Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Special counsel

Should we mention the appointment of a special counsel, by the US attorney general? GoodDay (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

No, thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2023

Yet not a single link to the Committee's investigation at

https://oversight.house.gov/landing/biden-family-investigation/

Even the URL referencing the Committee fails to provide a link to the source material.

The page references other media, reporting, and comments yet neglects to include the source material. Why is that - this is why Wikipedia is not and will not ever be an authoritative source of information.

69.153.25.75 (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: This is actually on purpose - WIkipedia has a policy that primary sources must only be used for straightforward statements of fact, and even then secondary sources are typically preferred. The purpose of this policy is to avoid editors improperly analysing primary sources themselves, when they are not necessarily qualified to do so. The link you provided is already in an appropriate location, that being the External Links section of the linked page United States House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family, that link on this page displaying as "investigating the Biden family". Tollens (talk) 05:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Let's try to reach a consensus here; it should be easy

There is absolutely zero doubt that the Hunter Biden laptop was indeed left for repair and unclaimed long enough for the shop owner to gain ownership of them [mechanic's lien].

Who brought them to the shop? Probably Hunter, but Isaacs says he cannot be sure.

There is zero doubt that it is actually Biden's laptop.

There is zero doubt that they were seized by the FBI after the shop owner informed FBI of the contents.

There is zero doubt that the FBI forensically determined they were genuine and NOT a Russian disinformation ploy.

There is zero doubt that the FBI did not inform facebook and twitter of that fact, instead telling them the Russians might try to impugn the reputation of the self-admitted drug addict Hunter Biden, in an attempt to support Trump over Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden for the Presidency of the United States.

Does anyone have anything to disagree with here? Let's hear it and get this article perfect.

The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

If you have a proposal to improve the article, please make it in a new section with a meaningful heading. Otherwise see WP:NOTFORUM. Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

In the lead it says "John Paul Mac Isaac, the shop owner, said that the laptop was left by a man who identified himself as Hunter Biden. He also stated that he is legally blind and could not be sure whether the man was actually Hunter Biden." As of March 2023, Biden is also suing Mac Isaac, and according to WaPo, "Hunter Biden does not concede in his lawsuit that he dropped off the laptop, received an invoice or neglected to pick it up."... That doesn't sound like "zero doubt", let alone, absolutely "zero doubt", to me. DN (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Joe Biden wasn't the veep, during the 2020 campaign. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

the FBI forensically determined they were genuine testified IRS agent Gary Shapley. WaPo appears to report his testimony, rather than confirm it.[1] The usual suspects of unreliable sources eagerly "confirmed" it. Are there reliable sources that confirm it? Marcy Wheeler seems skeptical: Shapley is using it to wind up the frothy right, which as is true of all things Hunter Biden, has worked like a charm.[2]soibangla (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

There isn't consensus because the evidence does not support what some people want the consensus to be. There is certainly doubt that the laptop actually exists, that it was left by Hunter Biden, etc. None of the "zero doubt" statements are true — all of those statements lack reliable sources that are unequivocal (after four years!). One supposed piece of evidence is the lawsuit by Hunter Biden, but, as mentioned by DN, the Hunter Biden lawsuit explicitly disclaims the existence of the laptop. Only data has ever been verified.

Take this recent article (referenced in footnote 73) from a month ago from CNBC Hunter Biden sues former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani over infamous laptop: "... a laptop computer Biden is said to have left at a Delaware repair shop" (emphasis mine).

And here's another recent article (referenced in footnote 71) from CNN Hunter Biden sues Rudy Giuliani and his former attorney, alleging they tried to hack his devices which states that Hunter Biden "...accuses Giuliani and Robert Costello of spending years “hacking into, tampering with, manipulating, copying, disseminating, and generally obsessing over data that they were given that was taken or stolen from” his devices."

These are both articles from about six weeks ago. So, anybody is free to believe whatever they like, but the idea that there is "zero doubt" of these still unproven allegations is simply not true. If anything, the article should make the doubt clearer. RoyLeban (talk) 08:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

NOTFORUM. Nothing to discuss here. SPECIFICO talk 01:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with points made by DN and RoyLeban that show the current wording needs improvement. WaPo, a RS, uses "said to have" been left at shop and "purported" in multiple reports in 2022 to describe the laptop existence. Therefore, the article lede should be modified to say:

"a laptop that purportedly belonged to Hunter Biden...."

and:

"Three weeks before the 2020 United States presidential election, the New York Post published a front-page story that presented emails the Post said were from the laptop, alleging...."

On the other hand, if the FBI has been reliably reported to confirm the laptop did belong to Hunter, that information belongs in the lede, and "purportedly" is thus no longer appropriate. If RS report the FBI confirmed it did receive a laptop, but without accompanying confirmation it was Hunter's, that information belongs in the article, preferably in the lede. DonFB (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Move Request: should be "Hunter Biden laptop conspiracy"

There's no controversy any longer, Hunter Biden has filed a suit for invasion of privacy, so it is clearly his personal laptop.

And the conspiracy was on the part of many to cover up that fact.

Not a mere "theory". The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 03:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

whether it is clearly his personal laptop is but one element of this article. soibangla (talk) 03:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

See WP:SYNTH and WP:BLP. Frankly, a more accurate opening sentence would be...

"In October 2020, a controversy arose involving data that belonged to Hunter Biden from a laptop that was abandoned at a Delaware computer shop in 2019"

instead of the current iteration. The fact that Biden is taking this to court is not evidence of some conspiracy. Cheers. DN (talk) 05:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no evidence of a coverup, there was just a lack of evidence it was his, and based on the contents publicly released thus far, it still remains unknown if the hardware and all its contents were his, as the chain of custody remains unknown. Some of the contents, like the naughty pics, appear real, and their release caused him public humiliation and reputational harm, and that's good enough to sue. His suit does not constitute an admission that the whole package was his and he knew it all along. soibangla (talk) 05:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

This proposal will self-destruct in 10 seconds, if you'll review the article and cited sources. DN has ably summarized sufficient reason. SPECIFICO talk 11:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The current page title, suffices. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The page title has always been problematic, but it's not the word "controversy" that's the problem. The title implies it is a proven fact that there was actually a laptop, but that has still (after how many months?!) not been proven. The statement in the first paragraph that "...it is clearly his personal laptop" is not true (it's just something that some people want to be true). But, as problems in the article go, this isn't the most egregious one. RoyLeban (talk) 07:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

"proven fact that there was actually a laptop" A phantom laptop which nobody has seen. Dimadick (talk) 09:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2023

part of this page still lists information as false that has been confirmed true. It also cites news articles biased toward Biden as proof that the now confirmed information is false. I dont think that reaches the standard of care.

Quote Below Trump attempted to turn the story into an October surprise to hurt Joe Biden's campaign by falsely alleging that while in office Biden had acted corruptly regarding Ukraine to protect his son.[5][6][7]

Im not even a Trump supporter, but it says 'Trump.... falsely alleging" the emails in question have been confirmed, so there is no "falsely alleging" anymore.

SO my suggestion is to delete it altogether. It adds zero value to this page other than the classic dig at Trump. If its not deleted, it should say "Trump was accused of falsely alleging that Biden acted corruptly by citing unconfirmed emails. These emails later were confirmed by federal authorities. Cite https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/ ."

I stand for deleteing it altogether. You cite 3 left wing news outlet and I cited a right. None of these articles should be cited as substantial evidence. CBGSG (talk) 13:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The cited sources are solid and this request is based on assumptions and inferences not supported by the sources. SPECIFICO talk 15:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

You're citing a tabloid. DN (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, CBGSG is almost a single-purpose account, editing just two pages, the other one being the page for a somewhat obscure politician, Bo Hatchett, who is a state senator in Georgia. RoyLeban (talk) 07:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2023

In paragraph 2 it states"....by falsely alleging that while in office Biden had acted corruptly regarding Ukraine." THE "FALSELY" SHOULD BE DELETED AS THERE HAS BEEN NO FINDING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AS TO THE TRUTHFULNESS OF THE ALLEGATION REGARDING BIDENS POTENTIAL CORRUPTION. IN FACT AS TIME PASSES AND MORE EVIDENCE COMES TO LIGHT IT APPEARS MORE LIEKLY THAN NOT THAT BIDEN WAS INVOLVED IN CORRPUTION.

Similarly in the "BACKGROUND" section, the term FALSELY, is again misapplied and was prematurely used in this entry. We now have Devon Archer, Tony Bobulinski, Hunters own emails referencing 50% for pop"

The Article is inaccurrate on its face to to prematurely conclude that Biden has been "falsely" accused of corruption in Ukraine or anywhere. A lack of bias would be achieved by simply stating, it has been alleged, and leave it at that.

IN GENERAL THE ARTICLE SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM PROTECTED STATUS so that it may be updated in light of the developments since the original lap top cpntrovery started. JohnStuartMill123 (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

The allegation against Joe Biden remains false. The only thing that has recently changed is people hollering it's true soibangla (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Read this fact-check. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, JohnStuartMill123 is a single-purpose account. RoyLeban (talk) 06:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Removing "Despite persistent allegations that the laptop contents indicated corruption by Joe Biden..."

The part of the sentence, "Despite persistent allegations that the laptop contents indicated corruption by Joe Biden..." should not be there. It falls under MOS:WEASEL and MOS:OP-ED. At the very least it should be expanded to state who is making these allegations rather than just alluding to them. I removed it, but it was reverted, with the comment, "The rest is irrelevant without THAT sourced context." When removed, the remaining sentence reads, "A joint investigation by two Republican Senate committees released in September 2020 did not find wrongdoing by Joe Biden, nor did a Republican House Oversight committee investigation by September 2023." This is hardly an irrelevant sentence. It is just the facts, without the editorializing. Epachamo (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I add my voice toward consensus to remove the text that User:Epachamo removed, and was reverted. The reason the wording should be removed is primarily because it violates MOS:OP-ED, as Epachamo noted, and also because it is a probable violation of SYNTH. I have previously advocated for removal of the same text. To retain it in its present form would require an RS that makes the point in regard to the laptop: "despite this, that is true". So far, no such source has been shown, and instead, an editor at some point wrote the text, which clearly smacks of editorializing with a political undertone. DonFB (talk) 05:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I wrote the text. It could be something else you object to, but I take exception to it clearly smacks of editorializing with a political undertone. So there. soibangla (talk) 06:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I respect your right to take exception to my conclusion, in which I take exception to the evident editorializing in the text. DonFB (talk) 06:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

that's fine, though as you allude this was extensively discussed months ago and the text remains. maybe open an RfC if you want to go over it again. soibangla (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm ok with the text currently in the article, but I think it would be slightly better with something like this:

"A joint investigation by two Republican Senate committees, tasked with looking into allegations that the data dump indicated corruption by Joe Biden, was released in September 2020 and did not find wrongdoing by him, nor did a Republican House Oversight committee investigation by September 2023."

The two things are linked, and stating it is useful. The phrase "tasked with" is clearly factual (and there are many sources for it), and it avoids having some people believing that "despite..." is a biased or opinionated statement. RoyLeban (talk) 07:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

None of the four news articles cited for last sentence of the Intro (currently, footnotes 11,12,13,14) makes any mention of the laptop, or includes an equivalent expression, like "data dump". So, the idea that the investigations found nothing against J.Biden "despite" laptop contents, or a "data dump", is an idea not found in the sources cited. Having said that, I find RoyLeban's suggested text an improvement. But the "data dump" phrase is a problem, having no support in the sources. I would amend Roy's text by eliminating the entire data dump phrase, and say simply: "A joint investigation by two Republican Senate committees was released in September 2020 and did not find wrongdoing by Joe Biden, nor did a Republican House Oversight committee investigation by September 2023." DonFB (talk) 07:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

To clarify: Roy's edit looked like an improvement at first glance by removing the editorializing language. However, as none of the cited sources supports the "despite"/"data dump" wording and sentence construction in regard to the laptop, we are left with the original edit by Epachamo, and, as he correctly noted, "It is just the facts, without the editorializing." DonFB (talk) 08:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn't look at the specific sources referenced here, so it's possible that neither of these are sourced from those four footnotes, but there are sources that link the intent of the investigations with the result that no wrongdoing was found, and the phrase "data dump" is also well sourced. As I said, I'm fine with what is there but I acknowledge that some people might think the wording has a viewpoint. RoyLeban (talk) 07:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• The sources themselves make the comparison. It isn't WP:WEASEL to summarize a source in that manner; and "despite", in particular, is a comparison made directly in the cited source, which is a high-quality news source and not an op-ed. The text should stay unchanged; there's no issues with it, while removing or changing it risks losing vital context. --Aquillion (talk) 07:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Please show me where in any of the four cited sources at the end of the lead section--or any other RS--the comparison or connection is made between 'no corruption found' and contents of the laptop. DonFB (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  No, the sources themselves do NOT make the comparison. They do not mention or even hint at the laptop. This is WP:SYNTH. Epachamo (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Consensus can change. The fact that RFC is an option does not justify hiding an ongoing discussion--especially by the editor whose contributed text is at issue. DonFB (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Consider also: the joint investigation report in September 2020 by two Republican Senate committees into alleged Joe Biden corruption cannot have been predicated, even in part, on the laptop's existence, because the laptop was unknown to the public (and investigators) until October 2020. Those committees could not have been investigating, as our article says, "persistent allegations that the laptop contents indicated corruption", because the laptop was unknown to the committees during their investigation. A reliable source would be needed that says the committees' September 2020 finding of no wrongdoing by J.Biden came about despite later allegations of corruption linked to the subsequently discovered laptop. The joint committee conclusions say nothing—literally—about the laptop, because they didn't know about the laptop. Wikipedia cannot offer any conclusion on its own about the meaning of the Senate committee findings. It can only report what reliable sources say—if they say anything—about the relationship, if any, between the 2020 Senate findings and the laptop. As far as the September 2023 House committee report, no editor, despite my repeated requests, has shown a source that specifically uses the "despite" (or similar) connection between laptop allegations and committee conclusions for either that report or the 2020 Senate report. Editors have merely claimed a linkage exists in the sources and have offered not one example. DonFB (talk) 13:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I have not looked into the precise point DonFB is making here, so I'm not commenting on it directly. If he's right, it is the same problem that exists elsewhere in the article (and in many other places on Wikipedia). There are instances where many sources make a statement without evidence and then people insist that it must be true and deserves to be in Wikipedia. The example I've pointed out is the phrases "Hunter Biden's laptop" and "laptop that was abandoned". In both cases, these phrases are used over and over again, but they are offered without evidence. Even reliable sources tend to repeat what others have said. It's been four years and there is still no RS that says definitively (with evidence!) that the laptop existed, that it belonged to Hunter Biden, that it was abandoned at a repair shop, or that Hunter Biden himself abandoned it. As I and others have pointed out many times, only some of the contents of the data dump have been verified.

If DonFB is right with respect to the dates, the article should not directly link the initial investigations to Hunter Biden's data, even if there are sources that appear to link them. We would need a specific source that explicitly says they are linked without the need for time travel. RoyLeban (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. DN (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Good to see an agreement has been reached, on the disputed sentence. GoodDay (talk) 13:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

What agreement? Where? SPECIFICO talk 13:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I've been too optimistic? Oh well. GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I support the removal, agreeing with Epachamo. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I am not seeing the significance of this issue. There are abundant sources to verify that the persistent allegations of wrongdoing have not been proven. No doubt the article text can always be improved. Editors who are concerned about the MOS issue can resolve this by finding more comprehensive sources that discuss the unsubstantiated nature of the Republican allegations and narratives. SPECIFICO talk 15:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO:, What was the point of the investigation? Reading the sentence you'd think that it was all about the laptop (it wasn't). Both of those investigations probably would have happened if the laptop hadn't even existed. Indeed, as DonFB pointed out, "the joint investigation report in September 2020 by two Republican Senate committees into alleged Joe Biden corruption cannot have been predicated, even in part, on the laptop's existence, because the laptop was unknown to the public (and investigators) until October 2020." If you have a comprehensive source, or any source that states otherwise, please bring it forward. Epachamo (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Bobulinski Business Dealing discussion

@Soibangla You reverted an edit mentioning This denial was also undercut by testimony from Hunter Biden's former business partner, Tony Bobulinski, who said in an FBI interview that Joe Biden had discussed business with his son, although not to any great depth, the "denial" in question being Joe Biden denying he discussed Business with his son. I am sourcing this from Politico's recent breakdown of the Hunter/his father controversy:

In October 2020, a former Hunter Biden business partner, Tony Bobulinski, said that he discussed Hunter Biden’s Chinese business ventures with Joe Biden.

“That is false,” Bobulinski said, in a prepared statement, of Biden’s claim to have never discussed business with Hunter.

In September, House Republicans released an FBI summary of an interview agents conducted with Bobulinski in the fall of 2020, showing that Bobulinski told investigators the same basic story: that he had discussed the China venture with Joe Biden. The summary gives extra heft to Boublinski’s public claims because lying to the FBI in order to influence an investigation can lead to criminal charges.

Bobulinski has said he did not discuss the business in any great depth with Joe Biden... KiharaNoukan (talk) 07:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Politico did not report Bobulinski "said in an FBI interview that Joe Biden had discussed business with his son," as your edit says. It reported Bobulinsky told the FBI that he "had discussed the China venture with Joe Biden." soibangla (talk) 08:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree there is some possible confusion as to what "he" means, although I think from looking at the FBI summary itself, it leans towards Hunter.

FBI Summary" from the Politico article states:

BOBULINSKI decided to come forward with this information after he heard JOSEPH BIDEN state that he “never talked business” with HUNTER BIDEN, which BOBULINSKI knew to be false.

Regardless, Politico also showcases other, more blanket denials from Biden making this moot.

After the issue of Biden relatives’ business dealings first came up in 2019, Joe Biden issued a sweeping denial that distanced himself from his family’s commercial pursuits: “I have never discussed, with my son or my brother or with anyone else, anything having to do with their businesses. Period.

In response to a question about the phone conversations detailed by Archer, the president said in August, “I never talked business with anybody,” a statement consistent with Archer’s testimony.

And if those don't work, we can just reference Bobulinski's earlier contradictions of Biden's statements, like his press conference statement, albeit omitting FBI statement:

“That is false,” Bobulinski said, in a prepared statement, of Biden’s claim to have never discussed business with Hunter. KiharaNoukan (talk) 09:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I reviewed a few of your recent string of edits. Thanks for doing them individually, but the ones I looked at, e.g. about the WaPo revision of its factcheck on the Biden handshake at Cafe Milano, seemed to insinuate POV framing and omitted detail critical to understanding of RS narratives. I'd be comfortable with a restoration of the status quo and hearing your rationale here on talk for those edits. SPECIFICO talk 14:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The edits I made largely reflect updated material that if anything, contributes to NPOV. I made the edits mentioning Devon Archer's testimony and other updated reporting since I always assumed this article had them, and was surprised to find out no mention of them when I bothered to review this article. When this article is missing items like Archer's testimony, it fails to uphold NPOV. WaPo's article/fact check on the dinner at Cafe Milano, which is extensively used in the article to describe the events, is actually a key example of this. Archer explicitly disputed it as "not correct reporting", something that has been brought up by other RS, and has resulted in an update to the WaPo article itself. It is a glaring omission to not point this out and only utilize content from the outdated version of WaPo's article. KiharaNoukan (talk) 16:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Not following you "always..." when some of the additions are very recent events. The way your added the WaPo bit leads the reader to a conclusion opposite of what is in the source -- these are just two of the problems. SPECIFICO talk 17:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Devon Archer's testimony has been out for a few months now and was a relatively large and persistent story related to the controversy. I assumed it would have been there since then or shortly after. Like I said, it's a rather glaring omission without its presence.

I don't think the way I added WaPo's update/Archer's testimony "leads" anyone anywhere. The pre-existing content on WaPo saying Leach said Biden didn't sit down, didn't take part in dinner with Pozharskyi is still there. Now we just have Devon Archer's testimony alongside it saying that Biden did do so. WaPo updated their article in a similar manner after Archer's testimony as well. The reader knows there are conflicting accounts of what happened, both are attributed and not stated in wikivoice, and that the WaPo article which had been brought up extensively was updated to reflect this change. KiharaNoukan (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems to be Bobulinski rather than Hunter to me, and he infers it was "crystal clear" to him that Hunter had talked business with Joe, but doesn't say how. If a father passively listens to his son go on about what he's doing in his life, did they discuss it? Anyway, the Archer and Bobulinski stuff belongs in Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory, not here. soibangla (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

If there is Cafe Milano dinner with Pozharskyi content here, it would necessitate inclusion of Archer's testimony on it. This article has had Washington Post's fact-check on the dinner for a while now, laying out pieces of evidence for Joe Biden not having dinner with Pozharskyi. The very same article has now been updated with Archer's testimony that Biden did have dinner, and other RS have reported the same. Unless discussion on the topics and events within the emails are wiped wholesale from the article, NPOV would demand inclusion.

Bobulinski's comments are related to CEFC China Energy ("10 held by H for the big guy"), which is not part of the Burisma/Shokin allegation. KiharaNoukan (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The dinner is discussed here in the context of the Pozharskyi email found on the laptop. What Archer subsequently said about the dinner is relevant to Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory, not the laptop. Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory includes whether Joe "met" with Pozharskyi as part of the Burisma/Shokin allegation, while this article relates to the authenticity of the Pozharskyi email. soibangla (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

How can it be that the context of the Pozharskyi email discussion may only include Leach and Karloutsos's statements that Joe Biden didn't have dinner at Cafe Milano, but not Devon Archer's testimony that he did? The clearly relevant issue at hand is "Did Joe Biden have dinner with Pozharskyi at Cafe Milano?" That's the whole premise of the heavily cited WaPo article that has since been updated to include Archer's testimony and it's mentioned at various points within the article.

I don't see anything related to CEFC China Energy, "10 held by H for the big guy", Chinese energy, etc. on the Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory page. By contrast, the CEFC email is referred to by RS as one of the two key emails from the Post reporting, and the proposed energy deal is discussed in multiple places in this article. The CEFC issue (or at least the email) is from 2017, when Biden was not in office, vs Biden-Ukraine when Biden was VP. KiharaNoukan (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Did Joe Biden have dinner with Pozharskyi at Cafe Milano? belongs in the other article. Picture the scenario: Joe is sitting at a banquet table in a private room with perhaps a dozen others. Pozharskyi is also sitting at the table. Does that mean Joe has any idea who Pozharskyi is, let alone talked to him? The CEFC email is about China, so it doesn't belong in the Ukraine article soibangla (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Well I'm glad we agree on CEFC/Bobulinski belonging here vs Biden-Ukraine.

On the Archer/Milano dinner issue, the problem is that the article has repeated mentions of the incident itself, outside of authentication of the email describing it. WP:NPOV would demand inclusion of Archer's testimony on it. This was the state of the article before I made any edits to it:

In Background:

The Biden campaign denied Joe Biden had any meeting with Pozharskyi and said that if they had ever met, it would have been a brief encounter. Witnesses at the dinner where they allegedly met said Joe Biden briefly passed by to see an old friend. The Post reported in its story that Pozharskyi declined to comment, and he did not comment to a Politico journalist who reported extensively on the story a year later.

In New York Post Reporting:

His presidential campaign denied such a meeting took place and stated the New York Post had never contacted them "about the critical elements of this story". Michael Carpenter, Vice President Biden's foreign policy adviser in 2015, told The Washington Post that he had accompanied Joe Biden during all of his meetings about Ukraine: "He never met with [Pozharskyi]. In fact, I had never heard of this guy until the New York Post story broke."

On May 26, 2021, the New York Post published another article focused on purported emails, suggesting that Joe Biden had met with Vadym Pozharskyi at a dinner in Cafe Milano in Washington. The Washington Post investigated the April 16, 2015, dinner. According to dinner attendee Rick Leach, who like Hunter Biden was one of the leaders of the World Food Program USA fundraising organization, the discussions at the dinner were about food security, not "politics or business". Leach said that Joe Biden briefly dropped by the dinner to meet Alex Karloutsos. According to Leach, Joe Biden "didn't even sit down. He was not part of the dinner or part of the dinner discussion." Karloutsos, a longtime friend of Joe Biden, had an influential role in the Greek Orthodox Church that Joe Biden long worked with. Karloutsos corroborated Leach's account. Also, according to The Washington Post, the tentative guest list for the dinner included the name "Vadym" with no surname listed.

In Joe Biden 2020 Presidential Campaign:

They specifically denied that Joe Biden ever had a formal meeting with Pozharskyi, and said that if they had ever met, it would have been a brief encounter.

Biden having dinner probably wasn't a big shady deal, Archer testified as much. Regardless, according to his testimony under oath, it did happen, contradicting the repeated denials and claims to the contrary that Biden did not have dinner with Pozharksyi at Cafe Milano (which we have in the article). This has been mentioned repeatedly by RS, including RS that are already used in this article to describe the incident.

NPOV policy requires inclusion unless large, longstanding swathes of the article are wiped clean of any discussion of the incidents themselves. KiharaNoukan (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

KiharaNoukan clearly describes the issue:

On the Archer/Milano dinner issue, the problem is that the article has repeated mentions of the incident itself, outside of authentication of the email describing it.

It is one-sided to include only Biden admin denials and exclude rejoinders by other involved persons whose comments are reported in RS. DonFB (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

the problem is that the article has repeated mentions of the incident itself, outside of authentication of the email describing it

then maybe everything outside of authentication belongs in the Ukraine article. Bobulinski isn't related to the laptop or Ukraine soibangla (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I mentioned wiping the article of these topics as an example of an absurd alternative to illustrate how clear it is that inclusion is needed to comply with WP:NPOV. Adding in various denials of Biden having dinner with Pozharksyi is WP:DUE on this article for well over a year until an editor adds RS reporting someone testifying that Biden did just that? This doesn't sound right. The logical thing to do is to simply reflect what the sources say in the updated reporting (such as in the very WaPo article that has been used since the article's recreation in March 2022).

Discussing the events of the emails seem to be a no-brainer. RS, like the WaPo article utilized for this article's entire lifespan, discuss them in the context of the emails. If authentication is the only focus, not what the emails themselves described, it would necessitate removal of substantial portions of the article, well beyond the Cafe Milano dinner. Example:

Despite persistent allegations that the laptop contents indicated corruption by Joe Biden, a joint investigation by two Republican Senate committees released in September 2020 did not find wrongdoing by him, nor did a Republican House Oversight committee investigation by September 2023.

Which you defend including above. (Again, not suggesting this is a good idea, but rather illustrating why the alternative of scorching earth rather than including new content to maintain NPOV is a suboptimal solution) KiharaNoukan (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

An optimal solution is not readily apparent to me, so I support reverting yesterday's changes so we can chew on it a bit. This article has been complicated and gone through several rewrites from the start. As an aside, I have some concerns about some of Schreckinger's reporting in two or three pieces that I will withhold for now soibangla (talk) 05:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

There are so many problems with these edits that I think we should revert to the status quo until consensus can be demonstrated for any of them. SPECIFICO talk 18:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC) So who will do the honors and restore the ststus quo? SPECIFICO talk 19:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe you've identified a single such problem, so it's presumptuous to call for a reversion. DonFB (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I did, above, and there is no consensus for these edits. Hence the status quo is the default. so tbat consenus can be affirmed point by point. SPECIFICO talk 22:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

If it hasn't already been done, I recommend the edits-in-question be reverted per WP:BRD. Best to examine each edit (one-by-one) & then seek a consensus for each. GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

GoodDay, Make it so. SPECIFICO talk 01:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Reverted edits

Pozharskyi dinner meeting text appears in three sections of the article. Following are the section titles and the relevant Pozharskyi text that appeared before and after the reverted edits:

Background

"The Biden campaign denied Joe Biden had any meeting with Pozharskyi"

New York Post reporting

"Leach said that Joe Biden briefly dropped by the dinner to meet Alex Karloutsos.[31] According to Leach, Joe Biden 'didn't even sit down. He was not part of the dinner or part of the dinner discussion.'"

Reactions

"They specifically denied that Joe Biden ever had a formal meeting with Pozharskyi, and said that if they had ever met, it would have been a brief encounter."

In all three of these passages, we see denials by Biden spokespeople or associates that the men had a meeting or dinner together.

The reverted edits added a neutrally written, reliably sourced contradiction by Devon Archer, who said Biden did have dinner with Pozharskyi. I see no justification for deliberately excluding the Archer comment. We can question whether it is necessary for the article to repeat the Biden denials and the Archer contradiction three times. A single instance of denial-contradiction should be sufficient. All we have now is the overkill of three duplicated denials and nothing from the reliably reported knowledgeable source of a rebuttal. DonFB (talk) 06:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I recommend adding the Archer stuff to the relevant paragraph with some tweaks, then moving the paragraph to the Biden-Ukraine article, leaving here only that the Pozharskyi email was authenticated. soibangla (talk) 08:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

NYP?...I would prefer to see other sources corroborate it before we spend time discussing anything from that tabloid, all due respect. DN (talk) 08:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@Darknipples He is referring to content in the section of the article titled "New York Post reporting" to demonstrate that this article contains substantial content on Joe Biden's alleged dinner in Cafe Milano with Pozharskyi, with current content completely reflecting denials that this happened (see above conversation). The addition he (and I) are advocating for is inclusion of Devon Archer's testimony on the meeting, which states that Biden did in fact have dinner with Pozharskyi in Cafe Milano, contradicting such denials. This is required to maintain WP:NPOV and is sourced to multiple RS, including RS that already is used in the article to source denials that Biden took part in the dinner, which was later updated with Archer's testimony. KiharaNoukan (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Among other problems, the update did not change any conclusion related to the story of the purported laptop or any Biden. SPECIFICO talk 17:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "any conclusion." None of my edits conclude anything, I attributed Archer's testimony to Archer, just like how the prior denials of Biden's dinner attendance are also attributed. KiharaNoukan (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Spot on again. DonFB (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

KiharaNoukan, the objection (to using the New York Post, known to be extremely partisan, deceptive, and deprecated here) by DN still stands. Any discussion or resulting conclusions risk being undercut by using such bad sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure everyone in this convo is aware of not using NY Post. There is nothing in this conversation to object to related to the NY Post. The sourcing used has nothing to do with the NY Post, it consists of an Axios, Politico, and Washington Post article, the last of which is already present in the article but has been updated. The reference to "New York Post reporting" in the discussion is about content within the section of the "Hunter Biden laptop controversy" article on Wikipedia titled "New York Post reporting". It is the part of the Wikipedia article between "Background" and "Aftermath and veracity concerns". Nobody has cited NY Post the website as a source for anything here. KiharaNoukan (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for articulate comments. I recommend editors read the article and my short introductory text to this thread (which said, "Following are the section titles and the relevant Pozharskyi text...") before adding time-wasting comments. DonFB (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

any comment on my recommendation? soibangla (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I commented on your recommendation in the earlier discussion; it seems to be a pretty extreme and unnecessary move to maintain NPOV, when we can just add in attributed statements in the same vein as they have been mentioned in this article for its entire lifespan. Cutting away discussion of what the emails actually describe in favor of a strictly-authentication focused article would strip away a lot more than Cafe Milano, as the article currently has content, including in the lead, about whether or not the email contents show corruption by Biden, the CEFC China proposed deal, how the email contents sparked the Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory, etc.

I think DonFB's suggestion of trimming Cafe Milano dinner denial-rebuttal to one mention makes sense. Insofar as the Biden-Ukraine article talks about the Cafe Milano dinner, it should also belong there, but that's a discussion for that article. KiharaNoukan (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I contend the dinner matter never belonged in this article and it should not be worsened by adding the Archer stuff, when it all belongs in the Biden-Ukraine article soibangla (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM

KN, this needs to be written as an encyclopedic summary of fact. We can't spark the defibrillator every time the Republicans try to bring their zombie conspiracy theories back from the grave. It's just play-by-play trivia. SPECIFICO talk 19:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC) That comment is a clear example of political bias that attempts to influence the content of this article. You should recuse yourself from contributing to this article or conversation. DonFB (talk) 19:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC) Please comment on content and not contributors. SPECIFICO talk 21:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC) Refrain from attempting to influence article content by making overtly political comments. Articles are based on reliable sources, not editors' personal opinions about politics or anything else. DonFB (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC) Stop commenting on your assumptions about editors' motives. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC) This is an unequivocal example of political bias that should have no part in content creation, or discussion: "Republicans try to bring their zombie conspiracy theories". DonFB (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC) That is commentary on content. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC) You think that represents neutral point of view editing? DonFB (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC) If you believe there is a behavioral issue, the talk page of an article is not the place to address it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Scottish, as long as you're here, can you explain why several recent edits were revdeled? They weren't copyvio or libelous etc. DonFB (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Already answered. It was copyvio. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to take sides on whether the info should be added or not. I merely reverted because a lot of info was placed into the page, without a consensus. Will an RFC on inclusion/exclusion be required? That's up to the proposers. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I've placed a proposal on the table to resolve this specific issue. I recommend discussing it soibangla (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, this additional content doesn't belong on this page. But why not workshop the additional content at the other conspiracy theory page? SPECIFICO talk 21:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

yeah we could just cut to the chase and remove it here and put it there. I'm inclined to just do it unless someone shows a compelling reason why I shouldn't soibangla (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

A significant part of "Background" and "New York Post reporting" and a bit of "Reaction" would also need to be excised for balance by removing all mention of restaurant 'meeting'. DonFB (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

that's what I propose, rip it all out and put it in Biden-Ukraine, leaving only that the Pozharskyi email was authenticated because that's the only pertinent part of this article soibangla (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

What will the text say about the content of the Pozharskyi email? DonFB (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

An email from Burisma advisor Vadym Pozharskyi to Hunter Biden referencing an April 2015 opportunity to meet Joe Biden was authenticated, which can be wikilinked to a relevant section in Biden-Ukraine soibangla (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

any more discussion of this? soibangla (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

You did notice that Specifico restored the Archer edits? DonFB (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

well I'm asking about my proposal soibangla (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Did you get wet feet about "ripping out" all the non-pertinent text about the restaurant meeting? DonFB (talk) 08:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

pilot error, corrected, did not mean to restore text under discussion. fixed. SPECIFICO talk 00:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Excuse me? Out of courtesy I paused for a week to await your response and hoped for your buy-in, as you fell silent, and now you say you're OK with it and are acting on it, while suggesting I would not have after getting your buy-in, which happened mere hours ago. Is there really a need to take a swipe at me like that? We don't need to go this way. Let's disagree without being disagreeable. soibangla (talk) 08:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. As matters developed, it looked like three mentions of restaurant meeting would remain untouched after Archer contradiction was restored, then conveniently deleted again. I'll take you at your word that meeting text will be removed. DonFB (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Huh? Hours earlier you said I'll do it in a day or less, if not done by then, so why are you lookin' at me? You agreed to my proposal and took the initiative at Biden-Ukraine, and said you would here. I really don't need this kinda drama. soibangla (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

My haste to remove the text was not warranted and implied distrust of your intention. I took a step back. DonFB (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not opposed. The Devon contradiction certainly belongs somewhere in the constellation of articles about these people and controversies. In Biden-Ukraine, it appears to belong in the Rudy Giuliani section. DonFB (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I see it was re-deleted. I'll keep an eye out for your restoration in Biden-Ukraine. DonFB (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it to that article. DonFB (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Awaiting "rip it all out" from this article; I'll do it in a day or less, if not done by then. DonFB (talk) 03:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The problem with this authentication only edit is that it leaves a noticeable gap, given that the article has never been about only authentication. Editors I see arguing for deletion here have no issues leaving in the content-of-emails (and apparently not even that) based Congressional investigations into alleged corruption in the lead, as evidenced by the earlier talk section.

Also in the lead is Politifact stating: "[n]othing from the laptop has revealed illegal or unethical behavior by Joe Biden as vice president with regard to his son's tenure as a director for Burisma". This is followed in the body by discussion of nude pictures and Hunter's background on drug usage: PolitiFact states that the Daily Mail published nude photos of Hunter Biden from the laptop, as well as other content focused on Hunter Biden's drug use and legal issues, but notes that Hunter Biden had already publicized his drug issues.

We also have discussion of the CEFC China email's contents and context: The email described the proposed equity shares of each of the investors in the venture, ending with a reference to "10 held by H for the big guy?" The Post reported the "H" apparently referred to Hunter Biden, and one of his former business partners soon came forward to assert "the big guy" referred to Joe Biden. The former business partner also tweeted a copy of the email addressed to him. In a subsequent email, Hunter Biden said his "Chairman" gave him "an emphatic no", with a later email identifying the "chairman" as his father. The Post also reported on an August 2017 venture Hunter Biden was seeking with Ye Jianming, the chairman of CEFC, but the paper did not associate Joe Biden with that deal. Neither of the two ventures came to fruition.

There is also commenting on NY Post "asserting as facts things it presumed to be true", which be odd to include but not the "thing" itself: David Folkenflik of NPR observed that the New York Post story asserted as facts things it presumed to be true. He also noted that the credited lead author of the story, deputy political editor Emma-Jo Morris, had virtually no previous bylines in reporting. Her most significant prior employment was a nearly four-year position as a producer on Sean Hannity's Fox News program. Hannity, a close Trump advisor, had repeatedly suggested wrongdoing by Biden in Ukraine.

And more discussion on what is shown/not shown by content, unrelated to authentication: In April 2022, the editorial board of The Washington Post gave its opinion about a report published by the Post that month: The investigation adds new details and confirms old ones about the ways in which Joe Biden's family has profited from trading overseas on his name—something for which the president deserves criticism for tacitly condoning. What it does not do, despite some conservatives' insistence otherwise, is prove that President Biden acted corruptly.

The clear solution is to simply have a sized-down, but NPOV-complete mention of the thing itself, consistent with how everything else is and has been written on this article. KiharaNoukan (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Don, are you familiar with the narratives andfindings of all the cited RS and more recent mainstrezn documentstion of this subject? This is not a critical element of the story. That is reflected in the WEIGHT of RS narratives and is not WP:OR of the editors here. SPECIFICO talk 21:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree, it's not a critical element. That does not make it exempt from protection against wrongful suppression based on an editor's overtly expressed political bias. DonFB (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Final warning. Knock it off. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Is this content dispute settled? GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

No, as far as I can tell, there is some agreement that the current content on the article is unsustainable, with multiple mentions of denials of Biden having a Cafe Milano dinner with Pozharskyi and no statements saying otherwise. I'm towards a single-mention, probably in NY Post reporting, since that contains the most comprehensive breakdown from WaPo reporting (which demands NPOV inclusion of their and other RS update on Archer's testimony).

It appears that the alternative proposal given is total removal. The idea of completely removing it seems odd and overkill. The reasoning given for this says the article should be authentication focused only. However, the article has never been focused on authentication only, and discusses the contents of the emails elsewhere in other contexts. I can't see how discussion of Biden attending the Cafe Milano dinner belongs in this article for its entire inception only to merit removal when adding that someone testifies that this event did in fact happen. SPECIFICO also has brought up "conclusions" repeatedly, which doesn't make sense to me, since the edits are attributing everyone's statements, not concluding in wikivoice. KiharaNoukan (talk) 10:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The sourcing doesn't even discuss the laptop, though - in this article it's WP:SYNTH. This belongs on Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory at best, not here. --Aquillion (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Not sure which "sourcing" you're referring to, but your comment raises the question whether you think every source for this (or any) article must explicitly mention a certain word or phrase to be used as a source. A cursory check shows (at least) two sources for this article do not mention the word "laptop". DonFB (talk) 08:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

The sourcing does discuss the laptop. Literally the first sentence in the Politico article is: Of the many disputes that followed the leaking of Hunter Biden’s laptop contents, one of the thorniest has been the case of the April 2015 dinner at Cafe Milano. This is the first source I referenced in the earlier talk section and this talk section. KiharaNoukan (talk) 08:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

IMO I see more of a connection to the laptop than to the conspiracy theory in context to this Politico article. It has already been discussed at length there as well, with regard to the Archer testimony, which in my mind makes it more closely related to Efforts to impeach Joe Biden or possibly the Oversight Committee investigation article. However, there is language about the laptop here, as KiharaNoukan has stated. DN (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

recent removals

Recent removals appear to have removed a bunch of references, so I reverted so we can discuss these major changes and figure out what was going on there. Specifically seems to have removed WaPo-Kessler" from rev 1188822699; "CNN-Marshall" from rev 1188822699; "MSN" from rev 1188822699; "ArsTechnica-Cox" from rev 1188822699 Andre🚐 23:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Fortunately, AnomieBot restored those references. See entry immediately following my edit. DonFB (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Which is fine and cool, but I'd more like to discuss the rationale for the changes Andre🚐 23:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I gave my rationale in a detailed edit summary; Let me know if you have questions. DonFB (talk) 00:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, ok, if that's all you have to say, then, but the rationale of "undue repeating" and wanting to give more to Devon Archer, I don't buy it, so I'm disputing these edits. You can elaborate the rationale more fully but I do not see how this rationale explains these edits, which appear to undo a bunch of consensus items that have been dicussed ad nauseam on this. Also let me just remind you of the arbitration remedies on this page, You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances). Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page Andre🚐 00:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

That large first paragraph is Undue in the section, which is supposed to be about NY Post reporting, not repetitions of denials about the dinner. And, yes, the text is also Unbalanced, lacking any mention of Archer's contrary testimony on the matter of Joe Biden's attendance. DonFB (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:RSes don't support your interpretation of Archer, unfortunately. I'm pretty sure this has been discussed at length, but most coverage is eg. like this, essentially saying that Archer's statements undermined the case against Biden - it would be WP:SYNTH and a violation of WP:BLP to take sources like that, which fairly unambiguously frame Archer's statements as a whole as exculpatory, and to try and present them in a way that makes them look incriminating. Using it to imply a contradiction regarding statements about the laptop would require higher-quality sources emphasizing that aspect and connecting it to the laptop directly. More importantly, almost no coverage seems to connect Archer to the laptop; it seems like the more appropriate place for discussing him would be the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, rather than here. --Aquillion (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Aquillion, you said the RS "don't support your interpretation of Archer". I make no interpretation of Archer. He was a Hunter Biden associate who contradicted the official denials about Joe Biden's dinner attendance in his congressional testimony, which was reported in multiple RS that were included in the reverted text and have been identified or linked in this Talk page. A brief neutral description of his testimony, in which he contradicted the denials but also said he had no evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden, is a simple matter of encyclopedic completeness. In the Laptop article, the "New York Post reporting" section is at pains to quote a dinner attendee, Leach, apparently from an interview with the Wash Post, denying that Joe Biden had dinner with the group. The article adds that Karloutsos corroborated what Leach said. If those descriptions--which do not directly make any mention of the subject of this article, the Laptop--are proper, then it is no less proper to include a contradiction made in front of a congressional committee--not in an interview with any right, center or left wing media outlet--by Archer, also a dinner attendee and a former Biden insider.

You suggested that including the Archer text is "Using it to imply a contradiction regarding statements about the laptop" and that the sources for the Archer text should be "connecting it to the laptop directly." I'll direct your attention to the restored text in the "NY Post reporting" section describing the Leach and Karloutsos statements. You will not find any "connection" to the Laptop in the text about what they said. Your comment represents a double standard, nothing less.

You may have found sources that, in your eyes and your words, "unambiguously frame Archer's statements as a whole as exculpatory". A straightforward statement that Archer contradicted the denials might appear in your eye as "exculpatory"; to my eye, it is no more and no less than what it is: a contradiction by a credible eyewitness in an official forum, reported by multiple RS, deserving to be described in this encyclopedia. DonFB (talk) 09:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Laptop? No. SPECIFICO talk 13:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think these removals make sense. The denial from the Biden campaign has significant coverage, which treats it credibly and as central to the topic; it obviously needs to be repeated every time we repeat the basic accusation, and it makes sense to also briefly summarize it in the summary of his campaign response. It seems hard to argue that a single sentence in each case establishing the attributed position of the Biden campaign is undue. And this edit removed the entire basic context for the Post story, which is central to the topic. The fact is that the back-and-forth with the Biden campaign has received massive amounts of coverage that treat it as central and therefore is naturally going to appear at several points in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think I've ever not agreed with Aquillion, and I'm not about to start now. Andre🚐 00:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  The text in "NY Post reporting" is an extended echo of information already provided on the "Background" section, where the basic context is clearly explained. DonFB (talk) 00:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Making sudden major additions to or major deletions from this page, isn't the best course of action. Best to seek consensus on the talkpage, first. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Feb 1 2023

The final paragraaph in the article should be:

Hunter Biden finally admits infamous laptop is his.

First son Hunter Biden’s lawyers admitted late Wednesday that the infamous laptop that the now-52-year-old abandoned at a Delaware computer repair shop in the throes of his crack cocaine addiction does indeed belong to him. The revelation came in a petulant letter from Hunter’s lawyers seeking a criminal probe into what they called attempts to “weaponize” its contents.

In the 14-page letter to Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings, Biden’s attorney Abbe Lowell claimed that repair shop owner John Paul Mac Isaac “unlawfully” accessed Hunter’s laptop data and worked with former President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani to “weaponize” sordid and incriminating contents on it against Joe Biden. 208.104.54.21 (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:NYPOST. nope. soibangla (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Ground out to third. This request refers to the data not a laptop. SPECIFICO talk 21:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Jan 18 2024

There might possibly now be court filings that provide additional FBI perspective and possible laptop corroboration. Hotornotquestionmarknot (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

WP does not recognize Fox News as a Reliable Source for content related to American Politics. SPECIFICO talk 20:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2024

Where it says false accusations about the potential crimes on said laptop is opinion, should be changed to either unproven or unsubstantiated Tommydeininger (talk) 07:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jamedeus (talk) 08:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Why does the article for Tony Bobulinski redirect to this page?

A wikipedia power user deleted the Tony Bobulinski wiki, and redirected the search to this padlocked article. There is basically no information about Tony Bobulinski in this article.14.202.215.60 (talk) 13:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Not enough sources discuss Tony Bobulinski specifically; and they fall under WP:BLP1E, ie. they're only relevant in the context of the congressional investigation of Hunter Biden and not as an individual. They're mentioned here, but the reason there's very little information is because their significance ultimately isn't very high; most WP:RSes only mention them briefly. --Aquillion (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Clarifying what's usually, but not always, obvious

Re Darknipples's revert:

The lead never explicitly mentions Hunter Biden is Joe Biden's son. Of course, it is made clear throughout the article, but explicitly saying so early on would convey this to anyone who only skims or doesn't give it a full read. Understandably, it likely wasn't included because it feels pretty obvious, but for non-American readers and plenty of others it may not be. Hence, a few extra words could really help in those cases.

Therefore I'm suggesting changing this:

"Three weeks before the 2020 United States presidential election, the New York Post published a front-page story that presented emails from the laptop, alleging they showed corruption by Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden."

To this:

"Three weeks before the 2020 United States presidential election, the New York Post published a front-page story that presented emails from the laptop, alleging they showed corruption by Joe Biden, Democratic presidential nominee and Hunter Biden's father."

Let me know your thoughts. Arcturus95 (talk) 08:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The links provide simple and easy access to this info, which as you said, seems fairly obvious even for non-Americans. If there is consensus that it needs the extra clarification, I could support changing the wording to a more succinct addition ie...."his father and Democratic presidential nominee, Joe Biden." The extra words tend to defeat the purpose of the links IMHO. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree extra clarification is warranted. I will add. Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Related RfC

There is a new RfC at Talk:Hunter Biden#RfC: Washington Post report concerning emails that concerns a line about the laptop controversy. Editors of this page might be interested in commenting there. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

First Paragraph Needs to be Corrected

"Later assertions by Twitter owner Elon Musk and others that the government had ordered the company to suppress the Post story to favor Joe Biden in the weeks leading to the election were not supported by a Twitter Files examination authorized by Musk.[6]" This is not correct. The CNN article states that certain officials DENY that the FBI was involved in the coverup; however, both Elon and the journalists who published the Twitter Files have stated the exact opposite with evidence of contact between Twitter employees and FBI intel agents. We all know Wikipedia has a left-wing bias problem, but this needs to be fixed. FBI officials denying their involvement in the coverup during the 2020 election does not equate to exoneration, especially given the fact other Silicon Valley leaders like Mark Zuckerberg have publicly stated the FBI put pressure on social media sites to treat the laptop from hell as "Russian disinfo" despite having verified the laptop's authenticity almost a year prior to the November 2020 elections.

"External hard drive" is problematic

The second paragraph under Background refers the external hard drive of the laptop. Laptops don't have external drives. It appears this drive was used by others to make a copy of material on the laptop. Should be cleaned up. 130.44.152.168 (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

It has not been demonstrated how the files got on the storage device. "Backup" is unverified. SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Sentence in Lead that is unverifiable

This sentence in the lead is not supported by the body of the article, nor is it backed up by ANY of the sources:

"Despite persistent allegations that the laptop contents indicated corruption by Joe Biden, a joint investigation by two Republican Senate committees released in September 2020 did not find wrongdoing by him,"

I put a citation needed tag needed by this sentence, but it was reverted because "citations generally don't belong in the lead." This is true, but only because leads should summarize the article. This sentence is not discussed in the article, so at the very least, it needs a reference even though it is in the lead. There are five references provided NONE of which discuss the laptop or even mention the word "laptop". None of them discuss ANY allegations about the laptop contents. Since the story was broken by the New York Post in October 2020, it is in fact impossible that there were persistent allegations in the public about the laptop, and if there were private discussions by the FBI (who seized it in December 2019), this needs to be sourced. Epachamo (talk) 04:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The files puportedly implicating Joe predate the investigation. Maybe you could propose wording you think would be clearer? SPECIFICO talk 19:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: "The files puportedly implicating Joe predate the investigation." That might be true, but you need an independent reliable secondary source that says that. Epachamo (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

There are 5 citations for that sentence. Perhaps you should read them. Zaathras (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Zaathras: None of those 5 citations even mention the laptop, or the contents on the laptop. We need a reliable, secondary source that connects the files on the laptop to the September 2020 investigation. Epachamo (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

You are misstating the issue. I suggest you read RS that discuss these matters. At worst, it's poorly worded article text. SPECIFICO talk 00:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: The issue is not the reliability of the sources (I agree they are reliable). The issue is verifiability. From WP:V, "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article." The statement in the article cannot be verified by ANY of the five given sources. Epachamo (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

That's a good point. The Republican Senate committee report referenced came out in September 2020. The Hunter laptop surfaced as an October surprise the following month. That sentence looks like a WP:SYNTH violation to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Looked that way to me also in October last year: Special:Diff/1181992043. Thanks for finally doing the needed. DonFB (talk) 06:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

IIRC this was discussed and resolved to remain as is. I wrote the text and I concede it might not be the most elegant thing I've ever written, given the timing of findings, but I think it still stands, though I'm certainly open to alternative phrasing, rather than outright omission soibangla (talk) 01:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I rewrote that sentence. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

yes soibangla (talk) 01:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Soibangla: Please don't take it as a personal attack. Anyone who writes on Wikipedia for any amount of time is going to write things that aren't "elegant". I'm certainly not advocating for omission at the moment, just that a citation needed tag be placed on the unverifiable portion of the sentence until a proper source can be discovered. Epachamo (talk) 02:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

"Despite" is the only problem, SPECIFICO talk 02:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

no offense taken soibangla (talk) 02:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I see that Muboshgu has edited the sentence to better reflect the sources and as long as everyone else is ok, I don't think a citation needed tag anymore. I rescind my proposal. Epachamo (talk) 02:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Cool :) GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

interesting twist

Under questioning from Lowell, FBI special agent Erika Jensen said she could not verify the contents of Hunter Biden's laptop admitted into evidence were not tampered with before law enforcement collected it from the Mac repair shop.[3]

soibangla (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Did FBI determine there was physically a laptop device, or just that there were lots of files on a drive? SPECIFICO talk 23:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Where is the section on Hunter Biden laptop being entered into evidence by Justice Department?

This past week, DOJ attorneys confirmed it as evidence against Hunter Biden. 174.61.219.3 (talk) 06:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe in the Four Seasons Landscaping article? SPECIFICO talk 10:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Could you explain? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Four Seasons Total Landscaping press conference, where Giuliani was, in CNN's view, "widely ridiculed" while defending the then-President's baseless allegations of voter fraud. Zaathras (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, a bit funny, but seriously, where should it be added? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@Valjean: Saying "Giuliani debased himself" is insulting and not appropriate for a talk page. Please strike your comment. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: and @Muboshgu: I didn't write that. See here.

Magnolia677, try not to be so sensitive. You debase yourself with such petty complaints. He actually did do that, so, even though I didn't write it, I agree with the sentiment about what happened. It's a verifiable event and not a BLP violation. Sheesh! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

It's just that...Hallie's testimony yesterday was so heartbreaking, how her brother-in-law initiated a romantic relationship after her husband died, and "introduced" her to crack cocaine. "It was a terrible experience I went through, and I'm embarrassed and I'm ashamed". I'm not so much overly sensitive, I just value honor, and view vulnerable women like Hallie as victims. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

See your talk page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Since Magnolia dared to falsely accuse me and then delete my comment on her talk page with a nasty edit summary, I'll restore my comment here:

Of course it's concerning when two lonely people make mistakes. That's their lives they are screwing up. Been there, done that. My concern is that you should not be so sensitive about other editors' comments. Around here we tend to have thicker skin so we don't waste everyone's time and detract from what's important, which is the topic of the thread. Don't report such minor things as BLP violations, as that sets off bells and whistles and alarms, and then all kinds of shit and wasted time happens. You reported a minor blip and started a forest fire. (You have wasted the time of everyone who has responded to you.) Better to just go to the editor's talk page and talk to them, if you really feel a burden to make a mountain out of a molehill and offend them. Really? Is it worth it? Take the high road and ignore it next time. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

And my response on my talk page..."My apology. When you replied 'Okay, a bit funny, but seriously, where should it be added?', it legitimated the ridiculous comment made by the preceding editor, and I confused you with them, thinking you agreed with their silly reply. I'm now assuming your response was to the legitimate question by the IP at the top. Sorry for confusing you with that editor." Magnolia677 (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I can see how that can happen. All's good. Carry on. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The prosecutor swatted the air with a device, sheathed in a baggie. We should cover the associated evidence and testimony, not inconclusive court antics. SPECIFICO talk 17:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: "The prosecutor swatted the air with a device, sheathed in a baggie." Could you explain? Magnolia677 (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Have you read RS coverage of the trial? It's described by court correspondants. SPECIFICO talk 22:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: please be a bit more helpful and just answer the question. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@Valjean: I commented in my edit summary and have consolidated the two talk page discussions on this point. SPECIFICO talk 23:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Trial CoC

@Specifico At your request, I have self-reverted my reinsertion of the material relating to the laptop's chain of custody for the moment. However, a sentence on how the custody arguments got short shrift at the trial is certainly DUE, and well-sourced. Riposte97 (talk) 03:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Please join the ongoing discussion above to seek consensus for whatever rationale you wish to present. SPECIFICO talk 11:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I've read the above topics. You are fighting a multi-front war, and failing to substantively respond to anyone. Do you have a reason for the specific content you asked me to remove to be excluded? Riposte97 (talk) 11:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)