly discredited. Yes, Biden had him fired, no he was not going to prosecute Hunter Biden, no that was not the reason Biden had him fired. TFD (talk) 02:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Biden did not "have him fired". Debunking one falsehood with another falsehood is a rather sub-par contribution to the discussion. Zaathras (talk) 02:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Zaathras, I mean... he kinda claimed that he did in that one video. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 23:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

No...he...kinda didn't. Zaathras (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes he did. The video is right here:

https://www.facebook.com/WhiteHouse/videos/joe-biden-if-the-prosecutor-is-not-fired-you-are-not-getting-the-money/196947478124769/

Joe Biden bragged about getting the prosecutor (Shokin) fired by threatening to withhold $1 billion is US aid. I'm not sure why anyone denies what they can see with their own eyes. The thing was, Shokin was investigating corruption by Burisma, not Hunter Biden himself. The NYT claims they "debunked" the story because Hunter Biden was never investigated by Shokin (which he wasn't). But Hunter worked for Burisma (they eventually paid him over $1 million) so it stands to reason that he used influence with his father to fire Shokin. This is NOT a false claim or conspiracy theory, it really happened. 2601:246:C180:79C0:BCC8:DA4A:8FED:7500 (talk) 04:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

You are a) reading things into the video that aren't actually present, b) not really grasping the context of what actually took place. American foreign policy and foreign aid is predicated on the recipients not being corrupt, grift-crazy thugs. Shokin was corrupt to the core, hence the withholding of aid til he was out of the picture. Where the tinfoil nuttery comes into play is the accusation that there was an ulterior motive to the firing, i.e. that it secretly benefited Joe by way of benefiting Hunter. That is the kind of nonsense that will not appear in the article. Ever. Clear? Zaathras (talk) 04:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

All of the people who argue in favor of the inclusion of this word are clearly trying to present their personal political opinions as fact. There is no justification whatsoever for the inclusion of such editorializing. None. You are doing a great disservice to Wikipedia and to the readers of this article by feigning moral outrage while pretending to be objective and neutral. Again - I have been editing Wikipedia for 15 years, and this type of openly-biased, sneaky linguistic trick would NEVER have passed muster before the election of Donald Trump. People were *so* concerned that he, and any narrative that appeared to support him, were fundamental threats to "democracy", that they've allowed for certain types of opinionated language to be inserted into these articles, because countering pro-Trump narratives was/is seen as more important than making neutral and objectively factual statements. If that's how you feel, fine - I have no love for Trump, either, and voted against him - but stop pretending that you're above the fray and just a neutral, detached enforcer of "policy". Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Wow! The aspersions, assumptions of bad faith, and personal attacks keep coming: "clearly trying to present their personal political opinions as fact." "feigning moral outrage while pretending to be objective and neutral." 'openly-biased, sneaky linguistic trick". "stop pretending". Herewith documented. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

This is the last time I'm responding to one of your painfully stupid comments. If you read my original comment to you, it was *very* respectful and professional. You immediately responded by calling me a fool, implying that I was engaged in "fringe advocacy" (but this has *nothing* to do with your political opinions?), and then blocked the thread I created to discuss the matter through proper channels, before a discussion of my argument had taken place. Don't even try to play the victim and pretend that you were attacked personally. I started a conversation, you insulted me and bent over backwards to shut the discussion down. Your reasons for doing so are fairly obvious (it took less than 10 seconds to find a partisan political rant quoted on your profile, and accusing me of "fringe advocacy" for supporting objectivity is pretty telling) and I've merely pointed that out while expressing my frustration at your rude and insulting response to my good-faith attempt to improve the article. Frankly, everyone else that commented was reasonably nice, but you, sir or madam, have been nothing but arrogant, self-righteous, and patently dishonest. Good day. Philomathes2357 (talk) 02:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Opinions, opinions. Look, just because Joe Biden bragged about influencing the firing of the prosecutor (I think he did), doesn't make him corrupt. If there was corruption involved, reliable sources may be included to back those claims up. In addition, @Philomathes2357:, the content of articles may change. Either way, corruption hasn't been proven, neither have specific claims appeared; like I said above, withholding aid until a prosecutor is fired doesn't mean corruption, there may have been other reasons. Also, who a person voted for, or a person's political leanings aren't important here. Nythar (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

In March 2016 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, former ambassador to Ukraine John E. Herbst stated, "By late fall of 2015, the EU and the United States joined the chorus of those seeking Mr. Shokin's removal" and that Joe Biden "spoke publicly about this before and during his December visit to Kyiv". During the same hearing, assistant secretary of state Victoria Nuland stated, "we have pegged our next $1 billion loan guarantee, first and foremost, to having a rebooting of the reform coalition so that we know who we are working with, but secondarily, to ensuring that the prosecutor general's office gets cleaned up."

soibangla (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that people's political leanings should not be important here. But time and again, I see editorial decisions that are so bizarre that the only reasonable explanation is political bias. The behavior of the first editor who responded to my argument was in such bad faith, that, combined with the fact that their profile prominently displays an anti-Trump rant, I can't see how any rational person could miss the obvious bias here. Would this person have been as adamant about including the word "false" if the statement was about a claim that made Donald Trump look bad? I think we all know the answer, and it has nothing to do with the esoterica of the NPOV or any other policy.

You are right - on the very narrow, specific allegation that we are discussing, corruption has not been proven. However, it does NOT follow from the fact that corruption has not been proven that allegations of corruption are "false". This is rudimentary logic 101. False implies certainty. "Unsubstantiated" implies a lack of evidence. Why not use the word "unsubstantiated" instead of "false"? By saying that this allegation is "false" - full stop - you are claiming to possess knowledge that you cannot possibly possess. It's extremely arrogant. And if the justification for this word "falsely" is that it was in some news article that's from a source deemed reliable, simple - include the factual information that the article presents, but do not include unencyclopedic language.

I do not understand why this is so difficult to grasp. That is why I think the most reasonable hypothesis is that fervent proponents of the word "falsely" are doing so because of their personal political opinions about Hunter Biden, Ukraine, Trump, etc...there is no other reason to feel so strongly that the word *must* be included at all costs, even though it adds nothing. Philomathes2357 (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Philomathes2357: In my opinion, "unsubstantially alleged" might sound better than "falsely alleged", interesting point. Nythar (talk) 02:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

That decision should be made at the conspiracy theory article as the wording is a strong consensus version. If it is changed there, then we can change it here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it would sound much better. Wikipedia is amazing - more people on our Earth come here for knowledge and information than any other place. People need to be able to trust that the things they read here are factual, and as free from bias, editorializing, and opinion as possible. When I was reading this article, and came across the word "falsely", I immediately thought "whoever chose to use that language did so for political reasons". I'm a politically engaged, generally moderate to left-of-center person. If *I* felt that way when I read that sentence, I guarantee that many, many MILLIONS of other people would feel that way, too. It's exactly the type of sneaky framing that any careful reader of the news sees every day in almost every outlet across the American political landscape. The type of exaggerated sense of certainty that's carefully crafted to nudge someone's mind towards one narrative and away from another. It is a form of lying.

Come on, guys. We can all agree that Joe Biden *probably* didn't have any corrupt motives for his actions relating to Viktor Shokin. But do we know? No, we don't. You can't *possibly* in good faith assert that you know it to be true or false. How could you know that? Can you telepathically read Joe Biden's thoughts and motives? If you haven't, making a blanket true/false claim about Joe Biden's motivations for a political decision is not appropriate. Period. I'm not saying that no claims relating to truth or falsehood should be present on Wikipedia. Mathematics, for example, deals in absolute truth and falsehood within a closed system. Some claims have an easily discernible truth value. If someone were to allege that Joe Biden's has lied about his age, and that in fact he was born in the year 31 BCE, of course we would call this a false allegation. But when you get into the realm of inferring motivations for complex decisions at the highest level of global politics, making blanket truth/false statements is not appropriate. Joe Biden likely supported the firing of Viktor Shokin for 10 or 12 different reasons, and opposed it for 4 or 5 others, only some of which are known to the public. Were any of those reasons "corrupt"? I have no idea - and neither do you!! If you think that you *do* know...you are stunningly arrogant, and probably a moron.

Now, some are saying that this word "falsely" has been thrust upon us by outside forces, by no choice of our own. Since one or more RS have inappropriately asserted these allegations are "false", our hands our tied - we have an absolute responsibility to parrot this editorialization without further comment, because everything produced by the news company that published the article has been declared "reliable" in advance. To change in any way the form or substance of the holy Scripture handed down to us by our RS would amount to "original research" - which I'm not a fan of on Wikipedia. Certainly, if instead of merely removing the word "falsely", I had replaced it with the word "accurately", that would be original research. But removing the word "falsely" doesn't change the meaning of the sentence one bit - it's implied in the word "allegation" that the claims alleged have not been shown to be true. "Falsely", inappropriateness aside, is an unnecessary filler word. It does not constitute originality, nor does it constitute research, because removing the word adds no content or information. If that's original research, so is adding a missing period at the end of a sentence.

I made this edit in 30 seconds because I thought it was an easy, obvious way to clean the article up. Next thing I knew I was being called a fool and accused of being a "fringe advocate" by someone who was obviously having an emotional response to the suggestion that a corruption allegation against Joe Biden is not known to be absolutely false. I did not want to get sucked into this. But I didn't feel like just walking away after being insulted over making what is to me a clear and unambiguous improvement to Wikipedia. It's just one silly word, but at this point, it's about the principle of honesty and neutrality. Frankly, I don't give an eff what you can justify with some clause or another of the NPOV - the use of the word "falsely" here is not appropriate - period. Again, I go back to the issue of trust. *So* many people rely on Wikipedia. We must ensure that people can read articles on controversial topics and feel that the issue is represented with honesty and humility.

Valjean - I'm sure you honestly try your best to keep your politics and your Wikipedia edits separately. Here's the problem: I am a hyper politically engaged person. I follow the news extremely closely. I talk to dozens if not hundreds of people about American politics every week. I've gotten fairly adept at figuring out what somebody thinks by just listening to them try to objectively relate the news. When I read your explanation for my edit, your response to my comment, and your explanation of the Joe Biden/Viktor Shokin situation, it was glaringly obvious to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you lean Democrat and are fervently anti-Trump. I would have bet $1,000 on it without hesitation. Only then did I look at your profile and see the anti-Trump Jimmy Wales quote, of which I thought "of COURSE, that was obvious". I think that's a problem. So, while I do believe you do your best to set your biases aside, and I'm sure you do much better than many people, I believe very strongly that your biases are leaking through, unbeknownst to you. And I do believe that those biases are a strong part of why you reacted the way you did to my edit.

Since, ironically, I feel like I'm one of the very few here who is actually acting in good faith, I don't foresee this leading to a productive discussion, so now that I've written down what I think about this matter in order to formulate it more clearly within my own mind, I'm ending this message, and my involvement in this project, unless I later see a compelling reason to return. I will now go back to reading Wikipedia and making the occasional minor grammatical edit. Have fun! Philomathes2357 (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, well, bye. This large text wall just boils down to "I don't like it", really. If you disagree with how reliable sources cover a topic, that really isn't our concern. Zaathras (talk) 04:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Philomathes2357, you say "there is no other reason", but there is another reason. You fail to distinguish between our personal biases (and I do not deceptively seek to hide mine) and our conscious attempts to not include such bias in articles. Everyone has biases, and that's okay. What we try to do is to neutrally document the content, POV, and biases found in RS, without improper editorial interference. Tampering with the meaning of sources violates NPOV by allowing editorial bias to enter the process. Editors should edit neutrally by not censoring or altering the meaning of the source.

So the "other reason" is simply that we document what RS say without the influence of editorial bias. Our personal biases are irrelevant, and your assertion that our edits are the way they are because of our personal political biases is a very improper personal attack. Stop it. You MUST AGF or leave this project. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Not debunked?

I believe the article should not say the theory Joe Biden withheld aid to Ukraine to help Burisima, wrongly, has been debunked. First off, I would point out, though there are sources claiming it was debunked, I do not believe they have any clear proof, and other sources dispute this. Also, saying it was debunked, without explaining the circumstances - which are, Hunter Biden got money from Burisma and then his Dad withheld aid money if Ukraine did not fire the prosecutor going after Burisma, deserve to be in the article. This is noteworthy in itself, because, even if the money given to Hunter Biden did not change what Joe Biden did at all, this article is not per se about Joe Biden's integrity, but about Hunter Biden and influence peddling controversies related to him, and getting the money from Burisima seems to be influence peddling by Hunter. In other words, what Hunter did should be in the article, in detail, not just "that was debunked" I also wish to point out - an editor brought up the possibility Joe Biden withheld the aid to get rid of a prosecutor who might be about to prosecute Hunter. I had never heard that theory and I hope no editor's are arguing against it, because I do not think it's been a claim. In other words, it does not need refuting, and also, refuting it does not debunk the theory of improper influence peddling by Hunter. I feel I am not being as concise as focused as I could be, but the point is, the details of Hunter taking a lot of money from a foreign entity, and then Joe effecting the fortunes of that entity, through very active intervention, need to be in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1CD0:1710:BCE2:89F7:8435:BAFC (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

See the long-since resolved concerns and replies in the thread above, ended in May. SPECIFICO talk 15:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2022

Remove the space after the sentence "Also in March, The Washington Post reported that two security experts authenticated thousands of the 129,000 emails purportedly from Biden's laptop, though the vast majority of the laptop contents, including most of its emails, could not be authenticated." and before the citation. Bleh12479 (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Can we stop using kid glove language?

"Joe Biden was untruthful" should read "Joe Biden lied". It's a factual statement given the evidence, and incidentally more concise. 68.239.21.166 (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

In either case, it remains an unsubstantiated claim.soibangla (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

"False" allegations

Deal with this elsewhere
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Today I removed the word "falsely" from the following sentence: "The discovery of the laptop spurred speculation as to whether it supported what became the Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory that falsely alleged then-Vice President Joe Biden acted corruptly in Ukraine to protect his son from a corruption investigation by Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin." I assumed that the word "falsely" was added by an overzealous, strongly-opiniated yet inexperienced editor who, in their passion, overlooked Wikipedia's founding principle of neutrality. So, I did not think that cleaning this sentence up to make it encyclopedic would be remotely controversial. However, it appears that at least two other editors feel that this word is not only neutral, but is crucial to the substance of the article, and my edit was reverted. I've cc'ed the comment that accompanied the original reversion, plus my reply to the original editor. Please discuss: We have a whole article about the Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory, with sources, showing why that specific allegation is false. Investigations about other allegations are a different topic, and the "falsely" is not about them. Hi Valjean. Unfortunately, I very strongly believe that you are wrong about this one. I am *very* familiar with this story and with the contents of the article you linked. I understand that you believe very fervently that these specific allegations have been "proven false". There are a couple of issues with that, however. First of all, it is logically impossible to prove a negative. You cannot prove that these claims are false, the most you could do is call them "unsubstantiated", if you believe that the claims have absolutely zero evidentiary basis. Second of all, even if you feel that your reasons for believing in the falsehood of these allegations are very compelling, it is still merely your opinion. In a casual conversation with friends, saying "all of that Biden-Ukraine conspiracy stuff is false" would be understandable. But to value your opinion so much that you state it as fact in an encyclopedia is not appropriate. To merely state that these are "allegations" implies that they have not been thoroughly substantiated. To add the word "false" contributes nothing of substance, other than your opinion based on the evidence to which you've personally been exposed. Sorry, but unless you have a more fleshed-out argument for why this editorializing word "false" is essential to the substance of the article, I feel very strongly that its inclusion is inappropriate and a degradation of Wikipedia's founding principle of neutrality. Therefore, I've undone your reversion. If you have more thoughts on this subject, I'd invite you to comment here rather than escalate an edit war. Thank you. In addition to the above points, consider this: the claim is that Joe Biden acted corruptly in Ukraine to protect his son from a corruption investigation by Viktor Shokin. To state, as fact, that this claim is "false" implies that the following claim must be true: Joe Biden did *not* act corruptly in Ukraine to protect his son from a corruption investigation by Viktor Shokin. Much more information than is currently available would be necessary to assert this as fact. It is an opinion. Therefore, it does not belong anywhere within an encyclopedia article. If someone can make the case why the word "falsely", in light of all of the above, is not only neutral, but is essential, I'm all ears. Absent that, I have a sneaking suspicion that this word was included for explicitly partisan political reasons. I hope that is not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philomathes2357 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC) A few points: You're dealing with VERY experienced editors who do not include their opinions. As explained, NPOV does not require neutral language. It requires editors to edit neutrally. This specific topic is best handled at its source, which is the conspiracy theory article. Go there, as we won't hash out here what has already been decided there. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

John Paul Mac Isaac business closing and lawsuits?

Question, should some material about what happened with John Paul Mac Isaac and his business and lawsuits be added to the section with the subtitle "laptop and hard drive?" Should it be broken out into a section preceding the section "laptop and harddrive" or should that section be reworked entirely and some information there moved into subsequent sections? Apparently he was forced to shut down his business and he’s tried to sue a couple of times now although one suit got thrown out in Florida because they said they did not have jurisdiction.

I’ve been trying to find a RS on some of this but a lot of it comes from all over the place. This Thomson Reuters article would be considered RS, no?

https://today.westlaw.com/Document/I30e457ab761a11ebbea4f0dc9fb69570/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true

and this ArsTechnica talks about the suit that was thrown out (also RS):

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/12/source-in-controversial-ny-post-laptop-story-sues-twitter-for-defamation/

most of the other articles I’ve found though are from questionable sources:

https://www.businessinsider.com/hunter-biden-computer-repairman-lost-defamation-suit-against-twitter-2021-9, https://nationalcybersecuritynews.today/delaware-computer-store-owner-recalls-moment-hunter-biden-drunkenly-staggered-into-his-shop-computerhacking-hacking/ and https://americanmilitarynews.com/2022/05/hunter-biden-laptop-repairman-sues-rep-schiff-cnn-and-more/71.190.233.44 (talk) 00:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Apparently he was forced to shut down his business says he, though it's not at all possible he had a lousy shop and small businesses routinely fail. soibangla (talk) 00:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Please restrict comments to WP:NPA. It’s a question being asked about subsequent events your opinions are not necessary. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Unless your name is John Paul Mac Isaac, I wouldn't take that too personally. DN (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Just as an aside to that specific comment. Certainly you are right, he well could have had a lousy shop and small businesses do routinely fail however while I was doing a search to provide reference for some of the other commentary I did come across this indicating it wasn’t a lousy shop. [10]https://delawarebusinessnow.com/2020/11/john-pauls-mac-shop-closes-for-the-foreseeable-future/

specifically - “Up until the time of the story, John Paul was a go-to guy for many Macintosh users including yours truly.

Over the past nine years, he replaced a few keyboards and batteries. On at least one occasion, I saw John Paul fix a simple problem from a drop-in customer at no charge.

The service was first-rate, and there was no attempt to upsell. His advice for a Mac with a failing battery – don’t worry about it unless you have to need to use it for eight hours without a charger.”''

So while I understand the tendency to paint him in a certain light given his involvement in this mess, let’s not make assumptions and the only point here was making a notation of what happened to both the man and his business. If anything it illustrates he would have been far better off not being involved in any of this. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 02:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

a go-to guy for many Macintosh users". What, all 3 of them? Apple has ~15% of the desktop market, so whatever goodwill he may have earned from the miniscule handful of local users is irrelevant. Zaathras (talk) 02:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I’m really not here to engage in this type of discussion with you. A statement was made and I found something rebutting it and posted it. Maybe there were three of them, maybe more. I really don’t know and don’t have an interest either way. Again, as stated it is more a question of refraining from assumptions based around any personal opinions to achieve a WP:NPOV. I’m going to embrace WP:GF and imagine you have some personal knowledge of actual numbers you are going to present to validate your POV and are not trying to engage in a form of WP:EW. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning briefly what he said, but we cannot say he was forced out of business, because that's just his opinion. Perhaps at some point we will have more information about this. It would also be interesting to have an informed opinion about the ethics of turning over the hard drive to Trump's lawyer. TFD (talk) 01:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Good point. In fact, it's all only his claim. For all we know, Hunter was right that his laptops, plural, were indeed stolen in Ukraine, likely by Russian intelligence (at least they had them at some point), and they were obtained by Rudy/Bannon (Rudy was offered them in Ukraine), who had them given to Mac Isaac, who passed them on. IOW they were controlled by the Trump/Giuliani/FSB cabal most of the time. That's a more likely version of events than the version told by Mac Isaac, but we don't know what is really true about the provenance of those laptops other than Russian intelligence had access to them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I was just revisiting this page and saw this - is there any corroboration that the laptop was stolen in the Ukraine? I mean outside of Hunter himself speculating, the emails circulating in Ukraine could have well come from the other person involved in the email exchange and there is nothing I can see verifying that a laptop was indeed stolen.

Also, this is not directed at you as much as a general statement, has anyone looked at this page and taken what the article says here as compared to references to the laptop on the Hunter bio page? It appears as if this page is going off in one direction and the bio in another.

Thanks. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

From what I understand as far as the ethical considerations go is an attempt was made to hand over the information to the FBI and was rebuffed, later the FBI did in fact take the laptop and related materials into evidence. However, the actions of the FBI generated suspicion on the part of Isaac which prompted him to turn it over to Giuliani.

The text below is taken from an article in USA Today which is identified as WP:RSP

After discussing with his son what to do, the elder Mac Isaac took a copy of the hard drive to FBI agents near his home in Albuquerque, New Mexico, Della Rocca said in a statement. "The FBI turned John Paul’s father away," Della Rocca said. Three months later, an FBI agent contacted the retired colonel, according to Della Rocca, and he passed along his son’s contact information. “The FBI reached out to John Paul and met him at his house (in Wilmington) to discuss John Paul’s concerns. On December 9, 2019, the FBI served a subpoena on John Paul for the computer, the hard drive, and all related paperwork," Della Rocca said. "He willingly gave it to the FBI and was happy to see it go,” he said. Mac Isaac said he had believed that giving the FBI the hard drive amounted to “following the chain of command," an idea he failed to describe beyond the vague pronouncement. At some point during the days after the FBI subpoena, agents called the computer repairman again, asking him to assist them, technically, in viewing the files on the damaged drive, Mac Isaac said in October. Mac Isaac acknowledged then it was odd for the FBI to make such a request, given they have their own team of experts. In subsequent months, John Paul Mac Isaac grew frustrated with the FBI after it did not publicly release information that was on the laptop. He believed it could have aided Trump’s defense in what he said was a "sham" U.S. Senate impeachment trial in early 2020. Della Rocca said Mac Isaac frustration with the FBI was what led him in September to call Giuliani's office.

As it appeared in: [11]https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/11/24/hunter-biden-laptop-more-details-emerge-rudy-giuliani/6404635002/

And I am only posting the info in the context of the discussion of ethics as previously by TFD. I am not an expert in the area and would not be able to determine whether the action was ethically correct or not. My original question was whether or not there should be a note or mention of subsequent events regarding Isaacs, the closure of his business and what he may have experienced after coming forward. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 02:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that editor's personal opinion indicates anything other than their personal opinion. As far as reliable sources go, I'm at a loss as to how delawarebusinessnow.com would stack up. I think it's possible the assumptions may be coming from more than one direction, as far as that goes. We shouldn't read into anything so that we don't insert WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Here we only say what RS says if it is relevant and carries WP:WEIGHT. It also helps to build WP:CON... DN (talk) 03:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, the Delaware Business Now thing would be questionable at best - I can’t verify it as far as identifying it as a RS. I only threw it up because of the soibangla comment as it was making an assumption unless someone could find something verifying the guy ran a crappy (excuse language) business. Again, originally it was more a matter of reworking the article in such a way to note those events and nothing more but all good points. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 04:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

NBC News Change of Position - Other Press Outlets

The article currently has a statement that NBC News were not given the information to verify the hard drive. One of the NBC News team that was part of that original article has now released a long article based on having cross referenced the hard drive against papers from the congressional hearings.

The following entry was made to adding this information to the article and reverted

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy&oldid=prev&diff=1088756345

How should the NBC News change of position be reported? RonaldDuncan (talk) 07:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi RonaldDuncan. Let's look at that content (bolding your addition):

NBC News requested a copy of the hard drive from Giuliani, who told them that he would not provide one; they said Giuliani offered them copies of a small number of emails but would not give them the full set. In May 2022, NBC News published a detailed analysis based on a copy of the hard drive cross referenced to documents released by the Senate, which confirmed the contents of the laptop.

Three considerations:

1. The source is impeccable, so no problem there.
2. Is it relevant for this article? It appears to be on-topic.
3. What about your wording "which confirmed the contents of the laptop"? What parts of the source justify your wording? Please provide quotes.

Here's the first sentence of the NBC article, which tends to summarize the point of the article (bolding the part of relevance here):

"From 2013 through 2018 Hunter Biden and his company brought in about $11 million via his roles as an attorney and a board member with a Ukrainian firm accused of bribery and his work with a Chinese businessman now accused of fraud, according to an NBC News analysis of a copy of Biden’s hard drive and iCloud account and documents released by Republicans on two Senate committees."

Other sentences:

"The documents and the analysis indicate that few of Biden’s deals ever came to fruition and shed light on how fast he was spending his money....Biden has admitted to burning through cash to pay for drugs and partying with strangers who routinely stole from him, and he struggled to pay multiple mortgages or keep up with alimony and child support payments to his ex-wife."

Another:

"NBC News obtained a copy of Biden’s laptop hard drive from a representative of Rudy Giuliani and examined Biden’s business dealings from 2013 to 2018 based on the information available on the hard drive and the scope of the documents released by the Senate."

The source is very relevant for this article. The question is how it's used here, so let's see those quotes to back up your wording. If they don't work, then what else can you find in that article that's good content, and what wording would you use? I suspect that we can come up with something usable in some part of this article, but maybe quite differently from what you were thinking about. Get creative and try it here, not in the article. If we can create a consensus version here, then you can safely add it to the article without much danger of it being deleted. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The most interesting thing about the article is what is not written - that any disinformation has been found. The article references "the hard drive and the documents" regularly, so it's not clear if they are accepting it as genuine or treating them still as suspect. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

My concern about this article is that because some emails have been authenticated by cryptographic signatures, documents can't be authenticated that way and I don't see NBC News has explained how they authenticated them. Have they been lulled into presuming that everything on the drive is real? Lev Parnas said Rudy was talking about Russia having Hunter's emails in 2019; if Russia had all Hunter's stuff, there's no telling how they might have easily doctored docs and planted them on a laptop, the origin of which remains unknown. And we know the GRU hacked Burisma. soibangla (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Whatever the case, this NBC article doesn't broach that subject. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

It should tell us why we should have confidence in their analysis. soibangla (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree. They refer to the hard drive and documents many times in the article, but never qualify their status. It seems they're just accepting that everything is real (in that particular article at least). Mr Ernie (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing about "everything" in the cited source. This logical error has been exhaustively discussed and dismissed. SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

In most articles along these lines, the authors explain how they know the docs are real. I don't see that here, and this is a whole new avenue of inquiry: it's docs now, not emails. soibangla (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Bingo. This article does not refer to a tranche that has been verified, but refers to the contents on the whole. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

My previous comment was indented incorrectly. Sorry, @Soibangla:, it was a response to Mr Ernie, so I will repeat it as a response to his repeated assertion that NBC verified the entire contents of the Giuliani/Biden files, to wit: There's nothing about "everything" in the cited source. This is WP:OR, it is a logical error, and we've discussed and dismissed it previously. There should be multiple high quality sources to verify facts about the files on the laptop, and it would be helpful if we could have them cited for the purposes of deciding on this or related article content. SPECIFICO talk 19:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

We are talking about this specific article. They don’t refer to a sub group that they have verified for the content they are reporting. They refer to the “hard drive” as a whole, without a qualifier. Did you read the article? It would help you follow what Soibangla and I are talking about. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

EVERYBODY, we have established that this source does not discuss the veracity of the emails, files, whatever, so please stop discussing that subject in this thread. Instead, figure out if it contains any new information worth using in this article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Right. I see nothing in the article that credibly relates to the body of documents beyond NBC's unexplained unsupported opinion as to a fraction of them. SPECIFICO talk 20:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

As I understand it, whether or not you think NBC's opinion is explained or supported is not relevant. NBC is an RS, and as such, we are obligated to document everything that NBC has said about the topic of Hunter Biden's laptop controversy - like it or not. So, if NBC's article makes any claim or statement of fact about the laptop controversy, regardless of what you think about the truth value of that claim, it is essential that it be documented in this encyclopedia entry if has not been already. I think the NBC article does make such claims and statements, but before jumping in, I'll give more zealous editors a chance to add them. To not add them because you think they aren't credible or supported would be to engage in original research and editorialism. Even if you think you can demonstrate that NBC's claims are ludicrous on their face - no matter, the claims *must* be included, as NBC is an RS. Philomathes2357 (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Please have a look at WP:WEIGHT, WP:V, and WP:ONUS in particular. The NBC article by itself does not appear to add any significant information to the topic of this article. SPECIFICO talk 22:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

As I said from the outset[12], I don't see how the story is relevant to this article. I apologize for going on a tangent. soibangla (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

This line from NBC is relevant and should probably be in the article - “ The documents and the analysis, which don’t show what he did to earn millions from his Chinese partners, raise questions about national security, business ethics and potential legal exposure.” Mr Ernie (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The article doesn't do much to elaborate on the national security angle beyond that, it's real thin. It's really just more about his personal business affairs. The whole "10 held by H for the big guy?" thing is a nothingburger. The article belongs in his BLP, if anywhere. soibangla (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I don’t know if I’d call it a ‘nothingburger,’ I was watching an interview with Ben Schreckinger of Politico and it didn’t sound that way: [13]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO-lBDFfm00 71.190.233.44 (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, I don't have time to watch a video from a YouTube channel named "Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar" (who?) where the first thing I see is "Dem disarray" and then "Lewinsky." One might wonder why Ben can't get on a more credible outlet. Anyway, "10 held by H for the big guy?" came from some guy on a proposed deal that never came to pass, there's no indication it was anything other than an unsolicited effort to sweeten the deal to get it done, and Joe emphatically declined it. soibangla (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

You make your own choices, no one is here to force the issue. Schreckinger is a reporter for Politico which is a WP:RS and he’s also written a book on the Biden family. You called it a ‘nothingburger’ and it appears you may be wrong. As far as the President emphatically denying it I wouldn’t be so ready to imagine that the current President has been a wellspring of truth. But your mileage may vary the goal is after all NPOV. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

No, he didn't emphatically deny it, he emphatically declined to be involved. I'm aware of who Schreckinger is. Are you aware that he has been virtually ignored because he has used anonymous sources and no one can confirm what he's said? soibangla (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I’m not clear if what it is you’re trying to say is that because JB declined to be involved he should be taken at his word which seems for lack of a better word a bit ludicrous to avoid including any information to the contrary. What’s interesting though (and somewhat ironic) is that when I did a search on Schreckinger and anonymous sources what came up was ‘fake news’ and the former President. Go figure. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

There's no need for him to be taken at his word because he's never said anything about the incident. Upon being copied on the "10 held by H for the big guy?" email, Hunter promptly replied by email that Joe gave "an emphatic no," the deal never happened and that was the end of it. Oddly, the NY Post didn't report on that particular email, which they had from the laptop. Politico wrote a very short blurb about Schreckinger's claim, but they never followed up with a bigger story, which is what would typically be expected if they had an exclusive bombshell, nor did anyone else follow up because Schreckinger had an anonymous source and nobody else could confirm it. Then much later he ran a bigger article, but that didn't add much if anything to his narrative and so it, too, was ignored. soibangla (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah... thank you for the clarification. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

It doesnt matter if hes a reporter for Politico and Politico being a WP:RS if Politico isnt the one publishing what youre citing Softlemonades (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah, it’s nuance.
What I’m trying to get my head around in this case is why it appears there is no similar standard for some of the people who have generated unsourced content on the flip side of the coin. However, I understand the point and will push no further. Time will ultimately give a broader picture one way or the other. 16:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC) 71.190.233.44 (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Suggested updated wording

NBC News requested a copy of the hard drive from Giuliani, who told them that he would not provide one; they said Giuliani offered them copies of a small number of emails but would not give them the full set. In May 2022, NBC News published a detailed analysis based on a copy of the hard drive cross referenced to documents released by the Senate

Having looked at the discussion my suggestion would be removing the section which confirmed the contents of the laptop and keeping that NBC News are now using the laptop as a source for their articles. RonaldDuncan (talk) 23:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

That looks good to me, except I'd drop the "detailed". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Fine by me so "In May 2022, NBC News published an analysis based on a copy of the hard drive cross referenced to documents released by the Senate" RonaldDuncan (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

That's better, but what about the "cross referenced"? Where does that come from, IOW what quote(s) in the NBC article? As I read the article, I get the feeling that some form of analysis, not necessarily thorough or complete, revealed his income and squandering of money. That's the focus of the NBC article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Yup, cross referenced is my assumption rather than in the article how about.

In May 2022, NBC News published an analysis based on a copy of the hard drive and documents released by the Senate RonaldDuncan (talk) 10:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

EVERYBODY, are you happy with the above wording, or do you have any improvements you would like to make? RonaldDuncan (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks like you and Valjean have this well on track. You are in good hands. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

EVERYBODY have updated article with above wording.RonaldDuncan (talk) 07:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Nobody said they were happy with it. Your article text was primary sourced, so I reverted it. SPECIFICO talk 10:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

We use that type of sourcing all the time. It clearly has consensus here, so I've restored it. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

We cannot use a primary source for sensitive BLP article text. Please self revert. No consensus was affirmed and regardless, no local consensus can ever override BLP. SPECIFICO talk 14:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Here's the text - In May 2022, NBC News published an analysis based on a copy of the hard drive and documents released by the Senate. Please point out the BLP issues. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

This is now the 3rd time in less than 24 hours I will say this: It is a primary source for a sensitive and rather SYNTHy BLP text and it is prohibited. I did you the courtesy of asking you to self-revert after the second time I pointed this out. Please do so now. SPECIFICO talk 16:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with you. We use sourcing for content like this all the time and it is perfectly compliant with policy, no matter how many times within 24 hours you say it isn't. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, NBC News is a secondary source, and the wording is neutral. There is no BLP violation. Keep it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

A secondary source for what assertion in the disputed text, please? SPECIFICO talk 17:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

You are making ZERO sense. Since when can't we use a reliable news source for such an innocuous statement? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Could you answer my question, please?. If I am confused, a simple indication of the text for which this is a secondary source should resolve my concern. SPECIFICO talk 18:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

"In May 2022, NBC News published an analysis based on a copy of the hard drive and documents released by the Senate." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean: Thanks. OK, so this is not cited to a secondary source. It's a primary source w/o any WEIGHT from secondary coverage. And it is not a Reaction, which is the subject of this section of the page. If there is an expert conclusion reported by NBC that would move the source closer to warranting inclusion. SPECIFICO talk 19:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm also confused by what's going on here today. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I too am curious as to how "In May 2022, NBC News published an analysis based on a copy of the hard drive and documents released by the Senate." violates BLP. DN (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

It is primary sourced content of no significance to suggest that there is some problematic content on the laptop. SPECIFICO talk 17:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Honest question. How does it imply, or "suggest that there is some problematic content on the laptop"? The article does go into a lot of grey area, but if we just need a secondary source for this it shouldn't be hard to find. DN (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I also think that since this content is attributed to NBC and is not in Wiki voice, it makes it much less confusing that it is the primary. DN (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

As with any content, and especially this BLP that is at its core about a campaign of disparagement, we need impeccable secondary RS that ascirbe some significance to what NBC may have done. In the context of the subject, I have not seen anything to elevate NBC's television shows to the level of significance that would warrant inclusion. If there is widespread mainstream discussion of NBC's coverage, the text would need to be cited to a couple of those sources at least. But we can't write some content and then try to google up a few citations for it. SPECIFICO talk 19:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I think I see your point, it doesn't seem to hold much significance or consensus among sources other than NBC, so it becomes a question of WP:WEIGHT to some degree, but I still think the implication of disparagement and question of attribution has been addressed in it's current form. I'm neutral on inclusion/exclusion at this point. It doesn't really add much but it doesn't hurt much either. It can always be omitted later if there is a consensus to do so, for now I don't mind if it is included...or not. Cheers. DN (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Probably a minor point, but what is "cross-referenced" in this context? Does it mean something like, "quoting" or "referring to"? Jim.henderson (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

No consensus yet. Next step?

What are we going to do about this? It's a primary sourced snippet tacked on to a marginally significant/insignificant properly sourced bit about Giuliani's refusal. Per WP:ONUS we are going to need some very compelling arguments from those who are advocating this. It really should be removed in the meantime. SPECIFICO talk 17:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

There is consensus, and nobody is really buying your argument. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Given your view, you can insist on an RfC if you wish, or request a close of this discussion before we proceed. SPECIFICO talk 19:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

No need for any of that. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Wall Street Journal content

@RonaldDuncan: - In this diff you just reinserted content that is cited to a Wall Sreet Journal reader's letter to the editor with contentious BLP content. Blogs and reader comments are not WP:RS for article content, as I stated in my edit summary removing this content. Please remove it and, if you think that there is noteworthy content regarding the WSJ view, find RS that can provide verified WP:DUE content. Moreover, we would need a secondary source to establish the significance of one News Corp. outlet promoting the work of another affiliated News Corp publication. A letter to the editor from a reader does not establish WP:WEIGHT nor should it be quoted in article content. SPECIFICO talk 11:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, my mistake I thought it was an Editorial rather than a letter that was published as opinion. I see it has already been reverted by another editor. RonaldDuncan (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

I propose adding the descriptor “conservative journalist” in front of Bari Weiss in the sentence which tells of her resignation from the Times, to avoid misleading readers. Weiss is generally and accurately generally described as a conservative writing for non-conservative publications. Thanks.173.56.203.56 (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2022

This line is incorrect about the Delaware computer repair shop owner: "According to the New York Post story, a person—who Mac Isaac could not identify because he is legally blind[32]—left the computer at the repair shop to repair water damage, but once this was completed, the shop had no contact information for its owner, and nobody ever paid for it or came to pick it up.[33]"

There is no mention in the referenced article that the "shop had no contact information for its owner" so that line should be removed. There is ample information out there about Hunter Biden leaving both his email address and phone number with the shop.

Further, there is ample evidence on how Hunter Biden was identified by the shop owner, including being contacted by Hunter's attorney. 2600:4040:2CB4:1A00:ACC6:F096:CB2:BD7A (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This is actually a controversial edit, so you'll need to discuss first with other editors. Please open a new section here and start a discussion. This is almost certainly a thing, and will need discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Please provide this ample evidence and information. soibangla (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Is this intro underconfident?

Hi all, I'm totally new to this article, I'm sure you're all at loggerheads with each other over it, sorry if I offend anyone. Basically, the intro to this article sounds highly underconfident. A laptop was "allegedly dropped off" by an "unidentified person". It was of "unclear origin" and had contents "some of which were later confirmed as authentic".

Surely, at this point, it is not controversial that this laptop actually belonged to Hunter Biden, and it somehow ended up at a repair shop. How it got there doesn't have to be mentioned in the intro if there isn't clear evidence that it was dropped off by Hunter. If so, the contents of the laptop were absolutely authentic. Imagine if the Wikipedia page for the heliocentric model stated it was an alleged model of the solar system which was later confirmed to be authentic - it just doesn't make sense to put that in the intro. All the rest, we can argue about, but these are the basic facts. 20WattSphere (talk) 11:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

It is not confirmed the laptop belonged to Hunter or that he dropped it off. Some of the contents of the laptop have been authenticated, though if you read the "Forensic analysis" section there are some anomalies about the contents. There's a difference between the physical laptop and what's on it. soibangla (talk) 12:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

What soibangla said Softlemonades (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Two things: firstly, it does seem pretty hard not to believe that the laptop actually belonged to Biden. According to Vox [14], "In April 2019, someone dropped off three water-damaged laptops with him for repair, Mac Isaac claimed. He couldn’t say for sure who dropped them off, because he is legally blind, but he said the person identified himself as Hunter Biden and signed a receipt with what appears to be Hunter’s name. One of the laptops had a Beau Biden Foundation sticker." Together with the fact that many of the files on the laptop were obviously Hunter's, it does very pretty hard to deny that they was his laptops - of course this doesn't imply that 100% of the files were his authentic files. Some of them could have been placed there by Mac Isaac, or others.

Secondly though, a more subtle point - I don't see the need to express all of the remaining uncertainty in the intro. This intro is very long, and I think it would benefit from being cleaned up. Of course there are still facts in dispute, but I don't see the value add of detailing all of them in the intro. 20WattSphere (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

If only you knew how hard Giuliani had to work locating a legally blind repair tech with a drive-up Deleware.storefront. I'm not sure why you'd think that even Giuliani's cast of characters was incapable of downloading files and copying them onto a laptop before spritzing it wetly. SPECIFICO talk 23:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

You have a citation for that, yes? I mean, you have something from WP:RS confirming what you’re stating as fact?

In an earlier discussion here another editor had stated the laptop(s) were stolen in Ukraine and I haven’t been able to find anything confirming any of that.71.190.233.44 (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Calm down theyre not trying to put it into the article Softlemonades (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

The intro should match the article and your vox quote is even uncertain about it Softlemonades (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The second sentence needs some editing "[conservative media outlets] further stated that the laptop had been dropped off but never collected by an unknown individual at ." When I read this I got the impression that this might have been something conservative media had conjured up. The sentence might instead say something like "The laptop was handed over to the FBI by John Paul Mac Isaac, a computer repair shop owner in Wilmington, Del., who said a person identifying himself as Hunter Biden had left it at his shop in April 2019" Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/us/politics/hunter-biden-laptop.html Erlend Kvitrud (talk) 03:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

New intro?

As mentioned above, I think the intro is not very good and could be a lot more readable. Here's a first draft of a simplified intro (minus sources) which is much clearer and to the point, while still not veering into unconfirmed facts, I think. All of the details, including the sequence of events and all of the unconfirmed and disproved allegations can be moved to the main body. I'm happy to do this if you need. Please let me know what you think.

The Hunter Biden laptop controversy refers to the circumstances surrounding a laptop believed to belong to Hunter Biden, and the data discovered on it.

In April 2019, a laptop repairman allegedly received a laptop he believed was the property of Hunter Biden. When nobody came to collect it, he looked through its contents, and finding information he believed would be damaging to Joe Biden, whom he was politically opposed to, he copied the contents of the hard drive onto his own computer before turning them over to the FBI. He also passed the data to Rudy Guiliani, who along with Steve Bannon subsequently delivered it to the New York Post, believing that other news outlets would not take the data seriously.

Various media sources and information analysts have extracted data from the hard drive, some of which has been confirmed to be the authentic data of Hunter Biden, although changes had been made to the hard drive since belonging to him. Subsequently, photographs and other information highly damaging to Hunter Biden has been uncovered, although it is unclear whether all of this information was originally on the laptop. There have also been various attempts from right-wing media sources to suggest that the laptop's data confirms the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, or that Joe Biden engaged unethically with a Chinese company.

The New York Post broke the story in October 2020, just two months before the 2020 United States presidential election. Believing that both the content and timing of the story was suspicious, most mainstream media outlets refused to publicize the story. Social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter suppressed the story, before temporarily banning discussion of it. 20WattSphere (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

No offense, but, this reads like something better suited to the Simple English Wikipedia. Plain wording, little nuance, kind of dry. Not really seeing an issue with the current lede. ValarianB (talk) 12:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Haha, that is the opposite of offensive! (I feel like you've never been a teacher?)

Okay, here we go. The NYP is brought up in sentence 2, then again at the start of para 2, then it's brought up again in para 3, and it's not immediately clear whether these all refer to the same report.

Trump using the story as a talking point is brought up in sentence 3. Surely this belongs later, with the rest of the political and media response - it's not an issue of fundamental important to the actual event.

"The laptop was of unclear origin and contained emails obtained by Donald Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani" - okay, how on Earth did Guiliani get the emails (the reader is thinking), how is he involved?

Para 3 - ah, now we get back to Mac Isaac (I would prefer to have finished describing his actions before all the preceding stuff). And here, the Guiliani connection is explained. (this should be explained before the previous quote about him obtaining emails)

Para 4 - mostly looks good. "The Post and other conservative media outlets reported extensively on the laptop and other contents of the hard drive." - the response of non-conservative media here should also be stated, right?

The rest looks pretty fine to me. 20WattSphere (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @ValarianB: The current article text is better. And BTW Yes, the Trump reaction is the fundamental issue wrt this event. Post was not "reporting" anything. It is promoting political narratives. At any rate, the revised text was not an improvement. SPECIFICO talk 14:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree, and the uncertainty is key to the article and the summary. Leaving that out would be misleadin, especilayl for the people who skim. Theres no certainty on those questions and even the sources cited are uncertain about it.

Before rewriting it, youd have to find new sources that could support the rewrites and the certainty or its just POV pushin Softlemonades (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not trying to pretend there aren't uncertainties. I don't think anything that I've written contradicts this article, so we could keep all the current sources. My contention is that I'm acutely aware of the value of public access to clear information, particularly with topics like this that have been the subject of conspiratorial theorizing, and I think this introduction is all over the place. Read my response to ValarianB above for a short list of things we could improve.

If you agree that we should improve this introduction, but disagree with the way I've done it, feel free to post a different idea, or edit my draft. 20WattSphere (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not that folks disagree with the wording. You have elicited disagreement that the proposal is an NPOV summary of the sources or the facts. If that doesn't change, it's unlikely you'll see much progress with this. SPECIFICO talk 23:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

So, you're saying something in my draft shows some bias? Can you be specific r.e. which sentences you're talking about, and if so, don't you think we could fix that while still creating a coherent structure that clearly introduces the subject to new readers? 20WattSphere (talk) 00:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

"Can you be specific r.e. which sentences you're talking about"

No because its not just what you say, its what you leave out like we said Softlemonades (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm very happy to add things to it, if you give me some feedback?

I mostly just want it to be clearer and more sequential, rather than constantly jumping around in time. If I wrote another draft that was identical to the current intro, but with the sentences rearranged to be like this, would you be willing to give it a read and let me know what you think? 20WattSphere (talk) 07:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd really appreciate somebody going through my response to ValarianB. I don't love the idea of editing a controversial article without some level of social consensus, but nobody is really engaging with me. I guess I'll start making some minor edits where clearly preferable, obviously without adding unsourced info. 20WattSphere (talk) 10:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

20WattSphere, I've been reading this thread but haven't participated until now because it was evident your proposal is not gaining traction and it doesn't appear it will. So I'll just add my opposition to it. I recommend dropping it. soibangla (talk) 10:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks, I will. I'm still sad that nobody responded to any of the points in my reply to ValarianB, or anything else really. 20WattSphere (talk) 10:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I think your proposal was good. But read the rest of this talk page - all the admins are seemingly paid DNC shills, it's no use arguing with them. 194.255.48.178 (talk) 11:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Im swimming in my DNC money pool like Scrooge McDuck right now Softlemonades (talk) 14:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2022

The story has been verified, 51 Intel experts have been proven to be false 204.86.250.21 (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a reliable source to support your claim. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

This edit request doesnt even meet basic requirements for discussion (what was verified, what was proven false, what should be changed to what, what is the source or reason...).

Its just more spam and more reason to keep the article semi-protected Softlemonades (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Very long lead nowhere states the "Hunter biden laptop" was alleged to belong to Hunter Biden

Talk about burying the lede! The central, if not the only, item of controversy in what the article title calls the Hunter Biden laptop controversy was about whether the laptop and its files provided by the computer shop owner did in fact originally belong to Hunter Biden. That should be included in the very first sentence. The current wording goes out of its way to make the nature of the "controversy" unclear. 73.16.169.108 (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a fair point. I always see it now, even in Mother Jones, as "Hunter Biden's laptop". The lead is too long anyway, that's also a good callout. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

But "allegedly" is in the first sentence. soibangla (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with OP. The use of "allegedly" has become almost a formality in the current events and politics articles. It is too easily interpreted as pro forma by the reader -- just the inability of WP to state fact definitively in Wikivoice where there has been no legal adjudication or other conclusive proof. I also think this whole article is really just a sop to a small number of insistent editors who may have been absorbed in non-RS info-tainment media. The whole thing could be boiled down to a 6-sentence paragraph. Really it's just another of the Giuliani/Fox harebrained misfires, like the hair dye and the 4 seasons at the porn shop. Although in fairness, that one does have its own article. SPECIFICO talk 12:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Funny this is posted today, as I read this article for the first time. I'll go even further and say that the lead reads like gibberish. One of the main problems is the overuse of MOS:ALLEGED words like "alleged" (4 times), "purported" (2 times) and "reported" (12 times!). I won't edit this because I'm not nearly familiar enough with the background, but I would suggest aggressively reducing it down to 2 paragraphs, to retain only the most basic substance. JBchrch talk 17:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly thank you for a fresh look. SPECIFICO talk 17:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

It's hard to get around this kind of language because this is a conspiracy theory based on many false allegations, but I'm open to any way to improve it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

How bout we just lop off all but the first paragraph? I wrote a tighter lead in April and then it just went to Bloatville from there. soibangla (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Did some work on it to improve whats there. But a lot more could go. I didnt want ot be that bold though Softlemonades (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think Soibangla's suggestion to TNT all but the first paragraph would be a good idea, while we workshop anything longer. Also, isnt' NPOV really that it was Giuliani's laptop? I mean all the rest is fishy. And it was waterlogged, so that would confirm. SPECIFICO talk 18:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if joking or WP:NOR

I think the problem is the top tries to summarize everything the laptop relates to, instead of the laptop itself. I think it should cover

1. Laptop and conspiracy theories exists (dont need all the details)
2. Chain of custody
3. Verification status

The body and other articles should take the rest Softlemonades (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

How about this for a MOS:OPEN: In October 2020, the tabloid New York Post claimed that the contents of a laptop purportedly belonging to Hunter Biden provided proof that his father, then presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden, had acted to favor his son's business activities in Ukraine. The claim attracted significant controversy, with the mainstream media casting significant doubts on the accuracy of the New York Post reporting, the authenticity of the laptop and its content, and questioning the circumstances around the New York Post's procurement of the laptop. JBchrch talk 19:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I would say the first paragraph is in reasonably good shape now and we should cut and paste the remainder here to the talk page for workshopping. SPECIFICO talk 20:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

First Paragraph Contradiction and lack of source

The first paragraph's sentence contains no citation to back up the claim in the sentence. The paragraph goes on to contradict itself: "The Hunter Biden laptop controversy involves a laptop computer that conservative media outlets claimed (without evidence had belonged to Hunter Biden). They further stated that the laptop had been dropped off but never collected.by an unknown individual at the Wilmington, Delaware repair shop of a blind proprietor in April 2019. The New York Post published a story stating the allegation three weeks before the 2020 United States presidential election, and president Donald Trump seized on it in an attempt to engineer an "October surprise". The laptop was of unclear origin and contained emails obtained by Donald Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, and other digital files relating to Hunter Biden, (some of which were later confirmed as authentic). I highlighted where it contradicted itself. 2600:8804:4E0F:D000:A0F9:396F:B64:BFCE (talk) 02:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2022

They have confirmed that this is in fact hunters laptop and this is false information. Fact check necessary. 2601:2C5:4200:78A0:D17:D26:DC15:25A4 (talk) 08:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

If I have a boat, and over time replace the sails, the hull, the mast, and the deck, is it still the same boat? In that vein, Hunter Biden supposedly once owned a laptop, then supposedly left it at a repair shop. The laptop then came into the hands of Rudy Giuliani, who sent the contents to the NY Post. Then the drive was copied, re-copied, added too, deleted from, and accessed remotely by an outside source. Is it then still the same laptop? All in all, your They have confirmed... statement oversimplifies the subject matter at hand. Zaathras (talk) 12:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

BLP and Zlochevsky

This article, in contrast to the more specific descriptions in Mykola Zlochevsky's bio article, calls Zlochevsky a "corrupt oligarch". Per BLP and BLPCRIME we cannot imply with vague or general pejoratives that someone is criminal (or corrupt). If Zlochevsky's legal problems are relevant to this article they could simply be stated factually. 73.16.169.108 (talk) 03:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

You're right. I took out "corrupt". – Muboshgu (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't see your edit before I made mine. I reintroduced that he was under investigation for corruption, which is highlighted as part of Parnas's statements by the source. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Does this warrant inclusion?

Senator Grassley sends letter to FBI regarding investigation:

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/grassley_to_justice_deptfbipoliticalbiasfollowup.pdf71.190.233.44 (talk) 11:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

A primary source, so no. ValarianB (talk) 13:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)